Final Baseline Report on Citizen Security in the Northern Caribbean Coast in Nicaragua and Targeted Municipalities of the Northern and Southern Borders

Written by

Mariana Rodríguez, Ph.D. Program Coordinator at LAPOP

Juan Carlos Donoso, Ph.D. Consultant 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...... 8 I.1 Executive Summary ...... 9 I.1.1 How do communities in target municipalities define citizen security? ...... 9 I.1.2 How do communities in target municipalities perceive their own risk and do they see that risk increasing?...... 9 I.1.3 What are indicators and triggers of insecurity that mark communities’ and municipalities’ perception of their risk? ...... 10 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 RACCN, what differences exist (if any) in perceptions about security between women and men, different age groups, different ethnic groups, and different wealth levels? ...... 12 I.2 Methodology ...... 13 I.3 Context and Background ...... 15 I.4 Major Findings and Conclusions ...... 17 I.4.1 Crime ...... 17 I.4.2 Perception of Insecurity and Gangs ...... 20 I.4.3 Gender Issues, Domestic Violence and Human Trafficking ...... 21 I.4.4 Drug Trafficking and Drug Consumption ...... 25 I.4.5 Ethnic relations ...... 27 I.4.6 Evaluations of Law Enforcement Institutions ...... 28 I.4.7 Citizens’ Participation ...... 31 I.5 Contributions to USAID’s Efforts for Building Local Capacity...... 31 I.6 Programming Recommendations ...... 32

Part II. The Survey Study in RACS ...... 35 II.1 Introduction ...... 36 II.2 Understanding Figures in this Study ...... 39 II.3 Perceptions of Insecurity ...... 40 II.3.1 Security as Most Serious Problem ...... 40 II.3.2 General Insecurity ...... 42 II.4 Crime Victimization ...... 46 II.4.1 Household Crime Victimization ...... 46

2 II.4.2 Home Burglaries ...... 48 II.4.3 Personal Victimization by Theft or Aggression ...... 50 II.5 Crime as a Community Problem ...... 53 II.5.1 Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood ...... 53 II.5.2 Illegal Drug Consumption in the Neighborhood ...... 55 II.5.3 Murders in Neighborhood ...... 57 II.5.4 Violence against Women in the Neighborhood ...... 59 II.5.5 Human Trafficking ...... 61 II.6 Levels of Violence in the Neighborhood ...... 68 II.6.1 Current Levels of Violence ...... 69 II.6.2 Trend in Violence in the Neighborhood ...... 70 II.6.3 Presence of Gangs in the Neighborhood ...... 72 II.6.4 Trend in Gang Activity in the Neighborhood ...... 74 II.7 Evaluations and Perceptions of Law Enforcement Institutions ...... 76 II.7.1 Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime ...... 76 II.7.2 Police Harassment as a Problem ...... 78 II.7.3 Police Response Time ...... 80 II.7.4 Trust in the Police ...... 83 II.7.5 Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty ...... 85 II.7.6 Trust in the Judicial System...... 87 II.8 Participation in Local Governments and Communities ...... 89 II.8.1 Participation in Municipal Meetings ...... 89 II.8.2 Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem ...... 91 II.9 Conclusions ...... 93

Part III. Armed Conflict and Citizen Security in Waspán ...... 98 III.1 Context and Background ...... 99 III.2 Perspectives from In-Depth Interviews ...... 99 III.2.1 Armed Conflict ...... 99 III.2.2 Crime and Violence...... 100 III.2.3 The Role of the State ...... 101 III.3 Conclusions ...... 103

Part IV. Understanding the Specific Problems of Coastal Municipalities through Focus Groups ...... 104

3 IV.1 Understanding the Specific Problems of the Northern Coastal Municipalities through Focus Groups ...... 105 IV.1.1 Puerto Cabezas ...... 105 IV.1.2 Waspán...... 116 IV.1.3 Bonanza ...... 126 IV.1.4 Siuna ...... 133 IV.1.5 Conclusions ...... 140 Appendix 1: Methodology ...... 142 Appendix 2: Variables by Municipality and Region ...... 144 Appendix 3: Questionnaires ...... 248 Appendix 3a. Focus Group Questionnaire ...... 248 Appendix 3b. Survey Questionnaire ...... 251

4 List of Figures

Figure 1. Differences in Household Crime Victimization Rates across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015 ...... 47 Figure 2. Differences in Home Burglary Rates across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015 ...... 49 Figure 3. Differences in Victimization by Theft or Aggression across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015 ...... 51 Figure 4. Differences in Reported Illegal Drug Sales across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015 ...... 54 Figure 5. Differences in Reported Illegal Drug Consumption across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015 ...... 56 Figure 6. Differences in Reported Murders across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015 ...... 58 Figure 7. Differences in Reported Violence against Women across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015 ...... 60 Figure 8. Differences in Knowledge of Human Trafficking across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015 ...... 62 Figure 9. Differences in Perception of Human Trafficking as Problem across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015 ...... 64 Figure 10. Average Level of Perceived Risk for Females becoming Victims of Human Trafficking, 2015 ...... 66 Figure 11. Average Level of Perceived Risk for Males becoming Victims of Human Trafficking, 2015...... 67 Figure 12. Rates of Reported Cases of Human Trafficking and Authority Action, 2015 ...... 68 Figure 13. Differences in Perceived Levels of Violence across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015 ...... 69 Figure 14. Differences in Perceived Trend of Violence across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015 ...... 71 Figure 15. Differences in Reported Presence of Gangs across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015 ...... 73 Figure 16. Differences in Reported Trend of Gang Activity across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015 ...... 75 Figure 17. Differences in Perceptions of Security as Most Important Problem across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015 ...... 41 Figure 18. Differences in Perceptions of Insecurity across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015 ...... 43

5 Figure 19. Differences in Avoidance of Dangerous Areas across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015 ...... 45 Figure 20. Differences in Evaluation of Police across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015 ...... 77 Figure 21. Differences in Perceptions of Police Harassment across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015 ...... 79 Figure 22. Reported Police Response Times in Puerto Cabezas, Siuna, Waslala and Mulukukú, 2015...... 81 Figure 23. Reported Police Response Times in Prinzapolka, Rosita and Bonanza, 2015 ...... 82 Figure 24. Reported Police Response Times in Managua, Northern Border and Southern Border, 2015...... 83 Figure 25.Differences in Trust in the Police across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015 ...... 84 Figure 26. Differences in Confidence in the Judicial System Punishing the Guilty across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015 ...... 86 Figure 27. Differences in Trust in the Judicial System across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015 ...... 88

6 List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of Focus Group Participants for RACCN ...... 14 Table 2. Distribution of Population of RACCN ...... 16 Table 3. Differences in Household Crime Victimization Rates across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015...... 48 Table 4. Differences in Home Burglary Rates across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 ...... 50 Table 5. Differences in Victimization by Theft or Aggression across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015...... 53 Table 6. Differences in Reported Illegal Drug Sales across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 ... 55 Table 7. Differences in Reported Illegal Drug Consumption across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015...... 57 Table 8. Differences in Reported Murders across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 ...... 59 Table 9. Differences in Reported Violence against Women across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015...... 61 Table 10. Differences in Knowledge of Human Trafficking across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015...... 63 Table 11. Differences in Perception of Human Trafficking as Problem across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 ...... 65 Table 12. Differences in Perceived Levels of Violence across Sociodemographic Factors, 201570 Table 13. Differences in Perceived Trend of Violence across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 72 Table 14. Differences in Reported Presence of Gangs across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 74 Table 15. Differences in Reported Trend of Gang Activity across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015...... 76 Table 16. Differences in Perceptions of Security as Most Important Problem across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 ...... 42 Table 17. Differences in Perceptions of Insecurity across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 ...... 44 Table 18. Differences in Avoidance of Dangerous Areas across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 ...... 46 Table 19. Differences in Evaluation of Police across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 ...... 78 Table 20. Differences in Perceptions of Police Harassment across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015...... 80 Table 21. Differences in Trust in the Police across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 ...... 85 Table 22. Differences in Confidence in the Judicial System Punishing the Guilty across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 ...... 87 Table 23. Differences in Trust in the Judicial System across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 . 89

7

Part I. Main Findings of the Study

8 I.1 Executive Summary

This report presents a qualitative (focus group and in-depth interviews) and quantitative (survey) study of public security in the Northern Autonomous Caribbean Coast Region (RACCN, by its acronym in Spanish) in Nicaragua, plus targeted regions in the department of Managua and departments of the Northern and Southern Border of the country.1 Twelve focus groups were carried out in four RACCN municipalities: Puerto Cabezas, Waspán, Siuna, and Bonanza. 3,626 survey interviews were carried out seven RACCN municipalities (Puerto Cabezas, Siuna, Bonanza, Prinzapolka, Waslala, Mulukukú, and Rosita), and three other regions: Managua, Northern Border, and Southern Border. Due to conditions on the ground, surveys originally planned for Waspán were replaced by 30 in-depth interviews. The Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP) at Vanderbilt University was in charge of the fieldwork and report. Part I of this report is organized as follows. The executive summary (I.1) presents main findings from the qualitative (focus groups and in-depth interviews2) and quantitative research in response to questions motivating USAID’s efforts to conduct this study of citizen security. Section 1.2 presents the focus group, survey, and in-depth interview methodology. Section I.3 provides background information about Nicaragua and the RACCN region. Section 1.4 summarizes findings by topics most relevant to understanding perceptions of insecurity and experiences with crime, and draws initial conclusions. Section I.5 highlights the contributions this study makes to USAID’s efforts for building local capacity. Section I.6 lists programming suggestions.

I.1.1 How do communities in target municipalities define citizen security?

Victimization (esp. theft, murders, violence against women), illegal drug sales, and human trafficking were highlighted in focus group discussions of citizen security. Crime and insecurity are reported as serious problems affecting the municipalities.3 Concerns about home burglaries, theft and violent aggression, murders, violence against women, and human trafficking are salient. In the RACCN region, citizen security issues are also defined in terms of conflict between Miskitu communities and settlers, or “colonos.”

I.1.2 How do communities in target municipalities perceive their own risk and do they see that risk increasing?

The majority of survey respondents (56%) feel either somewhat or very unsafe in their neighborhoods. Fears of becoming victimized affect daily routines: between one-third and one- half, across municipalities, report having avoided dangerous areas in their neighborhood.

1 The project groups the following departments into three regions: Northern Border Region (Chinandega, Estelí, Nueva Segovia, Madriz, and Jinotega), Southern Border Region (Río San Juan and Rivas), and Managua. 2 The opinions expressed in focus groups and individual in-depth interviews do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the population of RACCN or Nicaragua, as a whole. The data gathered in the quantitative portion of the study through a survey of public opinion provides more generalizable information at the municipal/regional level, where applicable. 3 Concern about citizen security was expressed by focus group participants. Security was the second most mentioned issue (after the economy) by survey respondents when asked about the most serious problem in their communities.

9 Victimization and insecurity are increasing, according to many focus group participants, due to illegal drug sales and use, alcoholism, lack of employment, and poor police patrolling. Yet, survey respondents report that violence has decreased: nearly half (48%) say that current neighborhood violence is lower than it was 12 months prior; only 16% think that violence in their neighborhood is higher. Moreover, most respondents feel that their neighborhood are relatively safer than others.

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: widespread experience with and awareness of crime; perceptions of increased gang activity; perceptions of poor police patrolling; low trust in the judicial system; and (in RACCN) escalating ethnic conflict. Among focus group participants, experiences and perceptions of crime (home burglaries, personal theft and aggression, murders, violence against women, and domestic violence) are widespread. Crime is perceived to be exacerbated by high unemployment. Insecurity is exacerbated by perceptions of poor police performance and low trust in the judicial system. In the RACCN region, citizen security is also seen at risk as a consequence of escalating ethnic conflict.

Crime victimization. In most municipalities, approximately 19 to 28% of survey respondents reported an instance of a member of their household being victimized by any type of crime in the past year. Yet, these rates are 48.7% in Puerto Cabezas and 42% in Managua. Between 12 and 30% of respondents report having had their home burglarized in the past five years. In Puerto Cabezas this rate is 40%. Victimization by theft or aggression is also common, with the highest rates found in Puerto Cabezas (53%), Prinzapolka (49%), and Managua (42%). Petty theft is reported as the most common type of robbery among focus group respondents, often carried out with knives or machetes (“armas blancas”). Furthermore, home theft is said to be increasing. High unemployment and insufficient policing are seen as main drivers of crimes such as robberies. One- in-four survey respondents (25%) on average say that there have been murders in their neighborhood in the 12 months prior to the survey. The number reporting murders tends to be higher in RACCN municipalities. Risk is perceived to be particularly high at night: a majority of focus group participants report fear of walking in their neighborhood at night.

Gang activity. When discussing gang activity in neighborhoods, focus group participants report the presence of small groups of young men that often engage in fights with rival neighborhoods (over territory) and in armed robberies. Among survey respondents, most (81%) say that their neighborhood has not been affected much, or not at all, by gangs; 19% say that their communities have been affected somewhat or a lot. However, nearly half (46%) of all survey respondents say that gangs are more of a problem than they were a year before.

Domestic and gender-based violence. Focus group participants report domestic violence and violence against women as widespread. Battery and rape against women were identified as key problems, though some cases of femicide were also mentioned. While fewer than one-in-five survey respondents, on average, reported assaults on women in their neighborhoods in the last year, that figure is more than four-in-ten for survey respondents in Puerto Cabezas (44%) and Prinzapolka (42%). There are reports of a growing number of sexual assaults against young girls

10 by male family figures, especially in smaller Miskitu communities. As triggers, focus group respondents identify drug and alcohol abuse, as well as sexism in local culture.

Trafficking. Human trafficking is reported by focus group respondents as a growing and serious problem in RACCN municipalities, in particular those along the coast and Honduran border (esp. Puerto Cabezas and Waspán). Concern is elevated in Waspán due to the municipality’s proximity to drug trafficking activities along the Honduran border. Participants express that lack of attention from authorities on the issue of human trafficking aggravates risk; as triggers, they point to growing due to lack of employment and poverty that lead to the exchange/selling of children.

However, among survey respondents (a broader swath of the population), the average response to the questions about the seriousness of human trafficking lies between ‘not a problem’ and ‘not at all serious’. Across RACCN municipalities and other targeted regions, the percentage of respondents who report awareness of cases of human trafficking does not exceed 15%. In five of the surveyed municipalities and targeted regions, respondents say that fewer than half of all reported cases suspected of trafficking that were reported to police were treated by authorities as human trafficking. In terms of risk, respondents report teenage and young girls are most at risk of becoming trafficking victims—more so than adult women.

Low confidence in law enforcement. Perceptions citizen insecurity are aggravated by low satisfaction with police performance and trust in law enforcement. Focus group participants report dissatisfaction and distrust of the police as a result of lack of action against and involvement in local drug sales, growing impunity for criminals, and petty corruption. Distrust of local courts is linked to lack of case resolution. One-in-three, on average, survey respondents (34%) give poor evaluations to police efforts to control neighborhood crime. Perceptions of police responsiveness are low: 23% of survey respondents say that it would take the police more than three hours to arrive at their house if there was a burglary and 22% expressed that they would not show up at all.

Low confidence in judicial institutions. Perceptions of impunity are high: 32% of survey respondents say that they have little faith, and 20% say they have no faith, that the judicial system punishes the guilty. Mean scores for all respondents’ degree of trust in the police range from 48 to 61 degrees on the 0 (not at all) to 100 (a lot) scale across the areas surveyed. Mean scores for all survey respondents’ trust in the judicial system ranges from 49 to 59 degrees on the same scale.

Ethnic conflict. The Miskitu ethnicity and language dominate Puerto Cabezas and Waspán. A commonly cited concern in focus groups in these municipalities is increasing conflict, often armed and violent, between locals of Miskitu ethnicity and “colonos”, or land settlers from outside of RACCN, over the violation of indigenous territory rights. Focus group participants express that this issue is aggravated by failures in the judicial system to protect Miskitu human and territorial rights (concern is expressed among the Miskitu that their people and culture are being marginalized and disrespected). In Siuna, focus group participants express concern over the influx of colonos in search of land to cultivate and the exploitation of timber resources that is having detrimental environmental consequences. In the mining municipality of Bonanza, ethnic tensions are attributed to an influx of Miskitu migrants. In these cases, some participants cast blame on Miskitu migrants, especially the youth, for greater incidence of drug use, domestic violence, and robberies.

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?

Drug consumption and unemployment are perceived as key drivers of risk for youth involvement in crime. Many focus group participants perceive a serious and widespread problem with the local sale of drugs in “expendios”4 and use of drugs, particularly among youth. The drug problem is cited as the main cause of rising crime, including assaults, robberies, and domestic violence. Unemployment is referenced as the main cause of the rise in drug sales and use.

Mean awareness of illegal drug sales ranges from under 20% of survey respondents in several municipalities and targeted regions across the areas surveyed, to over 60% in Puerto Cabezas. Mean rates of perceived neighborhood illegal drug sales are highest in Puerto Cabezas (61%), Prinzapolka (45%), and Managua (49%). Reported drug use is also higher in these areas, particularly Puerto Cabezas, relative to the rest of the municipalities in the survey. Among survey respondents, on average, the most important problem facing their communities is economic. Focus group participants commonly connected economic problems to crime.

I.1.5 In the diversity of multi-cultural communities of the RACCN, what differences exist (if any) in perceptions about security between women and men, different age groups, different ethnic groups, and different wealth levels?5

Gender. Focus group participants singled out women, especially young women, as being at particular risk of human trafficking, and domestic violence and gender-based violence were also identified as problems that affect women in particular. However, considering self-reports of victimization and insecurity as indicators of citizen security, few differences appear across gender lines in the survey. The only consistent and noteworthy difference relates to victimization by violent theft or aggression, where men report being threatened or violently attacked at a higher rate than women.

Age. Younger respondents tend to report higher rates of home burglary and gang activity in their neighborhoods. In most surveyed areas in which age is significantly related to perceptions of police harassment (with the exception of Mulukukú), younger respondents are more likely to think that police harassment is a problem in their neighborhood. Still, the average perception among young respondents is low on the indicator of reported police harassment.

Ethnicity. Significant differences across ethnic groups exist regarding perceptions of illegal drug sales and consumption, gang activity, and trust in the judicial system. Ethnicity is associated with the reporting of illegal drug sales in municipalities of the RACCN. In Puerto Cabezas, Prinzapolka, and Bonanza, for example, those who identify themselves as Miskitu report illegal drug sales in their neighborhood at a higher rate than those who describe themselves as mestizos. Significant differences in reporting of illegal drug use also exist across ethnic groups in RACCN but the

4 “Expendio” is used (esp. in RACCN) to refer to local sources of illegal drugs sales, usually neighborhood homes. 5 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?). The sample design does not permit comparisons across urban versus rural, but does allow comparisons across ethnic groups, education, and wealth levels.

12 relationship is not uniform across municipalities. In Puerto Cabezas, Prinzapolka, and Bonanza, those who identify themselves as Miskitu report more awareness of illegal drug sales in their neighborhoods than those who describe themselves as mestizos.

In Puerto Cabezas, Prinzapolka and Bonanza, awareness of gang presence is communities is higher among Miskitu respondents than others. In Mulukukú and Prinzapolka, those who place into the ‘other’ category have higher levels of trust in the judiciary than mestizo or Miskitu respondents. Conversely, in Bonanza and Managua mestizos are the most trusting in the judiciary.

Education and wealth. Significant differences are found across levels of education and wealth6: the more educated and wealthier express greater awareness and concerns of crime and are more critical of law enforcement and the judicial system. Those with higher levels of education and higher levels of wealth express higher reported rates of general crime victimization, home burglaries, victimization by theft or aggression, sales of illegal drugs, murders, violence against women, human trafficking, and avoidance of perceived dangerous areas in the neighborhood.

Respondents in higher wealth categories report higher incidence of drug use in their neighborhoods. In a majority of regions and municipalities and targeted regions, respondents in higher wealth categories have less trust in the police and evaluate the police less positively. Respondents with higher education tend to report higher perceived gang activity (this result applies to just over half of surveyed municipalities or regions). Further, respondents with greater education also trust the judicial system less and evaluate the police’s job in controlling crime more negatively than those with lower levels of education.

I.2 Methodology

LAPOP employed a mixed-method approach by collecting and analyzing qualitative (focus group and in-depth interviews) and quantitative (individual survey) data. First, we collected public opinion information through 12 focus groups (three in each municipality) with 125 participants from local authorities, members of NGOs and civil society, and at-risk youth, over a two-week period in July 2015 in four municipalities of the Northern Caribbean Coast Region (RACCN): Puerto Cabezas, Waspán, Bonanza, and Siuna. According to 2005 population census by Nicaragua’s Instituto Nactional de Información de Desarrollo (INIDE), the four municipalities in which we conducted focus groups contain 62.4% of the RACCN population and 3.8% of the national population.7

The objective of this qualitative component is to provide information on experiences with and perceptions of citizen security. Of particular interest was security in locations currently reached by USAID activities, and possible areas of expansion. To this end LAPOP focus group moderators used a guide elaborated by LAPOP with input from USAID, with a series of open ended-questions

6 A wealth index was built based on ownership of goods: 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. This wealth index distinguishes three categories: low, medium, and high. Those who are “wealthier” or in “higher wealth categories” own more consumer goods. 7 http://www.inide.gob.ni/censos2005/MONOGRAFIASD/RAAN.pdf

13 (questionnaire attached to the Appendix). Focus groups were conducted primarily in Spanish; a Miskitu interpreter facilitated discussion for focus groups in Puerto Cabezas and Waspá, and a Mayagna interpreter was present for focus groups in Siuna and Bonanza.8

Table 1 presents a summary of focus groups participants: local government authorities, members of NGOs and civil society, and at-risk youth. LAPOP worked with the firm Borge y Asociados to recruit participants using local coordinators who personally contacted the populations of interest according to a protocol established with LAPOP. Recruitment of participants was carried out with the objective of achieving a balance of age, gender, and political affiliation, while also obtaining a representative distribution of the indigenous ethnic make-up of municipalities. As can be seen in the table below, 50.4% of participants were male and 49.6% were female. A majority of participants self-identified as Miskitu (52%), and a large percentage identified as Mestizo (40%). Only 3.2% identified as Mayagna, 1.6% as Creole, 0.8% as Tuahka/ Panamahka, 0.8% as Castellano, and 1.6% were foreign (one German and one Italian).

Table 1. Summary of Focus Group Participants for RACCN Municipality Puerto Waspán Siuna Bonanza Total % Characteristics Cabezas Men 19 15 13 16 63 50.4 Women 14 19 15 14 62 49.6 Total 33 34 28 30 125 100.0 Mestizo 2 4 27 17 50 40.0 Creole 2 - - - 2 1.6 Miskitu 27 29 - 9 65 52.0 Costeño - - - - - 0.0 Garífuna - - - - - 0.0 Negro - - - - - 0.0 Rama - - - - - 0.0 Ulúa - - - - - 0.0 Mayagna - - 1 3 4 3.2 Tuahka/Panamahka - - - 1 1 0.8 Castellano - 1 - - 1 0.8 Foreign 2 - - - 2 1.6 Total9 33 34 28 30 125 100

Findings from the focus groups were used to design a survey instrument that was implemented in seven targeted municipalities of the RACCN region, plus in areas of interest in the Northern and Southern Border regions, and the department of Managua (questionnaire in Appendix 3). Prior to the survey 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 (please see Appendix 1 for pretesting and fieldwork timeline). The survey sample includes Nicaraguan voting-age adults (16 years old or older) residing in urban and rural municipalities in the RACCN region and the targeted regions of Managua, Northern Border, and Southern Border. Based on the SOW, we devised two separate

8 Quotes from participants spoke in Miskitu or Mayagna, were translated into Spanish by the interpreters. 9 Data according to ethnic self-identification of focus group participants.

14 sample designs in order to fulfill the objectives of the study while, at the same time, achieve cost efficiency through economies of scale. The sampling strategies were the following: 10

 The samples for the RACCN region survey include at least 300 interviews per targeted municipality (Bonanza, Prinzapolka, Puerto Cabezas, Rosita, Siuna, Waslala and Mulukukú), for a minimum total of 2,100 respondents that provide data representative at the municipal level, with a margin of error of around ±5.5%11 with a 95% confidence level.

 Given USAID’s interest in conducting the same baseline survey instrument in additional municipalities along the northern and southern border regions, we proposed a sample design that groups the departments of Managua, Chinandega, Estelí, Nueva Segovia, Madriz, Río San Juan, and Rivas into three main regions: Northern Border Region (Chinandega, Estelí, Nueva Segovia, Madriz, and Jinotega12), Southern Border Region (Río San Juan and Rivas), and Managua. 504 interviews were conducted in each region and the data are also representative at the regional level. 13

Originally, LAPOP’s study design included Waspán in the quantitative survey study. The plan was to conduct the survey in 300 households, as in other RACCN municipalities. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, involving violent confrontations between indigenous Miskitu residents and settlers or “colonos”, in addition to the fall of the bridge in Sisín that provides the only road access to Waspán from Puerto Cabezas, LAPOP was forced to modify the original plan and instead carried out 30 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders in the municipality about issues related to the armed conflict, citizen security and the role of the state (questionnaire in Appendix 3).

I.3 Context and Background

The Nicaraguan Constitution of 1987 established for those “communities of the Atlantic Coast” two autonomous regions, the North Atlantic Autonomous Region (RAAN) and the South Atlantic Autonomous Region (RAAS). In 2014, a constitutional reform redefined these regions as part of the Caribbean Coast, renaming them as Región Autonoma de la Costa Caribe Norte (RACCN) and Región Autonoma de la Costa Caribe Sur (RACCS). The RACCN occupies 33,105.98 km2, which constitutes 25.4% of the Nicaraguan national territory and has a population of 314,130, representing 6.1% of the national population.14 The RACCN includes eight municipalities: Waspán, Puerto Cabezas, Rosita, Bonanza, Waslala, Mulukukú, Siuna, and Prinzapolka.

10 The sample designs within each municipality and 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. 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. 11 Estimates assume simple random sampling. 12 Jinotega was added to the survey design after the original proposal for the survey methodology was sent. 13 The fieldwork was carried out by Borge & Asociados between September and December, 2015. LAPOP trained the supervisors and interviewers and oversaw the fieldwork and data collection in accord with its standard practices. 14 http://www.inide.gob.ni/censos2005/MONOGRAFIASD/RAAN.pdf

15

Table 2. Distribution of Population of RACCN Municipality Population % Puerto Cabezas 66,169 21.1 Siuna 64,092 20.4 Waspán 47,231 15.0 Waslala 49,339 15.7 Mulukukú 29,838 9.5 Rosita 22,723 7.2 Bonanza 18,633 5.9 Prinzapolka 16,105 5.1 RACCN 314,130 100

The RACCN region is multiethnic, multicultural, and multilingual. Unlike the southern region, the northern region’s ethnic makeup is dominated by two main groups: Miskitu (57.3%) and Mestizo (35.7%), followed by Mayagnas (3.8%), Creoles (1.0%), Rama (0.1%), Cacaopera (0.1%), and other (0.3%). Most of the population of the RACCN (54.8%) lives in rural areas. A majority of those in the region who self-identify as Miskitu live in rural areas (55.5%) and more than a third of those identifying as Mestizo live in rural areas in the region (36.5%).

While Miskitu self-identification is most prominent in the municipalities of Waspán (96.3%), Puerto Cabezas (75.5%), and Prinzapolka (74.0%), Mestizos also have a large presence in the municipalities of Siuna (93.5%), Mulukukú (86.8%), Rosita (73.8%) and Bonanza (64.8%). The vast majority of people that self-identify with the main ethnic groups of Miskitu, Mestizo, and Mayagna also report speaking the corresponding languages.15

The RACCN region has experienced an increase in the homicide rate from 8 to 22 per 100,000 inhabitants between 2006 and 2012.16 The RACCN homicide rate for 2012 (22) was significantly higher than the national average of 12.9 for this time period. The RACCN region displayed the third highest murder rate in Nicaragua in 2012, preceded only by RACCS and the Mining Triangle municipalities.17

The rate of sexual crime in RACCN has also increased between 2006 and 2012 from 78 to 127 per 100,000 inhabitants. This 2012 rate more than doubles the national rate (60) of sexual crimes. And once again, the RACCN region experienced a much greater increase in the number of sexual crimes between 2006 and 2012 in comparison with the RACCS, which actually experienced a slight decline in the rate of sexual crimes in this time period (from 147 to 116 crimes per 100,000 inhabitants). The RACCN ranked highest in 2012 in terms of the sexual crime rate.

In 2012, the RACCN region also ranked very high in the robbery rate, preceded only by the metropolitan area of Managua. However, RACCN experienced a similar decline in the rate of robberies in comparison to the country as a whole from 608 to 522 robberies per 100,000 inhabitants between 2006 and 2012.

15 http://www.inide.gob.ni/censos2005/MONOGRAFIASD/RAAN.pdf 16 http://www.policia.gob.ni/cedoc/sector/estd/ae2012.pdf 17 Homicide counts and rates, time series 2000-2012. https://www.unodc.org/gsh/en/data.html

16 The prevalence of international drug trafficking and organized crime along the Caribbean coast of Nicaragua is a critical factor influencing crime levels in the RACCN region.18 The region’s capital, Puerto Cabezas, or Bilwi, provides an ideal geographical location for drug traffickers to operate given its remoteness and waterways. Drug trafficking has led to an increase in drug sales, drug abuse, juvenile crime, and human trafficking. These factors, in combination with widespread poverty and unemployment in the region, have greatly aggravated crime problems in RACCN.19

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 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 state capacity. Each section presents the main quantitative findings followed by the main qualitative findings from focus groups conducted in Puerto Cabezas, Waspán, Siuna, and Bonanza, and in-depth interviews carried out in Waspán.

I.4.1 Crime

Quantitative Findings

Roughly 13% of respondents to the 2015 LAPOP survey of the RACCN region and target areas of Managua and Southern and Norther Borders regions identify security and crime related issues as the most important problem in their country (in contrast, 63% identify cite an economic). The levels of household victimization vary across municipalities in 2015. The survey finds that in most municipalities between approximately 19 and 28% of respondents reported an instance of crime victimization by a member of their household. Yet, crime victimization was reported as high as 48.7% in Puerto Cabezas and 42% in Managua.

In most municipalities, respondents with higher levels of education are more prone than those with lower levels of formal education to report that they, or someone in their households, were victimized by crime in the last 12 months. Within the municipality with the highest reported rates of crime victimization, in Puerto Cabezas, 51% of those with secondary education report that they or someone else they live with suffered a criminal act, compared with 23% of those with no formal education. The situation is similar in the region of Managua, where the household victimization index reached only 12% among those with no formal education, compared with 51.6% of those with secondary schooling. In almost half of the municipalities and regions surveyed, including Puerto Cabezas, Waslala, Bonanza, and the Northern and Southern Border municipalities, those with a higher degree of ownership of goods report higher rates of crime victimization.

Home invasions rates are similar to those for crime victimization. Overall, less than a quarter of respondents in most municipalities report that someone broke into their home in the 5 years prior to the survey. Puerto Cabezas has the highest rate of reported home burglaries at 40%. In

18 https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/LAP_single_page.pdf 19 http://www.ieepp.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/02/FINAL-para-WEBSITE-Seguridad-Bilwi-PAZ.pdf

17 municipalities like Puerto Cabezas, Prinzapolka, and in the Northern Border region, respondents with a secondary education or higher are more likely than those with a primary education or with no formal studies to report that their home had been burglarized in the past five years. In some surveyed areas, age is also a factor significantly associated to home burglary rates. In Puerto Cabezas, Bonanza, Managua, and the Southern and Northern Border regions, younger adults report rates of home burglaries eight to 10 percentage points higher than their older counterparts.

The study shows that victimization by theft or aggression varies across municipalities and regions, ranging from roughly a quarter of respondents being victims of violent aggression in some places to approximately half of the adult population in others. Within all surveyed municipalities and regions, respondents with the highest level of wealth, in terms of consumer goods ownership, report personal experiences with criminal threats or aggression at rates that range between 44 and 87%. In contrast, those respondents with the lowest level of wealth report this type of victimization at rates that range from 17 and 44%. The survey finds that men report being threatened or violently attacked more often than women. Overall, the rate of males reporting this type of victimization is 10 percentage points greater than females across municipalities and regions.

There is significant variation in the rate at which respondents report murders occurring in their neighborhoods. Overall, one-in-four respondents (25%), on average, say that there have been murders in their neighborhood in the 12 months prior to the survey. Four municipalities (Puerto Cabezas, Waslala, Mulukukú, and Prinzapolka) are well above the mean while the remaining municipalities and targeted regions are either around the mean or below.

Higher levels of education are correlated with higher rates of reported murders in Puerto Cabezas, Prinzapolka, Rosita, Bonanza, the Northern Border region. However, the direction of the correlation varies across municipalities. In Rosita, 31% of respondents with primary education say that murders were committed in their communities in the last 12 months, compared with 7% of those with higher education. A similar pattern exists in Puerto Cabezas. In contrast, in the Prinzapolka, almost three-quarters of respondents with higher education (74%) report that there were murders in their neighborhoods, while only 34% of those with primary education say the same.

Qualitative Findings

Among focus group participants, crime and feelings of insecurity are often reported as concerning problems for citizen security in Puerto Cabezas, Waspán, Bonanza, and Siuna. However, while armed robberies were the most frequently reported type of crime in Puerto Cabezas and Waspán, murder and cattle rustling were reported as more common occurrences in Bonanza and Siuna. Participants frequently attribute feelings of greater insecurity and experiences with crime to widespread problems with drugs and unemployment. Participants also cite the lack of policing and impunity as reasons for growing criminal activity.

Participants argue that unemployment, along with the proliferation of drug use and sales are the main causes of increased robberies and overall crime in RACCN. As a participant of the focus group with local authorities in Puerto Cabezas said, “El desempleo como decían algunos compañeros por ahí también tiene que ver mucho en esto, la drogadicción, ustedes y yo sabemos

18 que donde hay droga hay delincuencia, y donde hay delincuencia pues la gente mata, la gente viola.” A civil society focus group participant also from Puerto Cabezas further explained, “Si al lado de mi casa hay un expendio de droga segurito que me van a robar todas las noches, porque los que consumen la droga no trabajan y quieren dinero van a buscar de dónde sacarlo.”

Participants explain that petty theft is extremely common and the frequency of household theft is growing. Armed robberies are common but the types of weapons used are “armas blancas,” such as knives and machetes. Although armed robberies have become more common in recent times. A young participant from Waspán described the situation in her neighborhood, “La delincuencia ha ido incrementado cada vez más y no solo de noche sino que también a plena luz del día hay andan los delincuentes, el barrio donde yo vivo es un barrio bien transitado casi puro comercio y tanto niños y adultos son los delincuentes.” Another participant from Waspán described a recent incident in which she was robbed, “Si hace poco iba en compañía de una amiga y unos muchachos en bicicletas que iba nos asaltó me quitó el teléfono celular y las bicicleta ni son de ellos son bicicleta robado y ahora se ponen hasta máscara en la cara.”

Participants from Bonanza report home burglaries as the most common type of crime. As mentioned by a local authority in Bonanza, “El más frecuente es el domiciliar, porque le roban, esos ladrones son profesionales porque le roban lo que pueden vender rapidito.” In the focus group with civil society members in Bonanza, a participant reported that, “Se meten a robar no sé cómo pero a la gente la duermen de forma que no se dan cuenta.” And one young participant expressed that, “Ya no podemos estar seguros en nuestro hogar [porque] una casa se cierra con candado por fuera…entonces rompen el candado y se meten, se roban más que todo la ropa para venderla.” Additionally, in Bonanza and Siuna one of the most commonly reported acts of crime is cattle rustling, which is reported as a problem in both rural and urban areas, although some participants indicate that it is only a sporadic problem.

Violent crimes, like homicides, are much less common and are reported to only take place when rival neighborhood youth, often referred to as gangs, fight. Juvenile crime and violence are reported as the most serious threats to citizen security. Participants link this issue with the growing drug problem and gang activity. However, violent crimes are perceived to be on the rise. As a participant from the civil society focus group in Bonanza reported, “De unos 10 años a acá ya realmente es una inseguridad peligrosa, está más peligroso, ya no se puede salir a ninguna parte porque ya si usted compra algo, miran billete, lo esperan allá adelante, lo pueden hasta matar.”

Participants in Bonanza often blame people from outside of the district for crimes, principally those of Miskitu origin. In Bonanza, mining is argued to be the principal reason for the influx of criminals. In Siuna, participants report that the origin of the rise in crime rates and insecurity is due to migration, although unlike in Bonanza, they do associate crime specifically with indigenous migration as a consequence of mining activity.

19 I.4.2 Perception of Insecurity and Gangs

Quantitative Findings

On average, fewer than 20% of respondents in the surveyed municipalities or regions mentioned security as their main concern. Overall, 44% of respondents say they feel very safe or somewhat safe in their neighborhoods, compared with a slight majority of 56% who say they feel somewhat unsafe or very unsafe. Yet, the survey finds that at least a third of respondents in each surveyed area report having avoided dangerous areas in their neighborhood. In some municipalities more than half of respondents report the same behavior. In half of the RACCN municipalities and targeted regions, respondents owning more consumer of goods are more prone to report avoiding dangerous areas than their poorer counterparts. On average, there is a gap of 30 percentage points between those at the highest level of consumer goods ownership and those at the lowest. In more than half of RACCN municipalities and targeted regions, a greater proportion of respondents with higher levels of education report avoiding certain areas in their neighborhoods because they consider them dangerous in comparison to those with lower levels of formal education. The most significant gap occurs between those with no formal education and those with at least some college education.

Approximately 81% of all respondents say that gangs have had little or no effect in their neighborhoods, while about 19% say that their communities have been affected somewhat or a lot. Higher education tends to be associated with perceptions of more gang activity in over half of surveyed municipalities or regions. In most of these areas, the most significant gap in perceptions is between those with a secondary or higher education and those with no formal education.

In Bonanza, Managua and the Southern and Northern Borders, younger respondents are more concerned with the activity of gangs in their communities than respondents 36 years and older. In Puerto Cabezas, Prinzapolka and Bonanza, Miskitu respondents are more likely than those who identify as mestizo, or with another group, to say that gangs are present in their communities. However, a large majority across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions believes gangs have little or no presence in their communities. 46% of all respondents say that gangs are more of a problem than they were a year before, while 31% say that gangs are less of a problem.

Qualitative Findings

Insecurity is often cited as the most serious problem in RACCN. Participants frequently attribute feelings of greater insecurity to widespread problems with drugs and unemployment, as well as lack of policing and impunity. Participants often report fear of walking in their neighborhoods at night because of the possibility of being robbed or attacked. A participant from the focus group with civil society members of Puerto Cabezas reported that, “A las 6 de la tarde ya no puedes andar en la calle porque ya te asaltan, si tienes un anillo o algo, porque ellos también quieren sobrevivir.” patrols. One young participant from Waspán reported that, “Solo los días domingos también me puedo sentir un poquito segura porque mi casa es en un barrio pero ya de los días de semana aunque sean los días de noche estoy insegura porque no se sabe a qué hora es que puede suceder algo.” Due to this sense of insecurity, participants reported having to arm themselves to feel safer. Participants said that they walk with machetes and knives, “Aquí todos caminan con machete y cuchillo.”

20 The fear of crime is of particular concern for children in schools in Puerto Cabezas and Waspán, as robberies have increased inside schools and security infrastructure and security officers are lacking. One member of the civil society focus group in Puerto Cabezas explained,

La matricula era alta pero cada año ahora hace dos tres años atrás, ya viene bajando la matrícula y algunos padres de familia se quejan y no quieren que sus hijos estudien en ese centro escolar por la misma situación de que llegan muchos muchachos vagos a robar la mochila de los niños y asaltan a los docentes que llegan a trabajar.

Participants of focus groups with at-risk youth and local authorities in Puerto Cabezas insist that only small neighborhood groups are involved in drugs, crime, and fights rather than the organized, identifiable gangs, that are commonly referred to as “pandillas”. A police officer argued that, “Aquí no tenemos pandillas verdad, porque pandilla tiene una estructura, tiene una organización, tiene una dirección.” And as explained by one young participant,

Bueno es extraño de que la pandilla tenga una identidad, todavía no se está dando esa incidencia, bueno porque todos conocemos ya sabemos cuáles son los barrios donde se está dando más incidencia de eso… El Alemán, El Cocal, El Muelle son los más reconocidos aquí, San Judas también, pero que ellos tenga una identidad que diga ‘sos de mi banda’ no todavía no hemos llegado a eso, identificando por medio de señas, tatuajes, todavía no hemos llegado a eso.

Though participants still tend to refer to these groups as “pandillas,” and they link crime and insecurity to the growing drug problem and gang activity. One civil society focus group member in Waspán reported that,

Ahorita se puede decir que uno ni en su propio barrio está seguro, porque viene pandilla de otros barrios a ser daño a su barrio donde vos estas, ahí es a veces donde se miran y confrontan entre pandillas de un barrio y el otro, tal vez los muchachos que son así vagos por decir esa palabra de tu barrio pero te conocen, pero si vienen otros de otros barrios no te respetan te pueden hacer cualquier daño.”

Juvenile crime is reported to increase fear and insecurity among the population, which participants indicate leads them to change their lifestyles and daily routines, especially young participants that are more frequently out on the streets at night. One young participant from Siuna indicated, “Ya se siente inseguridad, tantos casos que han ocurrido aquí en el municipio…entonces sí da temor de salir a las calles, ya uno no puede distraerse dignamente, a ver juegos deportivos.”

I.4.3 Gender Issues, Domestic Violence and Human Trafficking

Quantitative Findings

Less than 18% of respondents in the majority of municipalities and regions report the assault of women in their neighborhoods in the last 12 months. The highest rates of violence against women are reported in Puerto Cabezas (44%) and Prinzapolka (42%), and represent nearly double the rates reported in other RACCN municipalities.

21

In most cases, respondents with higher education report greater incidence of assaults on women in their neighborhoods than respondents with lower levels of education. In Puerto Cabezas, however, the study finds the reverse of that relationship; less educated people tend report a greater incidence of women being attacked in their communities than their higher educated counterparts. Respondents in higher wealth categories also tend to report higher rates of assaults of women in their neighborhoods than poorer respondents.

On the issue of human trafficking, across all municipalities and regions surveyed, 51% of respondents say that they have heard about human trafficking. Figure 8 show the different levels of awareness of human trafficking across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. The data show significant variation in the levels of awareness of human trafficking. In some municipalities, approximately a third or fewer respondents say that they have heard of human trafficking before. Conversely, in others, vast majorities of respondents are aware of the issue of human trafficking in their communities. The regions with the highest proportion of respondents reporting knowledge of human trafficking are Managua and the Southern and Northern Border. Higher wealth is associated with greater rates of reported knowledge of human trafficking. The largest gap in knowledge exists between those with the highest level of goods ownership and those in the lowest level.

Although majorities across municipalities and regions are aware of the issue of human trafficking, the average response to the questions of the seriousness of human trafficking is between ‘not a problem’ and ‘not at all serious’, which suggests that there is a low level of concern about human trafficking in the RACCN municipalities and other targeted regions of Nicaragua. However, when asked the level of risk they believe young girls and boys face for becoming victims of human trafficking, respondents did express relatively higher levels of concern then when asked about human trafficking as a broader problem.

Across all respondents, less than 15% report incidences of human trafficking. These results are in line with those discussed above, where respondents do not seem to report high levels of concern with human trafficking as a problem in their neighborhoods. There is, however, considerable variation across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions in terms of the percentage of respondents that report knowledge of specific cases of human trafficking. The percent of respondents that report cases being treated as human trafficking by authorities, ranges from 20% to 87%. In five of the surveyed municipalities and targeted regions, respondents say that less than half of all reported cases were treated as human trafficking.

Qualitative Findings

Domestic violence and violence against women is reported as widespread and a result of drug and alcohol abuse, as well as sexism in local culture. A participant from the civil society group in Bonanza indicated that, “En ese aspecto creo que todos hemos sido testigo de alguno u otro caso.” A local authority representative from Waspán commented why domestic violence is so common, saying,

22 Entre pareja hombre, mujer si hay bastante [violencia], porque unos tienen el mismo problema de droga, después el licor también, algunos hombres tienen la mañas de irse a tomar licor y cuando ya terminan los riales van a la casa llega preguntando al niño por la mamá, llaga dando golpes y dice que no hay violencia, van los golpes, la agrede, después sicológicamente.

A civil society group member from Waspán disagreed with this, saying, “Yo creo que el alcohol y las drogas no son las razones principales de la violencia intrafamiliar, es el machismo arraigado en cada hogar.”

The most common types of violent acts reported by participants are battery and rape, although some cases of femicide are also mentioned, particularly in Bonanza and Siuna. There are reports of a growing number of sexual assaults against young girls by male family figures, especially in smaller Miskitu communities. As reported by civil society focus group participant from Waspán,

Yo tengo un poquito de acceso con la forense acá y los casos más comunes acá son padrastros que violan a las niñas, eso se ha vuelto bastante común en vecinos violando a niñas, eso la gente no lo ve, la gente no platica mucho de eso, pero el forense revisa bastante casos de ese tipo.

A member of the focus group with civil society in Puerto Cabezas summarized her opinion on the matter saying,

El tema de violencia intrafamiliar es bastante, casi yo podría decir que existe casi el noventa por ciento, pero se ha hecho un esfuerzo bastante grande en la comisaría de la mujer, antes no existía pero ahora si existe y ha estado trabajando acompañando a las organizaciones que trabaja con las mujeres dentro de las comunidades y los barrios. No se ha podido resolver todos los casos que ha venido haciendo demanda pero si de una forma ha bajado un poquito, tal vez estamos a sesenta por ciento todavía enfrentando esta situación sobre la violencia sexual, eso todavía existe.

Although participants often reference growing citizen knowledge of women’s rights and where to go to for help (i.e. Comisaria de la Mujer), the problem of domestic violence persists. Participants report that domestic violence is particularly common in indigenous communities. One young participant said, “He visto y escuchado por ejemplos esas violencias intrafamiliares se dan más en las comunidades, en aquellas mujeres que no conocen sus derechos todavía ni la leyes.” Local authority participants reported that, despite efforts to increase women’s access to legal and health resources to escape domestic abuse, the problem persists. One member of the civil society group explained,

Nosotros estamos en una organización de mujeres apoyándolos, y estamos tratando de cómo apoyar a las víctimas a que vayan, o sea enseñar, ¿cómo es que se llama? La ruta de acceso a la justicia, al hacer eso los agresores lo que hacen es amenazarnos a nosotros como parte del plan. Por estar informando, ayudando, entonces qué pasa con la violencia aumenta más, y la persona, la víctima ya siente miedo y no puede acudir a las instancias

23 superior para pedir ayuda, siempre sigue en esa violencia que vive, eso sí lo he vivido. Los maltratos infantiles que existen aquí bastante, entonces todo eso, es lo que he vivido.

Still, the reporting of domestic violence cases is relatively low. One reason participants reported for failures to report domestic violence is the handling of complaints. As a young participant from Siuna explained,

Las mujeres no van a denunciar porque dicen unas que es un proceso bastante largo…cuando llegan allá a poner la denuncia van a papeleos y todo eso es un proceso largo…y como es tan largo mejor nos quedamos calladas para no ir a hacer más grande los conflictos.

Human trafficking is acknowledged as a growing and serious problem principally in Puerto Cabezas and Waspán, but not so much in Bonanza and Siuna. Particular concern is expressed by participants in Waspán due to the municipality’s proximity to drug trafficking activities along the Honduran border. The types of participants who most often report human trafficking as a serious problem are those belonging to focus groups with local authorities and members of NGOs and civil society. Participants express concerned about the lack of attention from local and national authorities for the issue of human trafficking and explain that the problem is growing due to lack of employment and general poverty that lead families to exchange or sell children for money.

Participants report hearing of occurrences of human trafficking mostly of girls and in smaller communities, particularly those of the Río Coco. One young participant from Waspán reported knowing about these types of cases, “Ahí mismo se da la trata de niñas, la venta de niñas, por la misma necesidad por falta de empleos niñas se venden.” Cases are attributed to drug traffickers that cross from Honduras to take young men and women to do manual labor and are sexually abused. A participant from the focus group with civil society members in Puerto Cabezas explained,

Es un tema de mucha preocupación para todos los padres de familia en la región, sobre todo en las comunidades en las riveras del Río Coco, hemos sabido que han venido las zonas de diversos lugares extranjeros, y que han venido a engañar a las madres de manera fácil y sencilla, porque de alguna manera se apoderan de niñas, niñas menores de edad y que luego están siendo trasladadas a Honduras para comercializarlas, para venderlas o para dedicarlas al sexo, a que presten ese servicio.

Many participants in Waspán also report the exploitation of boys and girls that come from remote Miskitu communities to live with families in Waspán to be closer to schools. These children and teenagers are forced to do housework for the families they live with in exchange for room and board. Yet participants report a lack of government effort to address the problem of human trafficking and that people resort to selling girls as an economic need. A local authority from Puerto Cabezas argued, “No hay presencia de las instituciones o de los organismos que puedan atender esos temas, migración no hay, hay policía pero yo no creo lo suficiente para el territorio que es el Rio Coco.”

24 Focus group participants seem to express much more concern over human trafficking in comparison with survey respondents. One possible explanation for this discrepancy may be that survey respondents may be underreported human trafficking because of lack of knowledge of the nature of this type of criminal activity. Focus group participants in Waspán and Puerto Cabezas reported that many families resort to exchanging their children for money without understanding the dangerous consequences for minors. Similarly, when asked if they knew what the term “trata de personas” meant, persons interviewed during fieldwork pretesting often gave inaccurate responses, referencing how people are treated, generally speaking.

I.4.4 Drug Trafficking and Drug Consumption

Quantitative Findings

The reporting of illegal drug sales ranges from less than 20% in several municipalities across the areas surveyed, to over 60% in others. Puerto Cabezas tops the range at 60.9% of respondents reporting drug sales in the neighborhood.

There is a consistent correlation between the level of education of respondents and reporting of illegal drug sales across most surveyed areas. Respondents with higher levels of education are more likely to report illegal drug sales in their neighborhood than those with lower levels of education. The most significant gap in reported drug sales exists between those with post- secondary education and respondents that have had no education.

Individual wealth, measured as ownership of goods, is also correlated with the reporting of illegal drug sales in over half of the municipalities and regions included in the survey. Once again, the largest gaps in the reporting of illegal drug sales occurs between those that have the highest level of goods ownership and those with the lowest level. In Mulukukú, for example, reporting of illegal drug sales is twice as high among the wealthiest respondents than those with the lowest level of ownership of goods (38% to 19%).

In most of the areas surveyed, respondents report that less than half or almost none of the people in their neighborhood use illegal drugs. However, there are other municipalities were drug use is more prevalent. The highest average levels of reported drug use in neighborhoods are by respondents in Puerto Cabezas and Prinzapolka.

The relationship between ethnicity and perceptions of drug use is not uniform across RACCN municipalities. In municipalities like Puerto Cabezas and Waslala, those who identify themselves as “other” tend to have higher levels of perceptions of illegal drug use in neighborhoods compared to respondents who identify themselves mixed, or mestizo. On the other hand, in Prinzapolka and Bonanza, Miskitu respondents report higher levels of drug use in their neighborhoods than those that identify as mestizos. In Mulukukú, mestizos report higher levels of neighborhood drug use than those that identify as “other.”

In half of the areas surveyed, including the RACCN municipalities of Rosita and Bonanza, as well as the Northern and Southern Border regions, wealthier respondents, in terms of ownership of goods, report higher levels of illegal drug use in their neighborhoods than their less wealthy

25 counterparts. In Mulukukú, wealth and reports of neighborhood drug use have the opposite relationship.

Qualitative Findings

There is a serious and widespread problem with the local sale of drugs in “expendios” and use of drugs, particularly among youth. One young Puerto Cabezas participant expressed concern saying,

Bueno, en mi opinión el problema más grande en nuestra región es las drogas porque los jóvenes se meten en las drogas y se pierden ahí, ya no pueden salir y en nuestra región las autoridades no piensan hacer nada, de cómo parar esos expendios que hay y dejando hasta ahí, no se ponen las pilas.

A participant from Bonanza expressed how drug problems are the most important concern for the young population, “Los jóvenes aquí lo que más se están enfrentando es a la drogadicción.” A young participant from Waspán spoke about the drug and alcohol problem in his community, saying, “este año se ha empeorado, porque la misma droga aparte de eso, los muchachos no tienen nada que hacer, y la delincuencia se ha aumentado, por lo que algunos chavalos, hay algunos jóvenes que son alumnos también ellos llevan licor a sus clases.”

Unemployment is referenced as the main cause of the rise in drug sales and use. At the same time, the drug problem is cited as the main cause of rising crime, including assaults, robberies, and domestic violence. One participant belonging to the local authorities of Waspán argued that, “La delincuencia ha aumentado por la introducción de droga. Ahora los jóvenes que usan drogas no respetan como decía el alcalde, a líderes comunitarios, ni a los policías respetan porque usan droga. Para mí, el problema más grande es la introducción de las drogas.”

Participants also report the presence of expendios near elementary schools, increasing fear of enrolling children in schools. One participant from the civil society focus group in Puerto Cabezas explained,

Al entorno de los colegios ya no hay seguridad porque están vendiendo droga, muchas de las personas que llegan a ofrecer alimento a los alrededores de los colegios son los que facilitan la droga, ya los padres se están dando cuenta de esta realidad y aparte de esto ha habido caso de violaciones por parte de las pandillas en esos sectores.

Focus groups participants in Puerto Cabezas and Waspán blamed police corruption as a main contributing factor in the growth of the drug problem. They claim that police are aware of expendios but they do not do anything about them and that those who run local expendios can do so with impunity. One participant from the civil society focus group in Puerto Cabezas argued that, “La policía está tan corrupta que autorizan a los expendios que venda tranquilamente, y ellos se van a cobrar el derecho que les dan a los comerciantes que venden droga y se quedan quietos, no sucede nada.” Another factor participants cite as contributing to the drug problem in Puerto Cabezas is the lack of rehabilitation centers and prevention programs, as well as the lack of government support and resources to combat the drug problem, especially among the youth.

26 Alcohol abuse is perceived as a serious problem for society because alcohol is easy to access, even for those underage. As person in Bonanza indicated, “Han empeorado más lo el alcohol, todo el día de la semana pasan bebiendo.” Another person added, “En el caso de mi barrio, hay bastantes niños que son de 12, de 13 para arriba que consumen bastante.”

I.4.5 Ethnic relations

Qualitative Findings

The Miskitu ethnicity and language dominate Puerto Cabezas and Waspán. As a result, one of the most often cited concerns in focus groups in these municipalities is the increasing conflict, often armed and violent, between locals of Miskitu ethnicity and “colonos” over the violation of indigenous territory rights. This problem is seen as a failure in the judicial system to protect Miskitu human and territorial rights and since most participants identify as Miskitu, they feel that their people and culture are being marginalized and disrespected. A participant of the focus group with local authorities of Puerto Cabezas summarized the problem saying,

No hay respeto a la propiedad comunal, a la propiedad de los pueblos indígenas, hay una inestabilidad total, no hay respeto al derecho, no hay respeto hacia la opinión, a la costumbre, a nuestra tradición de los pueblos indígenas de parte del estado de Nicaragua. ¿Por qué? Porque el estado se ha encargado de invadir, de apoyar a los colonos, e invadir a la propiedad de los pueblos indígenas. Ellos no solo vienen y mandan, si no que los apoyan en todo lo que respecta. Aquí no existe la policía, aquí los policías no cubren no dan acompañamiento a la seguridad ciudadana. Hay una inestabilidad en las comunidades, ahorita que las comunidades viven tensionadas. ¿Por qué? Porque los colonos aparte de entrar violentando los derechos como una guerra apropiándose de las tierras indígenas, ahora empiezan a matar a los dueños de las tierras y, ¿qué hace la policía? más bien los acompaña a estos invasores a estos colonos por órdenes quizás del estado, del gobierno.

Ethnic tensions reached a climax late in 2015 when violence erupted, and armed confrontations resulted in a number of deaths and injuries. In an in-depth interview in Waspán, a municipal authority claimed that circumstances have not changed and had this to say about the armed conflict,

Mire esta igual, pero lo que pasa es que nadie saca a la luz el conflicto, solamente he escuchado: “vino un herido”, “esta grave”, pero nadie en los personal ha dicho: “vamos a buscar cómo resolver esto”, sinceramente aquí tiene que haber una autoridad que tiene que controlar este conflicto, pero se están haciendo, los sordos, los mudos y los que no ven.

The interviews conducted with members of NGOs operating in Waspán suggest that there is widespread concern that the ethnic conflict between “colonos” and Miskitus will not be resolved soon. In-depth interview respondents reported several reasons for the lack of conflict resolution, including lack of action by both the local and national government, as well as local disagreement as to whether colonos have the legal right to settle lands that the national government has sold to them. The interviews conducted with members of NGOs operating in Waspán suggest that there

27 is widespread concern that the ethnic conflict between “colonos” and Miskitus will not be resolved soon. A local coordinator for an NGO operating in the city explained, “Los colonos no han salido de los territorios, si los Colonos salen de los territorios, el conflicto va disminuir, pero los Colonos fácilmente no van a salir de los territorios, porque ellos han comprado esas tierras.”

Another member of a local NGO in Waspán said that he believes the “colonos” purchased the land legally and then took advantage of the situation by bringing in more settlers, making the conflict harder to resolve. He stated,

El problema que tenemos es que nuestros mismos lideres ellos vendieron nuestra tierra a los Colono una gran parte, pero otros grupos aprovechando que unos Colono recibieron esa tierra a cambio de dinero, ellos trajeron a otros, están invadiendo prácticamente todas las tierras indígenas, entonces los Miskitu intentaron poder tener relación con los Colono, relación con los mestizos para poder convivir con la gente de manera más pacífica, de manera más tranquila porque ellos decían que también son Nicaragüenses, pero los aprovecharon de las tierras prácticamente venían invadiendo, una persona que compraba cien manzanas esa persona traía a cuatro o cinco personas más, se aprovechaban otras mil manzanas más.

A local resident mentioned that one of the more serious consequences of the armed conflict could be a food shortage, given that many displaced Miskitu communities were mainly agricultural. The interviewee stated, “Los mismos Miskitu sobreviven de la agricultura, trabajan la tierra, ahora ellos tienen un temor de entrar a trabajar y de cosechar sus cultivos, ya sean arroz, frijoles, tubérculos como: la yuca y el plátano, etcétera, ahorita hay una gran crisis alimentaria.”

Ethnic tensions due to an influx of Miskitu migrants are reported as an important issue in the mining municipality of Bonanza. Participants blame Miskitus migrants, especially the youth, for greater involvement in drug use, domestic violence, and robberies.

The problem of invasion of indigenous territories is also a serious issue in Siuna. Participants express particular concern over the influx of colonos in search for land to cultivate and the exploitation of timber resources that is having detrimental environmental consequences. A participant from the local authorities in Siuna expressed concern saying, “La destrucción que hay en los bosques, los recursos naturales, también tiene que ver con las invasiones de personas que han venido de otro lado, hay un caso serio en la comunidad sikita, de que están invadiendo sus tierras, que son tierra de la etnia Mayagna.” A young participated affirmed that, saying, “Los invasores que se aprovechan de las tierras vírgenes para explotarlas y así destruir el ecosistema.” These settlers or “colonos” are mostly identified as being from the Pacific and other municipalities.

I.4.6 Evaluations of Law Enforcement Institutions

Quantitative Findings

Roughly a third of all respondents (34%) think the police are doing a poor job of controlling crime in their neighborhoods. A slightly higher percentage (39%) evaluate the job of the police as ‘fairly good’ or ‘very good’. Approximately a quarter (27%) of respondents have a neutral opinion. On

28 average, evaluations of police performance across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions are closer the ‘neither poor job nor good job’ response option.

Those with lower levels of education tend to evaluate the police’s job in controlling crime more positively than those that are more educated. In Bonanza and the Northern Border, there is also a significant relationship between ethnic self-identification and the evaluation of police performance. Respondents who identify with ethnic groups other than Miskitu or mestizo report better evaluations of police performance.

A large majority of respondents (73%) say that police harassment is not a problem at all in their neighborhoods. Only 9% of respondents claim that harassment by the police is either ‘a big problem’ or ‘a very big problem’ in their communities. Education is positively correlated with perceptions of police harassment as a problem in most municipalities and regions. In Puerto Cabezas, the municipality where police harassment is seen as the most problematic, there is a 27 degree difference between college-educated respondents and those with no formal schooling (41 to 14).

When asked how long it would take for police to arrive after a burglary call, more than half of all respondents say that it would take the police more than three hours to arrive at their home or that they would not show up at all (55%). On the other hand, 21% say that they would expect the police to arrive between 10 and 30 minutes after the call. In Puerto Cabezas and Waslala, the majority of respondents say that the police would take over three hours or not arrive at all. Those are also the most common responses in Siuna and Mulukukú, although they make up less than half of all respondents in these municipalities. Less than 12% of respondents in Waslala and Puerto Cabezas, and less than about a quarter of respondents in Siuna and Mulukukú think that the police would arrive within a half an hour. Six-in-ten respondents in Prinzapolka say that the police would show up three hours after the call or not show up at all. In contrast, only 18% of respondents in that municipality say that the police would show within 30 minutes of the call. In Rosita, roughly a third of respondents (32%) say that the police would never arrive and another third (33%) say that it would take the police between 30 minutes and three hours to arrive. Meanwhile, in Bonanza, approximately a quarter of respondents (27%) say that it would take more than three hours for the police to arrive at the scene, while a similar percentage (24%) think it would take them between 10 and 30 minutes to get to their homes. In a majority of regions and municipalities (with the exception of Managua and Rosita), respondents belonging to higher wealth categories trust the police less than respondents with less wealth. On average, the difference in average levels of trust in the police between those with most and least wealth ranges between 10 and 20 degrees.

There is some evidence that faith in the judicial system is lacking in the regions surveyed. Roughly a third of all respondents (32%) say that they have little faith that the judicial system would punish the guilty. One-in-five respondents say that they have no faith the guilty party would be punished by the judicial system. However, 48% of all those surveyed say that they have ‘some’ or ‘a lot’ of faith in the ability of the judicial system to punish the guilty party. In over half of surveyed areas, wealth is related to respondents’ confidence in the judicial system punishing the guilty. Within those regions and municipalities with a relationship, confidence in the judicial system decreases as levels of wealth increase. On average, those with no formal education trust the justice system 8 to 12 degrees more than those with at least some college education.

29 Qualitative Findings20

Satisfaction with police performance and trust in law enforcement is very low. Participants often report their dissatisfaction and distrust of the police as a result of lack of action against, and involvement in, local drug sales, as well as growing impunity for criminals, and petty corruption among officials.

Police ineffectiveness is seen as particularly acute problem, especially where it concerns the growing drug trafficking problem. The police are seen as corrupt and easily bribed to allow expendios to remain open or warn expendios when a raid is coming. As reported by a young participant in Waspán, “La policía no hace nada porque la policía es también cómplice de los expendios de droga, y al final también le pagan a la policía para que no digan nada, porque la policía sabe muy bien quienes son pero al final no hacen nada.” The police receive similarly poor evaluations when it comes to combatting crime. As a participant from Puerto Cabezas explained,

El problema se da porque nosotros que somos afectados por los delincuentes a veces no sabemos a dónde ir, porque como todos hablábamos aquí, ir a la policía es perder tiempo, si vamos nos preguntan, nos hacen una entrevista kilométrica, y quieren que vayamos a traer al delincuente en primer lugar.

There are particularly worrisome reports of lack of police resources and personnel. A police officer from the municipality explained,

Aquí es el municipio más grande de Nicaragua, ahorita estamos cuatro aquí, en la calle no hay patrullas. ¿Por qué? No hay policías ahorita, y para atender esos de mi parte yo pienso, la población me mira a mí, me llama y después me pone las quejas yo solito atender esos diecinueve mil personas difícil, difícil, aquí necesitamos más, y nosotros unos en las asambleas y en las reuniones le decimos, les explicamos a la gente sobre las dificultades que tenemos nosotros, pero la gente siempre quiere respuesta de nosotros.

As one participant from the local authorities in Bonanza explained, “Estamos en una inseguridad pero a pesar de todo la policía apoya, no podemos, no da abasto, porque hay demasiados delincuentes y pocos policías.” Another participant from the local authorities focus group indicated that, “El problema es lo siguiente, hay veces no cuentan con medios, dos, la mayoría de los policías que tiene el municipio de Bonanza son policías voluntarios.” These concerns were of particular concern in rural areas. As a local authority in Siuna explained, “Hay muchas cosas en el campo y a veces la policía llega hasta ocho días porque a veces no hay policías, están ocupados haciendo otra cosa.”

Participants not only report that the police don’t do their job, but they also indicate that the police are often involved in criminal acts and abuse of power. A participant from the local authorities in Siuna reported that,

20 Please recall that the opinions expressed only represents the participants and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the population of RACCN or Nicaragua, as a whole.

30 Yo he visto también aquí se da extorsión en el ámbito de la policía, ha habido casos y yo conozco casos que te detienen con la moto porque la andas ilegal, mira, yo te voy a dar 500 pesos pero déjame pasar, y te dejan pasar [los policías], entonces para mí eso es una extorsión.

Participants report distrust of the police and local courts due to lack of case resolution. A young participant from Siuna argued, “Si hablamos de los casos que se han resuelto en la policía, creo que ni el cinco por ciento de los caso se han resuelto.” A member of the civil society focus group in Puerto Cabezas described the problem,

Es mal trabajo que hace el complejo judicial es pésimo, aquí el que tiene dinero es el que tiene su derecho, y el que no tiene dinero aquí, es caso perdido, y para las personas que vienen de la comunidad, le dan un mal trato, por lo que le dicen, venite mañana, mañana, otro día. Las personas se cansan y se van. Y nunca resuelven el caso, y ni siquiera le dan abogado del estado tribunal.

I.4.7 Citizens’ Participation

Quantitative Findings

Civic participation provides both a means by which ordinary individuals become informed about the functioning of local government, and also a platform on which citizens can voice their demands to local government. According to results, the rate of participation in municipal meetings in the year prior to the survey is low, ranging from 10% to 17%. In nearly half of the surveyed municipalities in RACCN, men participate at a significantly higher rate than women. Across all surveyed areas in RACCN and targeted regions, more than half of respondents (58%) say they never try to help solve problems in their neighborhood. At the same time, 21% say that do help solve community problems about one or two times year; 14% say they do so one or two times a month; and 6% say that they help their communities every week. The average rate of participation in helping solve community problems does not exceed 27 degrees on a 0 to 100 scale of participation, and can be as low as 15 degrees. This means that respondents, on average, only try to help solve community problems about once or twice a year. Across a majority of municipalities in RACCN and other targeted regions of the study, males report helping solve community problems at significantly higher rates than women. Additionally, those with higher education also report more frequent participation in helping solve community participation than the less educated.

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 RACCN and Managua to carry out fieldwork and in 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 RACCN region, LAPOP recruited authorities from local

31 government, members of local NGOs and civil society organizations, as well as at-risk youth, to discuss the key issues related to citizen security in the municipalities of Puerto Cabezas, Waspán, Siuna, and Bonanza. Participants from the focus groups with local authorities included the following: mayors, representatives from the states’ department of education, judges, police officers, and municipal 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, youth sports coordinators, as well as coordinators of territorial councils.

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. LAPOP supported Mr. Marenco in his efforts, and this collaboration resulted in a successful dissemination. Dissemination attendees included representatives from JICA (Japanese’s Agency of Cooperation), UNICEF, Agency of Cooperation from Switzerland, Inter –American Development Bank (IADB) and the Spanish Cooperation (AECID). In addition, the dissemination events were attended by representatives from FADCANIC (a local NGO that implements programs sponsored by USAID in the Caribbean of Nicaragua) and representatives of the program “Alianza por Empleos” (also a beneficiary of USAID).

I.6 Programming Recommendations21

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 RACCN region and other targeted regions in some cases, and reveal some additional ills in other cases. The study finds that the ethnic conflict between Miskitu residents and “colonos” permeates the discussion and is a growing concern throughout the RACCN region. The reports of focus group participants in RACCN also show that high levels of unemployment, low-wage and unstable working conditions have driven many individuals, especially young men, to resort to alternative illegal activities such as selling drugs or petty theft as legitimate sources of income. In addition, people seem increasingly to point to drug and human trafficking as feasible ways of doing business. Though the survey data suggest that respondents are not highly concerned with human trafficking as a problem. Despite a consensus among respondents that economic opportunities, particularly for young adults, are increasingly scarce, respondents in both our qualitative and quantitative elements of our study consistently condemn these forms of earning a living.

With this in mind, LAPOP suggests carrying out several strategies of prevention and control of the aforementioned problems for RACCN and other targeted regions. First, based on the findings of this report, we recommend programming focused on peaceful conflict resolution in the areas of

21 Given the similarities in the citizen security challenges and study findings with the RACCS study conducted in 2014, this section contains many overlapping conclusions and program recommendations presented in the baseline study report for RACCS.

32 RACCN affected by the ethnic conflict. Second, 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 also identified concerns about the rise of petty crime (robberies, house invasions) that many respondents believe are a consequence of drug trafficking and rising drug consumption in their communities. Programming that might be considered to address these issues includes:

 In partnership with local governments and schools, onflict resolution programs involving colono and Miskitu youth;  Creating opportunities for idea exchanges between law enforcement institutions and civil society, related to ethnic conflict, in particular;  Regional youth anti-drug media campaigns, involving mass media (newspapers, radio and television);  Supporting 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 the opening or operations of drug treatment facilities;  Opening or supporting youth centers that focus on recreational activities and occupational counseling;  Helping strengthen law enforcement institutions and personnel, and helping create a relationship between the police and the communities focused on cooperation to combat drug use/sales.

In accord with best practices, we also suggest that additional diagnostic data be collected in tandem with this type of programming for the purposes of monitoring, evaluation and learning. 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, the Police, and the Army) and different facets of civil society.

Many individuals in our studies also highlight problems of economic insecurity, especially in the RACCN region, which seem to be associated with illegal activities, such as human trafficking and drug trafficking. Focus group participants consistently report 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. In order to mitigate the problem of unemployment, it may be possible to consider significant programming initiatives designed to boost legal economic activities 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, develop 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;

33  The development of energy through agriculture and bio-fuels.  Efforts to revive farming as source of income and economic growth, particularly among the Miskitu population

Finally, programing could also address issues related to the development and strengthening of state capacity. Our research identifies that some perceive the authorities are inefficient and unresponsive. For example, survey data shows that people throughout the region report low levels of satisfaction with police performance; poor evaluations of the police in controlling crime; low levels of trust in the police; low confidence that the justice system would punish the guilty. Interviews in Waspán suggest that one of the main concerns is that there are not enough law enforcement officials and that they are easily corrupted. Based on our research, we are able to identify some key activities that can be targeted in order to improve perceptions of governments’ performance, in coordination with organizations of the civil society, such as:

In fighting Crime:  Increasing the number of police officers in large municipalities, like Waspán.  Strengthening the police by outfitting them with the tools necessary to fight crime (laboratories, technology, education, and training).  Working with justice administrators in order to enforce the law;  Organizing communities and community leaders around a common goal of crime- fighting;  Building bridges between law enforcement institutions and communities to address the low levels of trust.

In Preventing Domestic Violence and Human Trafficking:  Providing training and education within the communities on issues surrounding domestic violence and abuse;  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).  Educating law enforcement institutions about the nature of human trafficking and strengthen capacity in combating human trafficking  Supporting public information campaigns on human trafficking and the different ways human trafficking can occur.  Supporting greater communication and trust between vulnerable populations, like Miskitus, and law enforcement institutions to incentivize the reporting of violence against women, especially young girls, as well as the ability of law enforcement to officially purse these cases.

34

Part II. The Survey Study in RACS

35 II.1 Introduction

This report presents core results from a survey about citizen security in the North Autonomous Caribbean Coast Region (RACCN) in Nicaragua. It offers important perspectives on how individuals in the region perceive the issue of security (including drug trafficking, robbery, assault, home invasions and human trafficking) and evaluate institutions in charge of the provision of public safety. The report also presents information about citizens’ experiences with crime and how those may have affected their daily routines.

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 RACCN region as well as other targeted areas including the departments of Managua, Chinandega, Estelí, Nueva Segovia, Madriz, Río San Juan, and Rivas, which are grouped in the survey sample into three main regions: Northern Border Region (Chinandega, Estelí, Jinotega, Nueva Segovia, and Madriz), Southern Border Region (Río San Juan and Rivas), and Managua.

These are some of the important findings of the survey study:

 Roughly 13% of respondents to the 2015 LAPOP survey of the RACCN region and target areas of Managua and Southern and Norther Borders regions identify security and crime related issues as the most important problem in their country (in contrast, 63% identify cite an economic). The levels of household victimization vary across municipalities in 2015. The survey finds that in most municipalities between approximately 19 to 28% of respondents reported an instance of a member of their household being victimized by crime. Yet, crime victimization was reported as high as 48.7% in Puerto Cabezas and 42% in Managua.

 Home invasions rates are similar to those for crime victimization. Overall, less than a quarter of respondents in most municipalities report that someone broke into their home in

36 the 5 years prior to the survey. Home burglaries were most often reported in Puerto Cabezas at a rate of 40%.

 There is significant variation in the rate at which respondents report murders occurring in their neighborhoods. Overall, one-in-four respondents (25%) on average say that there have been murders in their neighborhood in the 12 months prior to the survey. Four municipalities (Puerto Cabezas, Waslala, Mulukukú, and Prinzapolka) are well above the mean while the rest of the municipalities and targeted region are either around the mean or below.

 Drug trafficking is closely related to violent crime and it directly impacts the quality of life in a neighborhood or community. The reporting of illegal drug sales can range from less than 20% in several municipalities across the areas surveyed, to over 60% in others. Once again, Puerto Cabezas tops the range at 60.9% of reported drug sales in the neighborhood.

 In most of the areas surveyed, respondents report that less than half or almost none of the people in their neighborhood use illegal drugs. However, there are other municipalities were drug use is more prevalent, as the graph illustrates. Respondents in Puerto Cabezas and Prinzapolka report the highest average levels of reported drug use.

 Less than 18% of respondents in the majority of municipalities and regions report the assault of women in their neighborhoods in the last 12 months. The highest rates of violence against women are reported in Puerto Cabezas (44%) and Prinzapolka (42%), and represent nearly double the rate reported on average in other RACCN municipalities.

 On the issue of human trafficking, across all municipalities and regions surveyed, 51% of respondents say that they have heard about human trafficking before. Figure 8 show the different levels of awareness about human trafficking across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions.

 Roughly a third of all respondents (34%) think the police is doing a poor job of controlling crime in their neighborhoods. Conversely, 39% of respondents evaluate the job the police does as ‘fairly good’ or ‘very good’. Approximately a quarter (27%) of respondents who have a neutral opinion. On average, evaluations of police performance across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions are closer the ‘neither poor job nor good job’ response option.

 More than half of all respondents say that it would take the police more than three hours to arrive at their house if there was a burglary (23%) or that they would not show up at all (22%). On the other hand, 21% say that they would expect the police to arrive between 10 and 30 minutes after the call.

 Roughly a third of all respondents (32%) say that they have little faith that the judicial system would punish the guilty. One-in-five respondents say that they have no faith the guilty party would be punished by the judicial system; and overall, 48% of those surveyed

37 say that they have ‘some’ or ‘a lot’ of faith in the ability of the judicial system to punish the guilty party.

The report is into sections that each deal with a substantive issue related to citizen security and it includes the analysis of several dependent variables, based on items from the questionnaire. The first part of the analysis includes a description of each variable’s distribution across the seven municipalities regions in the RACCN region and the three targeted of Managua and Northern and Southern Borders of Nicaragua. The latter part of the analysis looks at the correlations between each dependent variable and a series of sociodemographic variables (sex, education, age, wealth,22 and ethnicity) and describes the how these variables are associated in the different regions and municipalities. The substantive sections deal with issues such as crime victimization, perceptions of crime as a security problem, perceptions of insecurity and evaluations of law enforcement institutions.

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 and region for significant correlations between each dependent variable and sociodemographic variables. Appendix 3 contains the full survey questionnaire.

22 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 wealthy. We should note that these comparisons are relative. We refer to wealthy or rich people as those that own a higher number of consumer goods in comparison with less wealthy or poor people in this sample, who own a smaller number of consumer goods.

38 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 95% confidence interval 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.

Tables in the report display results for statistically significant differences across sociodemographic favors for variables of interest. Check marks represent statistically significant differences (where p<.05) across sociodemographic factors. However, check marks do not indicate the nature, or direction, of the statistical significant (i.e. positive or negative). Rather check marks simply highlight the existence of statistically significant differences, but do not specify what level of education, for example, is significantly associated with higher crime victimization. Graphs depicting each statistically significant findings across municipalities and regions can be found in the Appendix.

39 II.3 Perceptions of Insecurity

This section looks at respondents’ opinions on the issue of security. It first discusses how RACCN municipalities and targeted regions perceive security in comparison to other problems in their communities and what factors are associated perceptions of insecurity as the most important problem. Next, we offer results for respondents’ feelings of insecurity in their neighborhoods. Finally, we analyze results related to respondents’ potential change in every-day behaviors that come as a consequence of their perceptions of insecurity in their communities.

II.3.1 Security as Most Serious Problem

Respondents to the 2014 AmericasBarometer national survey of Nicaragua, as well as respondents from the 2015 survey study of the RACCN region and target regions in Managua and Southern and Norther Borders, identified security and crime related issues as the second most important problem in their country, behind the economy. Roughly 13% of respondents to the 2015 LAPOP survey of the RACCN region and target areas of Managua and Southern and Norther Borders regions identify security and crime related issues as the most important problem in their country (in contrast, 63% identify cite an economic).

The first question of the survey asks respondents about the most serious problem faced by Nicaragua. The question is open-ended to allow the respondent to name any problem without constraining them to a predetermined list of choices. All responses are then recoded into five general categories: 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 the country? [DO NOT |___|___| READ THE RESPONSE OPTIONS; ONLY A SINGLE OPTION]

Figure 1 shows the difference in perceptions of security as the most important problem across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. Though security was the second most mentioned issue by respondents across surveyed areas, no more than 20% of respondents in any of the surveyed municipalities or regions mentioned security as their main concern.

40 25 19.7% 18.7% 19.0%

15.3% 20 13.3%

11.7% 15 11.3% 10.3% 10.9%

10 5.1%

5 Security as the Most Serious Problem Most Serious the as Security

0 ú r r k lka e zas lala u nza rde rd Siuna s po a o o be a luk Rosita W u on Ca M inza B Managua o. r ern B t P hern B h P rt No Sout

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 1. Differences in Perceptions of Security as Most Important Problem across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015

Table 3 shows, there are no sociodemographic factors consistently with respondents mentioning security as the most important problem facing the country. However, in Managua and the Northern Border, significant differences exist between men and women a larger proportion of female respondents identify security as the most important issue in comparison to men. In Puerto Cabezas, wealth, or ownership of goods, is a factor related to respondents’ perceptions of security as the most important problem. Results show that among respondents in higher wealth categories, 27% chose security as the most serious problem in their community, compared with 9% of those with low levels of consumer goods ownership. Finally, in Prinzapolka ethnicity is significantly related to opinions about security with 9% respondents who identify themselves as ‘mixed’ saying that security is the biggest problem, while only 3% of Miskitu respondents identify security as issue.

41 Table 3. Differences in Perceptions of Security as Most Important Problem across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 Ownership Level of Ethnic Municipality/Region Gender Age of Goods Education Groups Pto. Cabezas  Siuna Waslala Mulukukú Prinzapolka  Rosita Bonanza Managua (region)  Northern Border  Southern Border

II.3.2 General Insecurity

The survey asks how safe respondents feel in their own neighborhood, thinking of the possibility of being robbed or assaulted:

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

Overall, 44% of respondents say they feel very safe or somewhat safe in their neighborhoods, compared with a slight majority of 56% who say they feel somewhat unsafe or very unsafe. Figure 2 shows the average perception of insecurity across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. To obtain these averages, responses to the question listed above were recoded to a 0 to 100 scale, where 0 means ‘very safe’ and 100 means ‘very unsafe’. The figure shows that there is vast variation across RACCN municipalities and other targeted regions. The mean score for all respondents is 55 and average responses for individual surveyed areas range between 38 and 66 degrees of insecurity.

42 80

66.3 60.4 58.0 58.1 60 54.5 55.8 51.1 47.6 49.4

38.3 40 Perception of Insecurity of Perception 20

0 ú r r k lka e zas lala u nza rde rd Siuna s po a o o be a luk Rosita W u on Ca M inza B Managua o. r ern B t P hern B h P rt No Sout

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 2. Differences in Perceptions of Insecurity across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015

Table 4 summarizes the sociodemographic correlates of individual perceptions of insecurity across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. Similar to results in the previous section, the data do not show a clear pattern in terms of significant relationship between sociodemographic factors and perceptions of insecurity.

However, younger respondents in Siuna, Prinzapolka and Rosita tend to feel more unsafe than respondents 36 years or older. In Rosita, wealthier and higher educated respondents, on average, feel more insecure than poorer and less educated respondents. Contrastingly, in the municipality of Bonanza, poorer and less educated respondents have higher perceptions of insecurity than those with at least some college education and high levels of wealth. Similarly, respondents with no formal education in Managua reported this highest perceptions of insecurity. Finally, in Mulukukú and Rosita, self-identified mestizo respondents tend to have higher perceptions of insecurity than other ethnic groups.

43 Table 4. Differences in Perceptions of Insecurity across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 Ownership Level of Ethnic Municipality/Region Gender Age of Goods Education Groups Pto. Cabezas Siuna  Waslala Mulukukú  Prinzapolka  Rosita     Bonanza   Managua (region)  Northern Border Southern Border

Heightened feelings of insecurity could lead citizens to change their everyday behaviors in order to avoid dangerous areas. The study 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 1 0 88 98 |__|__| avoiding walking through some areas in your neighborhood because they are dangerous?

Figure 3 shows the percentage of respondents that have avoided dangerous areas across each of the RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. The survey finds that at least a third of respondents in each surveyed area report having avoided dangerous areas in their neighborhood. In some municipalities more than half of respondents report the same behavior.

44 57.8% 55.0% 60 49.5%

44.8% 50 41.3%

37.1% 38.0% 36.0% 37.9% 34.0% 40

30

20

10

0 Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood inAreas Dangerous WalkingAvoided a r na kú ta er e u nza rd rd Si ku osi a agua o lu R n Waslal u B Bo M Bon Ma Prinzapolka ern ern th h Pto. Cabezas r ut No So

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 3. Differences in Avoidance of Dangerous Areas across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015

Table 5 shows the factors more commonly associated with the respondents’ decision to avoid walking through certain areas they consider dangerous. In half of the RACCN municipalities and targeted regions, respondents belonging to higher levels of goods ownership are more prone to report avoiding dangerous areas than their poorer counterparts. On average, there is a gap of 30 percentage points between those belonging to the highest level of wealth and the lowest. In Prinzapolka, for example, 88% of respondents in higher wealth categories have avoided walking through and area they consider dangerous, compared with only 37% of those with low levels of wealth.

In more than half of RACCN municipalities and targeted regions, a greater proportion of respondents with higher levels of education report avoiding certain areas in their neighborhoods because they consider them dangerous in comparison to those with lower levels of formal education. The most significant gap occurs between those with no formal education and those with at least some college education. In Puerto Cabezas, for instance there is a 35 percentage point difference between college-educated respondents and those with no formal education (52% to 17%).

Ethnic self-identification plays a role in respondents’ avoidance of dangerous areas in three municipalities across the RACCN region, including Siuna, Prinzapolka, and Bonanza. However, the nature of the relationship between ethnicity and avoidance of dangerous areas varies across these municipalities. In Prinzapolka, those who identify as mixed, or mestizo, are more inclined than Miskitu respondents to avoid dangerous areas. On the other hand, in Bonanza, Miskitu respondents are more careful about avoiding dangerous areas than those respondents who identify

45 as ‘mixed’. In Siuna, a greater percentage of those that identify with ethnic groups other than Miskitu or mestizo, report avoiding dangerous areas.

Finally, male respondents in Prinzapolka report significantly higher rates of avoidance of dangerous areas in their neighborhoods than females.

Table 5. Differences in Avoidance of Dangerous Areas across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 Ownership Level of Ethnic Municipality/Region Gender Age of Goods Education Groups Pto. Cabezas   Siuna   Waslala Mulukukú Prinzapolka     Rosita Bonanza    Managua (region)   Northern Border  Southern Border  

II.4 Crime Victimization

This section shows findings for reported crime victimization as measured by the survey study of seven municipalities of the RACCN region and targeted regions of Managua and the Northern and Southern borders of Nicaragua.

II.4.1 Household Crime Victimization

The issue of household crime victimization was covered by 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, burglary, assault, fraud, blackmail, extortion, violent threats or any other type of crime in the past 12 months? (1) Yes [Continue] (2) No [Skip to VIC1HOGAR] (88) DK [Skip to VIC1HOGAR] (98) DA [Skip to VIC1HOGAR] VIC1HOGAR. 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, burglary, assault, fraud, blackmail, extortion, violent threats or any other type of crime in the past 12 months? (1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (98) DA (99) N/A (Lives alone)

46 These questions were combined to create an index that tracks whether respondents or someone living in their homes were victimized by crime in the 12 months prior to the survey. We refer to this index as “household victimization”. Please note that the label addresses the possibility of one or several members of a household being victims of crime, not necessarily that the criminal actions took place inside the household. The 2014 AmericasBarometer national survey in Nicaragua found that 30% of respondents reported that they or someone else in their households had been victimized by crime in the last 12 months. Similarly, 28% of respondents in the RACCN survey reported an instance of household crime victimization.

Figure 4 shows that the levels of household victimization vary across municipalities in 2015. The survey finds that in most municipalities between approximately 19 to 28% of respondents reported an instance of a member of their household being victimized by crime. Yet, crime victimization was reported as high as 49% in Puerto Cabezas and 42% in Managua.

60 48.7%

50 42.0%

40

28.3% 26.3% 30 24.0% 24.6% 19.3% 18.7% 19.7% 21.6%

20 Household Crime Victimization Crime Household 10

0 s ú a a lka er uk nza rder d Siuna po a o or luk Rosita Waslala u on Cabez M inza B Managu o. r ern B ern B t P h P rth No Sout

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 4. Differences in Household Crime Victimization Rates across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015

Table 6 shows some of the factors related to differences in crime victimization rates across household victimization across different regions and municipalities in Nicaragua. Check marks in Table 6 represent statistically significant differences in household crime victimization across sociodemographic factors.23 Overall, the most closely related factor is the respondent’s level of education. The study finds that in most municipalities, respondents with higher levels of education are more prone than those with lower levels of formal education to report that they or someone in their households were victimized by crime in the last 12 months. Among municipalities with the

47 highest reported rates of crime victimization, in Puerto Cabezas, 51% of those with secondary education claim that they or someone else they live with suffered a criminal act, compared with 23% of those with no formal education. The situation is similar in the region of Managua, where the household victimization index reached only 12% among those with no formal education, compared with 52% of those with secondary schooling.

Another factor linked to household victimization is ownership of goods. In almost half of the municipalities and regions surveyed, including Puerto Cabezas, Waslala, Bonanza, and the Northern and Southern Border municipalities, those with a higher degree of ownership of goods report higher rates of crime victimization. In Waslala, for example, roughly a third (31%) of respondents with high levels of ownership of goods say that they or someone in their home was a victim of crime. Conversely, only 12% of those with low levels of ownership of goods make the same claim. The same pattern can be seen in Bonanza, where household victimization is significantly higher among those with high levels of ownership of goods (41%) than among less wealthy respondents (16%).

Other variables that are in some municipalities and regions related to household crime victimization are age and membership to a specific ethnic group. In the Northern border, for instance, household victimization is more prevalent among respondents who are 35 and younger (32%) than among those 36 years and older (17%). The same pattern emerges in Managua where over half of younger respondents (54%) reported an instance of household crime victimization, and 30% of older respondents did the same. Regarding differences across ethnic groups, while in Mulukukú, those who identify themselves as mixed, or mestizo, are more likely to report than they or someone in their home was victimized by crime in the last 12 months, in Bonanza, respondents that self-identify as Miskitu report higher crime victimization rates than both mixed and other groups.

Table 6. Differences in Household Crime Victimization Rates across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 Ownership Level of Ethnic Municipality/Region Gender Age of Goods Education Groups Pto. Cabezas   Siuna  Waslala  Mulukukú  Prinzapolka  Rosita Bonanza    Managua (region)   Northern Border    Southern Border  

II.4.2 Home Burglaries

Respondents in the survey study were also asked the following question regarding home invasions:

48 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

Figure 5 illustrates the differences in home invasion rates across RACCN municipalities and other targeted regions. That is, the percentage of respondents that answered “yes” to the above question. Overall, less than a quarter of respondents in most municipalities report that someone broke into their home in the 5 years prior to the survey. Home burglaries were most often reported in Puerto Cabezas at a rate of 40%.

50 39.7%

40 30.3%

30 22.4% 22.1% 21.8% 19.3% 17.1% 20 14.3% 14.0% 11.7%

10 Someone Stole or Tried to Steal in Home in Steal to Tried or Stole Someone

0 ú r r k lka e zas lala u nza rde rd Siuna s po a o o be a luk Rosita W u on Ca M inza B Managua o. r ern B t P hern B h P rt No Sout

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 5. Differences in Home Burglary Rates across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015

Table 7 summarizes the significant differences across key sociodemographic factors in levels of reported home burglaries. Similar to findings regarding household crime victimization, the level of education of respondents is related to the reporting of home invasions in almost half of the municipalities and regions surveyed. The study finds that in municipalities like Puerto Cabezas, Prinzapolka, and in the Northern Border region, respondents with a secondary education or higher are more inclined than those with a primary education or with no formal studies to report that their home had been burglarized in the past five years. Mostly notably, over half (58%) of college- educated respondents in Prinzapolka and 40% of college-educated respondents in the Northern

49 Border say they suffered a home burglary since 2010, compared with 23% of those with no formal schooling in Prinzapolka and 17% in the Northern Border.

In three municipalities of RACCN (Puerto Cabezas, Mulukukú, and Prinzapolka) and the Northern Border, respondents belonging to the wealthiest group in terms of ownership of goods report being victimized more often than respondents with lowest levels of ownership of goods. This gap is most notable in Mulukukú and the Northern Border Region. While in 35.8% of respondents in Mulukukú and 33.3% in the Northern Border that belong to the highest level of goods ownership report having had their homes burglarized, only 14.5% in Mulukukú and 8.7% in the Northern Border report the same type of victimization.

In some municipalities, age is also a factor significantly associated with home burglary rates. In Puerto Cabezas, Bonanza, Managua, and the Southern and Northern Border regions, younger adults report higher rates of home burglaries. Across each of these municipalities and regions, younger adults reported home burglary rates between 8-10 percentage points higher than their older counterparts. For example, in the municipality of Bonanza, respondents 35 and younger suffered twice as many home invasions as respondents 36 years and older (18% to 9%).

Table 7. Differences in Home Burglary Rates across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 Ownership Level of Ethnic Municipality/Region Gender Age of Goods Education Groups Pto. Cabezas    Siuna Waslala Mulukukú  Prinzapolka   Rosita Bonanza   Managua (region)  Northern Border    Southern Border 

II.4.3 Personal Victimization by Theft or Aggression

The study also explores the experience of respondents with violent aggression or threats in the five years previous to the survey. The questions listed below were recoded into a single index that measures personal victimization by theft or aggression.

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?

50 (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 percentages in Figure 6 show the differences across municipalities regarding the number of respondents who answered ‘yes’ to at least one of the questions in the index. The study shows that victimization by theft or aggression varies across municipalities and regions, ranging from roughly a quarter of respondents being victims of violent aggression in some places to approximately half of the adult population in others.

60 52.7% 48.7%

50 41.8% 37.0% 35.7% 40 31.7%

28.8% 25.3% 27.2% 30 24.0%

20 Victimof Theft or Aggression 10

0 ú r r k lka e zas lala u nza rde rd Siuna s po a o o be a luk Rosita W u on Ca M inza B Managua o. r ern B t P hern B h P rt No Sout

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 6. Differences in Victimization by Theft or Aggression across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015

51 Table 8 summarizes the significant differences across key sociodemographic factors for levels of reported personal victimization by theft or aggression. Table 8 shows that education and wealth, measured as ownership of material goods, are the most closely and consistently related factors to victimization by theft or aggression. In most municipalities, there is a positive correlation between respondent’s level of education and their reports of having been victims of threats or aggressions in the last five years. More specifically, the most significant differences exist between reports of victimization from those that have secondary education or higher and those that have no education. Moreover, those with post-secondary education consistently report the highest rates of personal experiences with theft or aggression, ranging from about 40 to 68% of respondents reporting this type of victimization. For example, in the municipality of Prinzapolka, roughly two thirds (68%) of those with at least some college education were victimized by theft or aggression at least once between 2010 and 2015. Conversely, approximately one third (31%) of those with no formal schooling reported the same thing.

Wealth measured as ownership of goods is also significantly linked to crime victimization by theft or aggression. The data show that, in most municipalities, respondents in higher levels of wealth are more inclined than respondents with less wealth to report that they have been violently attacked or threatened. Once again, the most significant gap in reports of victimization by theft or aggression exists between respondents with the highest and lowest levels of goods ownership. Across surveyed municipalities and regions, the rate of respondents with the highest level of wealth that report personal experiences with criminal threats or aggression ranges between 44 and 87%, while the range of respondents that belong to the lowest level of wealth that report this type of victimization ranges from 17 and 44%. In the municipality of Waslala, for instance, more than half (52%) of respondents in higher wealth categories say that they were victimized by theft or aggression in the last five years. On the contrary, only about one-in-five of those with low levels of wealth (22%) reports being threatened or attacked at least once in the last five years.

Gender also plays a role in the victimization by theft or aggression in several municipalities. The survey finds that men report being are threatened or violently attacked more often than women. Overall, the rate of males reporting this type of victimization is 10 percentage points greater than females across municipalities and regions. In the municipality of Rosita, for example, there is a significant difference between the percentage of men and women who report being victimized by theft of aggression in the five years prior to the survey (44% to 30%). A similar difference in violent attacks and threats suffered by male and female respondents is also reported in Puerto Cabezas. (61% men vs 45% women).

In Managua, Puerto Cabezas, and the Southern Border region, the age of respondents is also linked to the rate with which they report having been victims of theft or aggression in the last five years. While 58.% of respondents 35 or younger in Managua, 63% in Puerto Cabezas, and 32.% in the Southern Border have been threatened or violently attacked in the last five years, 26% of those 36 years or older in Managua, 43% in Puerto Cabezas, and 23% in the Southern Border report similar experiences.

52 Table 8. Differences in Victimization by Theft or Aggression across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 Ownership Level of Ethnic Municipality/Region Gender Age of Goods Education Groups Pto. Cabezas     Siuna  Waslala   Mulukukú  Prinzapolka   Rosita   Bonanza   Managua (region)     Northern Border    Southern Border    

II.5 Crime as a Community Problem

Security has increasingly turned into a paramount concern across Latin America. Issues concerning violence and crime can effect on citizens’ perceptions of their own quality of life, which can eventually reflect on their support for democratic institutions and the political system overall.24 This section documents individual perceptions and experiences with issues such as drug sales and consumption, gender violence and human trafficking in the RACCN region of Nicaragua and in other targeted municipalities in the regions of Managua and Southern and Northern Border.

II.5.1 Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood

One of the most serious security challenges in many Latin American countries is the illegal trafficking of narcotics. Drug trafficking is closely related to violent crime and it directly impacts the quality of life in a neighborhood or community. The survey study measures perceptions of the occurrence of illegal sale of drugs inside respondent’s neighborhoods using the following question:

Given your experience or what Once Once you have heard, which of Once or a or following criminal acts have Yes No twice a DK DA N/A week twice month happened in the last 12 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?

24 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

53 Figure 7 illustrates the variation in reported illegal drug sales across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. According to the figure, the reporting of illegal drug sales can range from less than 20% in several municipalities across the areas surveyed, to over 60% in others. Once again, Puerto Cabezas tops the range at 60.9% of reported drug sales in the neighborhood.

80

60.9%

60 48.5% 45.3%

40 32.8% 28.4% 25.7%

18.0% 17.9% 15.6% 15.5% 20 Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood Sales Drug Illegal

0 s ú a a lka er uk nza rder d Siuna po a o or luk Rosita Waslala u on Cabez M inza B Managu o. r ern B ern B t P h P rth No Sout

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 7. Differences in Reported Illegal Drug Sales across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015

The sociodemographic factors significantly related to the reporting of illegal drug sales are depicted in Table 9. The study finds a consistent correlation between the level of education of respondents and the percentage in reporting of illegal drug sales across most surveyed areas. Respondents with higher levels of education report higher rates of illegal drug sales in their neighborhood than those with lower levels of education. The most significant gap in reported drug sales exist between those with post-secondary education and respondents that have had no education. In the municipality of Prinzapolka, for example, 45% of respondents say that there are illegal drug sales in their neighborhood, the number rises to 79% among highly educated respondents and lowers to 35% among those with no formal schooling. A similar situation occurs in Siuna, where reporting of illegal drug sales doubles among highly educated respondents (30% to 156%) and decreases among those who have no formal education (16% to 10%).

Individual wealth, measured as ownership of goods, is also correlated to the reporting of illegal drug sales in over half of the municipalities and regions included in the survey. Once again, the largest gaps in the reporting of a criminal activity such as illegal drug sales occurs between those that have the highest level of goods ownership and those with the lowest level. In Mulukukú, for example, reporting of illegal drug sales is twice as high among respondents in the highest wealth categories compared to those with a low level of ownership of goods (38% to 19%).

54

Ethnicity is another factor associated with the reporting of illegal drug sales in municipalities of the RACCN, such as Puerto Cabezas, Mulukukú, Prinzapolka, and Bonanza. In Puerto Cabezas, Prinzapolka, and Bonanza, for example, those who identify themselves as Miskitu report illegal drug sales in their neighborhood at a higher rate than those who describe themselves as mestizos (68% to 39% in Puerto Cabezas, 51% to 37% in Prinzapolka, and 32% to 16% in Bonanza).

The survey finds that in two municipalities (Waslala and Rosita) and in the Northern Border region male respondents report illegal drug sales at a higher rate than female respondents. Also, in Bonanza and the Southern Border region, reporting of illegal drug sales is more common among respondents younger than 36 years.

Table 9. Differences in Reported Illegal Drug Sales across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 Ownership Level of Ethnic Municipality/Region Gender Age of Goods Education Groups Pto. Cabezas  Siuna  Waslala   Mulukukú   Prinzapolka   Rosita   Bonanza    Managua (region)   Northern Border    Southern Border   

II.5.2 Illegal Drug Consumption in the Neighborhood

Drug trafficking is only one part of the equation. The other side is the reported consumption of illegal drugs in the municipalities RACCN region and other targeted regions in the survey. The survey measures respondent’s perception of drug use in their neighborhoods with the following item:

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

Figure 8 shows the average perceptions of respondents regarding drug use in their neighborhoods. The averages for each municipality or region are based on a recoded variable where 100 means ‘almost all’ and 0 means ‘almost none’. As it was with reporting of illegal drug sales, perception of drug use varies across municipalities in the RACCN region and other targeted regions in the survey. In the majority of the municipalities and regions in Figure 8 respondents report that almost no one used drugs on a regular basis. More specifically, in most of the areas surveyed, respondents report that less than half or almost none of the people in their neighborhood use illegal drugs.

55 However, there are other municipalities were drug use is more prevalent, as the graph illustrates. The highest average levels of reported drug use are reported by respondents in Puerto Cabezas and Prinzapolka.

50 44.7

36.2 40

30 23.2

20 15.5 15.9 15.4 14.7 13.2 13.4 12.0

10 Drug Consumption in Neighborhood

0 ú r r k lka e zas lala u nza rde rd Siuna s po a o o be a luk Rosita W u on Ca M inza B Managua o. r ern B t P hern B h P rt No Sout

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 8. Differences in Reported Illegal Drug Consumption across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015

Table 10 show that the factors more commonly associated with individual perceptions of drug use are ethnicity and wealth. However, the relationship between ethnicity and perceptions of drug use is not uniform across RACCN municipalities. In municipalities like Puerto Cabezas and Waslala, those who identify themselves as “other” tend to have higher levels of perceptions of illegal drug, compared with respondents who identify themselves a mixed, or mestizo. On the other hand, in Prinzapolka and Bonanza, Miskitu respondents report higher levels of drug use in their neighborhood than those that identify as mestizos. In Mulukukú, mestizos report higher levels of neighborhood drug use than those that identify as “other.” In half of the areas surveyed, including the RACCN municipalities of Rosita and Bonanza, as well as the Northern and Southern Border regions, wealthier respondents, in terms of ownership of goods, in the municipalities report higher levels of perception for illegal drug use in their neighborhoods than their less wealthy counterparts. In Mulukukú, wealth and reports of neighborhood drug use have the opposite relationship. There are other factors associated with the perceptions of illegal drug consumption in specific municipalities. In Siuna and the Northern Border, for instance, female respondents have a slightly higher perception of illegal drug consumption on average than males. In Waslala, on the other hand, respondents with primary or secondary education are more inclined than those with no

56 formal schooling or college education to report higher levels of illegal drug use in their communities.

Table 10. Differences in Reported Illegal Drug Consumption across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 Ownership Level of Ethnic Municipality/Region Gender Age of Goods Education Groups Pto. Cabezas  Siuna  Waslala   Mulukukú   Prinzapolka  Rosita  Bonanza   Managua (region) Northern Border   Southern Border 

II.5.3 Murders in Neighborhood

This section discusses the results for respondents report of neighborhood murders across the municipalities and targeted regions included in the RACCN study. The question used to measure murders rates in the last 12 months is listed below:

Given your experience or what Once Once you have heard, which of Once or a or following criminal acts have Yes No twice a DK DA N/A week twice month happened in the last 12 a year months in your neighborhood.

VICBAR7. Have there been 1 2 88 98 |__|__| any murders in that last 12 months in your neighborhood? [Continue] [Skip to FEAR10] [Skip to FEAR10]

Figure 9 displays the percentage of respondents that answered “yes” to the above question. Results show the variation across municipalities in the RACCN region as well as other targeted regions of Nicaragua. The survey study finds significant variation in the rate at which respondents report murders occurring in their neighborhoods. Overall, one-in-four respondents (25%) on average say that there have been murders in their neighborhood in the 12 months prior to the survey. The Figure shows that four municipalities (Puerto Cabezas, Waslala, Mulukukú, and Prinzapolka) are well above the mean while the rest of the municipalities and targeted region are either around the mean or below.

57 60 45.1% 43.8% 50 40.0% 39.8%

40

24.3% 23.5% 30 21.7%

20 13.4% 13.4%

Murders in Neighborhood 10.4%

10

0 ú r r k lka e zas lala u nza rde rd Siuna s po a o o be a luk Rosita W u on Ca M inza B Managua o. r ern B t P hern B h P rt No Sout

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 9. Differences in Reported Murders across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015

Table 11 shows the sociodemographic factors associated with the reporting of murders. Results do not point to any consistent patterns among sociodemographic factors and the reporting of murders. However, in some municipalities, levels of wealth and education are significantly correlated with the reporting of neighborhood murders. In municipalities such as Siuna, Prinzapolka, Rosita and Bonanza, as well as in the Managua region, greater ownership of goods is associated with higher reported rates of neighborhood murders. In Rosita, for example, 28% of those among respondents in the lowest wealth categories, in terms of goods ownership, say that there have been murders in their neighborhood, compared with 10% of respondents in the highest level of wealth in the municipality. Yet, in Prinzapolka, large majorities among medium-wealth respondents (87%) say that there were murders in their community in the last 12 months, compared with a minority of those who have low levels of ownership of goods (40%).

Similarly, higher levels of education are correlated with higher rates in murder reports in Puerto Cabezas, Prinzapolka, Rosita, and the Northern Border region. However, the direction of the correlation varies according to the municipality. In Rosita, 31% of respondents with primary education say that murders were committed in their communities in the last 12 months, compared with 7% of those with higher education. A similar pattern exists in Puerto Cabezas. In contrast, in the Prinzapolka, almost three-quarters of respondents with higher education (74%) claim that there were murders in their neighborhoods, while only 34% of those with primary education say the same thing. A similar pattern exists in the Northern Border region.

58 Ethnic self-identification is also related to murder reporting in some RACCN municipalities. The survey finds that in Prinzapolka and Rosita, those who identify themselves as ‘mixed’ report murders in their communities twice as often as Miskitu respondents.

In Waslala and Mulukukú, male respondents have a higher tendency than women to say that murders have been committed in their neighborhoods. Meanwhile, in Bonanza and the Southern Border region, the percentage of young adults that say there have been murders in their neighborhood is almost twice as high as the percentage of adults 36 and older who make the same claim (28% to 15% in Bonanza, and 18% to % in the Southern Border).

Table 11. Differences in Reported Murders across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 Ownership Level of Ethnic Municipality/Region Gender Age of Goods Education Groups Pto. Cabezas  Siuna  Waslala  Mulukukú   Prinzapolka    Rosita    Bonanza    Managua (region)  Northern Border  Southern Border 

II.5.4 Violence against Women in the Neighborhood

The survey study also measures the reporting of violence against women across municipalities in the RACCN and other targeted regions with the following question:

Once Given your experience or what Once or you have heard, which of a Once or twice following criminal acts have Yes No week twice a DK DA N/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?

Figure 20 displays the percentage of respondents that report the occurrence of assaults against women in their neighborhood in the previous 12 months. According to the results, less than 18% of respondents in the majority of municipalities and regions report the assault of women in their neighborhoods in the last 12 months. The highest rates of violence against women are reported in Puerto Cabezas (44%) and Prinzapolka (42%), and represent nearly double the rate reported on average in other RACCN municipalities.

59 44.4% 50 42.1%

40

30

18.0% 15.6% 20 12.5% 13.3% 10.0% 9.0% 8.7% 9.2% 10 Violence Against Women in Violence Neighborhood Against

0 ú r r k lka e zas lala u nza rde rd Siuna s po a o o be a luk Rosita W u on Ca M inza B Managua o. r ern B t P hern B h P rt No Sout

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 10. Differences in Reported Violence against Women across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015

Table 12 shows the sociodemographic correlates of reported rates of violence against women. Education plays a role in the majority of the municipalities as well as in the Northern and Southern borders. The results show that, in most cases, respondents with higher education say that there have been assaults on women in their neighborhoods more often than respondents with lower levels of education. In Puerto Cabezas, however, the study finds that the relation reverses; and less educated people tend to say that women have been attacked in their communities more often than their higher educated counterparts.

Wealth, in ownership of goods, is also related to the reporting of violence against women. Respondents with the higher levels of wealth tend to report higher rates of assaults of women in their neighborhoods than poorer respondents. In Waslala and Mulukukú, for example, less than 10% of respondents with low levels of wealth say that women have been assaulted in their neighborhood in the last 12 months. In contrast, among respondents in higher wealth categories, 29% in Waslala and 19% in Mulukukú report that women have been attacked in their communities. In Managua only the difference in reported violence against women between those that are in the highest (20%) and middle (11%) levels of goods ownership is significant. Respondents in the highest level of wealth in the Southern (13%) and Northern (20%) Borders report significantly higher rates of violence against women that both respondents in the middle (12% in the South and 7% in the North) and lower (6% in the South and 2% in the North) levels of wealth.

The survey finds that ethnic self-identification is also associated with differences in reported violence against women in a few municipalities of the RACCN region, including Puerto Cabezas

60 and Prinzapolka. In Puerto Cabezas and Prinzapolka, for example, Miskitu respondents report more violence against women in their neighborhoods than those who identify themselves as mixed. Meanwhile, in Bonanza, as well as the Northern and Southern Border regions, respondents 35 and younger also report more attacks on women than those over 36 years.

Finally, data show that, in Bonanza, 14% of male respondents say that there have been attacks against women in the last 12 months, compared with only 6% of female respondents.

Table 12. Differences in Reported Violence against Women across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 Ownership Level of Ethnic Municipality/Region Gender Age of Goods Education Groups Pto. Cabezas   Siuna  Waslala   Mulukukú   Prinzapolka  Rosita Bonanza    Managua (region)   Northern Border    Southern Border   

II.5.5 Human Trafficking

This study tackles the issue of human trafficking from two different angles. The first one is based on a question that attempts to measure knowledge of human trafficking by asking respondents across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions if they are aware of human trafficking.

PROSTIT10. ¿Recientemente se ha escuchado sobre lo que algunos llaman tráfico humano o trata de personas? ¿Ha escuchado algo sobre esto? |__|__| (0) No (1) Sí (88) NS (98) NR

Figure 11 displays the percentage of respondents that say they have heard of human trafficking. Results show that, on average across all municipalities and regions surveyed, 51% of respondents say that they have heard about human trafficking before. Figure 11 show the different levels of awareness about human trafficking across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. The data show significant variation in the levels of awareness of human trafficking. In some municipalities, approximately a third or less of all respondents say that they have heard of human trafficking before. Conversely, in others, vast majorities of respondents are aware of the issue of human trafficking in their communities. The regions with the highest proportion of respondents reporting knowledge of human trafficking are Managua and the Southern and Northern Border.

61 80 72.6% 66.0% 64.0%

60 51.7%

42.5% 43.8% 41.6% 35.7% 40 32.3% 28.7%

20 Has Heard Has Heard of Human Trafficking

0 r ua e ukú nza der k a ag r rd Siuna aslala polka Rosita o W ulu za on Bo M in B Man rn Pr e Pto. Cabezas rth No Southern B

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 11. Differences in Knowledge of Human Trafficking across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015

Table 13 depicts the sociodemographic factors associated with knowledge of human trafficking across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. Wealth, measured as ownership of goods, is positively correlated with knowledge of human trafficking in half of the surveyed areas. Across municipalities and regions where this relationship is found to be significant, greater wealth is associated with greater rates of reported knowledge of human trafficking. The largest gap in knowledge exists between those in the highest level of ownership of goods and those in the lowest level. For example, in Waslala, where awareness of human trafficking is below the overall mean, there is a 24 percentage point difference in awareness of human trafficking between the wealthiest respondents and those with the lowest levels of ownership of goods (58% to 34%). Similarly, in the Northern Border, where knowledge of human trafficking is well above the mean, there is also a 25 percentage point difference between respondents at the high end of the wealth scale and those at the lower end (80% to 55%).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the survey finds that, in over half of the surveyed areas, highly educated respondents tend to be more aware of human trafficking than those with lower levels of formal education. The gap in the proportion of respondents with post-secondary and no formal education that report having knowledge of human trafficking ranges from approximately 20 to 50%. In Puerto Cabezas, while 71% of respondents with at least some college education report having heard of human trafficking, only 19% of those with no formal education reported knowing about human trafficking. In Managua 79% of those with at least some college education say that they have heard of human trafficking before, compared with 52% of those with no formal schooling. The same pattern can be found in Siuna, where there is a 19 percentage point difference in

62 awareness of human trafficking between those in the highest and lowest levels of education (48% to 29%).

The respondents’ ethnicity is related to their awareness of human trafficking in Bonanza, where respondents that identified as mestizo or Miskitu reported higher human trafficking knowledge rates than those that identified with other ethnicities.

The study also finds that in the Southern Border female respondents are slightly more aware of human trafficking than men. The same is true for younger adults in Puerto Cabezas in comparison to their older counterparts.

Table 13. Differences in Knowledge of Human Trafficking across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 Ownership Level of Ethnic Municipality/Region Gender Age of Goods Education Groups Pto. Cabezas    Siuna  Waslala   Mulukukú Prinzapolka  Rosita Bonanza   Managua (region)   Northern Border   Southern Border  

The second angle from which this survey approaches the issue of human trafficking goes beyond measuring awareness, and asks whether respondents believe that human trafficking is a serious problem in their community:

Ahora voy a leerle una lista de situaciones que pueden o no ser problema en algunos barrios. Por favor dígame si las siguientes situaciones son un problema muy serio, algo serio, poco serio, nada serio o no son un problema en su barrio o comunidad. [Repita después de cada pregunta “es esto un problema muy serio, algo serio, poco serio, nada serio o no es un problema” para ayudar al entrevistado] Muy Algo Poco Nada No es un NS NR serio serio Serio serio problema DISONIC2. Tráfico de personas 1 2 3 4 5 88 98 |__|__| en su barrio o comunidad

Figure 12 shows the average perceptions of respondents regarding how serious of a problem is human trafficking in their neighborhoods across the RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. The averages for each municipality are derived from a recoded of the original answer categories to a 0 to 100 scale, where 100 means ‘very serious’ and 0 means ‘not a problem’. Although the graph shows some variation in findings across municipalities and regions, the average response to the questions of the seriousness of human trafficking is between ‘not a problem’ and ‘not at all serious’, which suggests that there is a low level of concern for human trafficking in the RACCN municipalities and other targeted regions of Nicaragua.

63 30 24.3 23.1 22.7 25 19.4 19.7

20 16.4 16.6 16.9

15 11.1 10.5

10

5

Human Trafficking asaHuman Trafficking in Problem Neighborhood 0 r ua e ukú nza der k a ag r rd Siuna aslala polka Rosita o W ulu za on Bo M in B Man rn Pr e Pto. Cabezas rth No Southern B

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 12. Differences in Perception of Human Trafficking as Problem across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015

Table 14 shows the sociodemographic factors that are associated with perceptions of human trafficking. Despite overall low levels of concern among survey respondents regarding human trafficking as a problem in their communities, some sociodemographic characteristics seem to account for differences in these perceptions across surveyed municipalities and regions. The factor that appears to be most closely associated with perceptions about human trafficking is the level of education of respondents. Respondents with higher levels of education tend to be more concerned with human trafficking in their neighborhood than those with lower levels of education. In Puerto Cabezas, Mulukukú and Bonanza, the results show that respondents with a secondary education tend to perceive human trafficking as a serious problem more than those with no formal schooling. Other sociodemographic factors do not display as clear or statistically significant of a relationship with perceptions of human trafficking across municipalities and targeted regions. However, younger adults (35 years or younger) report human trafficking as a more serious problem than their older counterparts in Bonanza and Southern and Northern Borders.

Ethnicity, on the other hand, is significantly related to perceptions of human trafficking in Waslala, Rosita, and the Northern Border, but the nature of the relationship is less clear. While respondents identifying with ethnicities other than Miskitu or mestizo report the most concern with human trafficking in their neighborhoods in Waslala, mixed, or mestizo, respondents of Rosita think human trafficking in their neighborhoods is more of a problem than Miskitus. In the Northern Border, mestizos report the concern with human trafficking as a problem in their neighborhoods.

Finally, wealthier respondents, in terms of ownership of goods, have a higher level of concern about human trafficking in their communities than those who are less wealthy in Puerto Cabezas.

64 Table 14. Differences in Perception of Human Trafficking as Problem across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 Ownership Level of Ethnic Municipality/Region Gender Age of Goods Education Groups Pto. Cabezas   Siuna Waslala   Mulukukú  Prinzapolka Rosita   Bonanza   Managua (region) Northern Border    Southern Border

The survey also looks at respondents’ perceived differences in the risk of men and women of different ages for becoming victims of human are trafficking. To that effect, the following items were included in the questionnaire:

¿Cuánto riesgo cree que tienen las siguientes personas de convertirse en víctimas de la trata de personas en Nicaragua? Utilizando esta nueva tarjeta, evalúe el riesgo en una escala del 1 al 10, donde 1 significa que no hay ningún riesgo de que la persona se convierta en víctima de trata y 10 quiere decir que el riesgo es extremo: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 88 98 NS NR No hay ningún riesgo El riesgo es extremo

1-10, 88=NS, 98=NR PROSTIT11A. ¿Cuánto riesgo cree que tienen las mujeres adultas? |__|__|

PROSTIT11B. ¿Cuánto riesgo cree que tienen las mujeres adolescentes? |__|__|

PROSTIT11C. ¿Cuánto riesgo cree que tienen las niñas? |__|__|

PROSTIT11D. ¿Cuánto riesgo cree que tienen los hombres adultos? |__|__|

PROSTIT11E. ¿Cuánto riesgo cree que tienen los hombres adolescentes? |__|__|

PROSTIT11F. ¿Cuánto riesgo cree que tienen los niños? |__|__|

Figure 13 depicts respondents’ average perceptions of the risk for becoming victims of human trafficking for adult women, teenage women and girls. Responses to the questions shown above were recoded into a 0 to100 scale where 0 represents ‘no risk’ and 100 represents ‘extreme risk’. Results show that the average perceived risk faced by adult women across the RACCN region is 52 degrees, which means that respondents overall perceive a medium-level risk for adult women of being victims of human trafficking. The average increases considerably when it comes to

65 adolescent women and young girls. The average perceived risks for teenage women is 80 degrees and for young girls it is 82 degrees. These results show that, while respondents do not believe that human trafficking is a serious problem in their communities, they still think that adolescent women and young girls are highly at risk of becoming trafficking victims, more so than adult women.

100 100 86.2 83.5 84.5 79.4 78.9 79.2 77.3 76.2 76.7 80 80 70.5 57.9 52.6 52.1 53.1 53.2 54.3 60 49.8 48.6 51.8 60 43.5 40 40 Adult Women Adult

20 Adolescent Women 20

0 0 s ú a a r r ú a r a na k ita z e z u lk s gu una ala o sl an be Siu uk na Si a ukuk a R l Rosita anagua Waslala Bonanza W Bon C Mul Ma rn Borde Mu M rn Bord o. e Prinzapo Prinzapolka he Pt rth thern Borde Pto. Cabezas o u ut N So Northern SoBorder

100 88.2 84.7 83.2 86.1 86.6 80.7 79.7 78.3 79.9 80 67.7

60 Girls 40

20

0 s ú a a a a la k k z z la iuna s u an gu S a n Rosita o na W uluk B Cabe M Ma rn Border o. Prinzapol e Pt Northern SouthBorder

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 13. Average Level of Perceived Risk for Females becoming Victims of Human Trafficking, 2015

Figure 14 illustrates the perceived risk for adult men, teenage men and young boys to become victims of human trafficking across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. The survey finds that the average perceived risk for adult men across is 36 degrees on the 0 to 100 scale. Compared with the perceptions of risk of adult women, respondents believe that adult men are less at risk of becoming victims of human trafficking. In terms of adolescent men, the average perceived risk is higher than for adult men at 60 degrees, which is also well below the 80 degrees of perceived risk for teenage women. Finally, the average perceived risk for young boys is 77 degrees, comparable to the 82 degrees in perceived risk for young girls. Overall, these figures ratify that respondents across the region are aware of human trafficking and are concerned, especially for young boys and girls even if they do not necessarily think that human trafficking is a serious problem in their communities.

66 100 100

80 80 68.5 64.2 65.6 60.6 61.4 60.2 61.8 60 60 50.4 54.3 50.8 43.0 43.6 41.7 38.9 41.8 33.9 35.2 Adult Men 40 29.8 32.6 40 22.8 Adolescent Men 20 20

0 0 s ú a a r r ú a r a na k ita z e z u lk s gu una ala o sl an be Siu uk na Si a ukuk a R l Rosita anagua Waslala Bonanza W Bon C Mul Ma rn Borde Mu M rn Bord o. e Prinzapo Prinzapolka he Pt rth thern Borde Pto. Cabezas o u ut N So Northern SoBorder

100 83.1 82.1 81.8 82.4 75.3 75.9 78.3 77.1 76.9 80 58.2 60 Boys 40

20

0 s ú a a a a la k k z z la iuna s u an gu S a n Rosita o na W uluk B Cabe M Ma rn Border o. Prinzapol e Pt Northern SouthBorder

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 14. Average Level of Perceived Risk for Males becoming Victims of Human Trafficking, 2015

The last section of this section focuses on respondents’ experiences with human trafficking across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. The survey asked respondents if they recall any cases of human trafficking being reported to the police in the last five years. Those who answered ‘yes’ were asked a follow up question about whether the police treated the case as human trafficking or as something else. The questionnaire items are detailed below:

PROSTIT14. Pensando en algún caso de trata de personas del que usted sepa o haya escuchado en su barrio o comunidad en los últimos cinco años, sabe si el incidente fue reportado a la policía? [LEER ALTERNATIVAS]

(1) Sí [Continuar] |__|__| (2) No [Pasar a POL1] (3) No ha escuchado de ningún caso [Pasar a POL1] (88) [NO LEER] No sabe [Pasar a POL1] (98) [NO LEER] NR [Pasar a POL1] PROSTIT15. Pensando en el incidente de trata de personas que me dijo fue reportado a la policía, sabe si: [LEER ALTERNATIVAS] (1) El caso fue reconocido por las autoridades como trata de personas (2) El caso fue procesado como otro tipo de incidente, como por ejemplo abandono de hogar |__|__| (3) O si la policía no hizo nada sobre este caso (88) No sabe (98) [NO LEER] NR (99) INAP

67 The left bar graph in Figure 15 shows the percentage of respondents that report knowing about a human trafficking case in their neighborhood in the previous 12 months. The right bar graph in Figure 15 displays the percentage of respondents that say the known case was treated as human trafficking by authorities. Across RACCN municipalities and other targeted regions, the percentage of respondents that report cases of human trafficking does not exceed 15%. These results are in line with those discussed above, where respondents do not seem to report high levels of concern with human trafficking as a problem in their neighborhoods.

The figure also shows that there is considerable variation across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions in terms of the percentage of respondents reporting that cases of human trafficking that they have knowledge about were treated as such by authorities. The percent of respondents that report cases being treated as human trafficking by authorities ranges from 20% to 87.5%. In five of the surveyed municipalities and targeted regions, respondents say that less than half of all reported cases were treated as human trafficking.

20 120 14.9% 87.5%

13.7% 12.5% 100 12.5% 69.2% 15 10.7% 66.7% 9.7% 80 9.2% 9.9% 56.5% 50.0%

47.1% 10 60 40.0% 40.0% 6.1% 33.3% 5.7%

40 20.0% 5

20 Case Treated as Human Trafficking by by Authorities Trafficking as Human Treated Case

Knowledge of Human Trafficking Case in Neighborhood in Last 5 5 Years Last in Neighborhood in Case Trafficking Human of Knowledge 0 0 a ú a a a a a as k k t kú k iuna u si der iuna u S agua or S slal agua aslal uk Ro n order luk Rosita n W zapol onanz B Wa zapol Cabez Mul n B Ma rn B Mu n Bonanza Ma ri e ri to. P h P P hern Pto. Cabezas out Nort S Northern SouthernBorder Border

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 15. Rates of Reported Cases of Human Trafficking and Authority Action, 2015

II.6 Levels of Violence in the Neighborhood

This section looks at the current levels of violence and gang activity in the neighborhoods and communities of respondents across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions, as well as respondents’ perceptions of whether violence and gang activity in their communities have increased or decreased in the 12 months prior to the survey.

68 II.6.1 Current Levels of Violence

To measure perceived levels of neighborhood violence, the survey asks respondents about their perceptions of the level of violence in their neighborhoods in comparison with other neighborhoods in the municipalities or regions they live in:

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

The study finds that approximately 70% of all respondents say that the current level of violence in their neighborhood is lower than other places around their communities, and only 10% think that violence in their neighborhood is higher than in other places. Figure 16 shows respondents’ average perceptions of neighborhood violence across RACCN municipalities and other targeted regions. To obtain these averages, responses to the question listed above were recoded to a 0 to 100 scale, where 0 means ‘lower’ and 100 means ‘higher’ violence than other neighborhoods. The figure shows in most municipalities and targeted regions, the average respondent thinks that the level of criminal activity in their neighborhood is lower than in other neighborhoods. In Puerto Cabezas and Prinzapolka, perceptions of neighborhood violence seem to be more pronounced.

50 42.4

35.7 40

24.0 30

18.4 18.2 17.0 17.2 20 14.9 13.4 13.1

10 Perception of Violence in Neighborhood in Violence of Perception

0 s ú a a lka er uk nza rder d Siuna po a o or luk Rosita Waslala u on Cabez M inza B Managu o. r ern B ern B t P h P rth No Sout

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 16. Differences in Perceived Levels of Violence across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015

Table 15 summarizes the sociodemographic factors that are significantly related to differences in perceived levels of neighborhood violence across RACCN municipalities and other targeted

69 regions. For the most part, results reveal that sociodemographic factors are not closely related to differences in perceptions of violence. Wealth, in terms of level of consumer goods ownership, is significantly associated with perceptions of violence in Siuna, Rosita, Bonanza, and the Northern Border. However, the relationship of wealth and perceived levels of violence is not uniform across these areas. The study finds that in Siuna and Rosita, for example, poorer respondents have a higher perception of violence average than respondents in higher categories of wealth. Conversely, in Bonanza and the Northern Border, the average score for perceived levels of violence is higher among wealthier respondents than among those who own less consumer goods.

In the municipality of Bonanza as well as in the Northern Border, respondents with higher levels of education and those younger than 36 report higher average perceived levels of violence than those with less education and who are 36 years or older.

In Puerto Cabezas, Miskitu respondents are, on average, more inclined to perceive higher levels of violence in their neighborhoods than those who identify themselves as mixed, or mestizo.

Table 15. Differences in Perceived Levels of Violence across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 Ownership Level of Ethnic Municipality/Region Gender Age of Goods Education Groups Pto. Cabezas  Siuna  Waslala Mulukukú Prinzapolka Rosita  Bonanza    Managua (region) Northern Border    Southern Border

II.6.2 Trend in Violence in the Neighborhood

This section also discusses results about perceived levels of violence but in regards to respondents’ retrospective evaluation of violence in their communities. To measure these perceptions, the survey included the following question:

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

The study finds that approximately 48% of all respondents say that the current level of violence in their neighborhood is lower than it was 12 months prior to the survey, while 16% think that violence in their neighborhood is higher. Figure 17 shows respondents’ average perceptions of violence in comparison with the previous 12 months across RACCN municipalities and other

70 targeted regions. To obtain these averages, responses to the question listed above were recoded to a 0 to 100 scale, where 0 means ‘lower’ violence than 12 months ago and 100 means ‘higher’. The figure shows that there is variation in retrospective perceptions of violence across surveyed municipalities and regions. Yet for most areas, average scores indicate that respondents in the study say that the levels of violence in their communities have either decreased or stayed the same.

48.6

50 43.1

36.3 35.6 36.4 40 30.9 31.2 27.1 29.4 25.8 30

20

Trend of Violence in Neighborhood in Violence of Trend 10

0 ú r r k lka e zas lala u nza rde rd Siuna s po a o o be a luk Rosita W u on Ca M inza B Managua o. r ern B t P hern B h P rt No Sout

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 17. Differences in Perceived Trend of Violence across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015

Table 16 shows the factors associated with perceived trends in neighborhood violence in RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. Sociodemographic factors are not closely related to differences in retrospective perceptions of violence. However, the study does find that respondents’ level of education and wealth related to retrospective perceptions of violence in their communities. The nature of the relationship between education and wealth and perceived violence is not uniform across surveyed areas. While in Puerto Cabezas, Rosita and the Southern Border, lower levels of education are associated with higher retrospective evaluations of violence, the opposite is true for Bonanza. In terms of wealth, lesser ownership of goods is associated with higher perceived violence in comparison to the year before in Puerto Cabezas and Rosita, while the respondents from Siuna display the opposite relationship. Puerto Cabezas, for instance, there is an 18-percentage point difference in the average perception between those respondents with no formal schooling and those with at least some college education (58 to 40%). There is also a 20- percentage point difference between those with low levels of consumer good ownership and the wealthiest respondents in the municipality (58 to 38%).

In Bonanza, there is a 15-percentage point difference in the average perception between those respondents with no formal schooling and those with at least some college education (18.8 to

71 33.7%). On the other hand, there is a 16-percentage point difference between those with low levels of consumer good ownership and the wealthiest respondents in the municipality (20.2 to 36.4%).

Table 16. Differences in Perceived Trend of Violence across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 Ownership Level of Ethnic Municipality/Region Gender Age of Goods Education Groups Pto. Cabezas   Siuna Waslala Mulukukú Prinzapolka Rosita   Bonanza    Managua (region) Northern Border Southern Border 

II.6.3 Presence of Gangs in the Neighborhood

This section deals with a difference aspect of neighborhood violence the issue of gang activity across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. Respondents were asked if their neighborhoods were affected by the presence of gangs using the following survey question:

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

The survey finds that approximately 81% of all respondents say that gangs have had little or no effect in their neighborhoods, while about 19% say that their communities have been affected somewhat or a lot. Figure 18 shows respondents’ average perception of gang activity across RACCN municipalities and other targeted regions. To obtain these averages, responses to the question listed above were recoded to a 0 to 100 scale, where 0 means ‘none’ and 100 means ‘a lot’. The figure shows that while there is some variation across RACCN municipalities and other surveyed regions, most surveyed areas display low average perceptions of gang activity in the neighborhood, meaning that most respondents say that their neighborhoods have been affected by gangs a little or not at all. Only Puerto Cabezas stands out with a more pronounced average perceptions of gang activity.

72 60 49.6

50

40

28.2 29.3 24.9 30 23.3 20.6 19.0 16.0 18.3 17.4 20 Gangs in Neighborhood in Gangs

10

0 ú r r k lka e zas lala u nza rde rd Siuna s po a o o be a luk Rosita W u on Ca M inza B Managua o. r ern B t P hern B h P rt No Sout

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 18. Differences in Reported Presence of Gangs across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015

Table 17 summarizes the sociodemographic factors that are related to perceptions about gangs in RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. Level of educations seems to have the most consistent and significant relationship with differences in perceptions of gang activity. Higher education tends to be associated with higher perceived gang activity in over half of surveyed municipalities or regions. In most of these areas, the most significant gap in perceptions exists between those with a secondary or higher education and those with no formal education. In places like Managua and Mulukukú, results show that respondents with secondary education are, on average, more inclined to saying that gangs affect their neighborhoods than respondents with no formal education. Interestingly, in Rosita those with the highest level of education report the lowest level of neighborhood gang activity.

Wealth, in terms of ownership of goods, is also a factor associated with higher perceived gang activity in almost half of the surveyed municipalities and regions In contrast, the relationship between these two variables reverses itself once again in Rosita, where poorer respondents are more affected by gangs than those in higher wealth categories.

Respondents’ age and ethnic self-identification also display significant association with perceptions of gang activities in some municipalities and regions. In Bonanza, Managua and the Southern and Northern Borders, younger respondents are more concerned with the activity of gangs in their communities than respondents 36 years and older. In Puerto Cabezas, Prinzapolka and Bonanza, Miskitu respondents are more inclined than those who identify as mestizo or other to say that gangs are present in their communities.

73 Table 17. Differences in Reported Presence of Gangs across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 Ownership Level of Ethnic Municipality/Region Gender Age of Goods Education Groups Pto. Cabezas   Siuna  Waslala Mulukukú  Prinzapolka  Rosita   Bonanza     Managua (region)   Northern Border    Southern Border  

II.6.4 Trend in Gang Activity in the Neighborhood

In addition to asking respondents about their perceptions of gang activity in their neighborhood, the study also asks respondents to evaluate whether gang activity has become more or less of a problem in comparison to the year prior to the survey. The questionnaire includes a question aimed at getting respondents’ retroactive evaluation of gang activity in their neighborhoods. This question is only asked of respondents who reported that there are gangs in their neighborhoods, which reduced the overall sample size to 639 respondents. The survey item used was the following:

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

Despite the previous findings that a large majority of respondents across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions think gangs have little or no presence in their communities, the study reveals that 46% of all respondents say that gangs are more of a problem than they were a year before, while 31% say that gangs are less of a problem. Figure 19 shows respondents’ average retrospective perception of gang activity across RACCN municipalities and other targeted regions. To obtain these averages, responses to question listed above was recoded to a 0 to 100 scale, where 0 means ‘less of a problem’ and 100 means ‘more of a problem’. The figure shows that there is ample variation between surveyed municipalities and regions, with the overall tendency being responses between ‘about the same’ and ‘more of a problem’.

74 100

71.7 69.0 65.0 80 64.1 56.3 56.1 61.3 51.2 52.0 60 45.4

40 Trend in Gang Activity Gang in Trend

20

0 a r na za e zas u lala ukú lka n s k agu rd be Si a po Rosita na order o W ulu o B B Man n M rinza P er ern B Pto. Ca h North Sout

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 19. Differences in Reported Trend of Gang Activity across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015

Table 18 shows the sociodemographic correlates of retrospective perceptions of gang activity in RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. Overall, no single sociodemographic factor displays a consistently significant relationship with retrospective perceptions of gang activity. However, lower levels of education are correlated with more negative retrospective evaluations of gangs in Puerto Cabezas, Waslala, Prinzapolka, and the Northern Border. In Waslala, for example, there is a 43 degree difference between respondents with no education and those with at least some college education (88 to 45).

Ethnic self-identification is significantly related to perceptions of trends in neighborhood gang activity in Rosita and the Northern Border region. While Miskitu respondents in Rosita report higher average gang activity in their neighborhoods in comparison to the prior 12 months, respondents that identify as mestizo in the Northern border report more gang activity than those that identify with other ethnicities.

Finally, in Rosita, those with lower levels of goods ownership display more negative retrospective perceptions of gang activity than the more wealth. In Waslala, older respondents are more prone than their younger counterparts to say that gangs are more of a problem now than they were one year ago.

75 Table 18. Differences in Reported Trend of Gang Activity across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 Ownership Level of Ethnic Municipality/Region Gender Age of Goods Education Groups Pto. Cabezas  Siuna Waslala   Mulukukú Prinzapolka  Rosita   Bonanza Managua (region) Northern Border   Southern Border

II.7 Evaluations and Perceptions of Law Enforcement Institutions

This section focuses on citizens’ perceptions regarding law enforcement institutions, specifically the police and the judiciary, across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. These institutions are in charge of the application of the laws, based on the supposition that all citizens are equal and none has legal impunity.25 They also bear the responsibilities of providing security protection for citizens.

We first discuss the perceptions of the role of the police through respondents’ evaluations of police in controlling crime, perceptions of police harassment as a problem, experiences with police response times and trust in the police across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. We then turn to discussing the role of the justice system by analyzing respondents’ confidence that the justice system punishes the guilty and their overall trust in the judicial system.

II.7.1 Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime

An important indicator of police performance is citizens’ perceptions regarding how well the police are able to control crime in their communities. To understand citizens’ perceptions of this dimension of police performance we asked them the following question:

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? |__|__| (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)

The study finds that evaluations regarding the job the police is doing in controlling crime are divided. Roughly a third of all respondents (34%) think the police is doing a poor job of controlling crime in their neighborhoods. Conversely, 39% of respondents evaluate the job the police does as

25 See, O’Donnell, Guillermo A. 2004. Why the Rule of Law Matters. Journal of Democracy 15 (4): 32-46.

76 ‘fairly good’ or ‘very good’. This leaves approximately a quarter (27%) of respondents who have a neutral opinion. Figure 20 shows the average evaluation of police performance across RACCN municipalities. To obtain these averages, the question listed above was recoded to a 0 to 100 scale, where 0 means ‘very poor’ and 100 means ‘very good’. The graph shows that there is some variation between municipalities in the RACCN region. The mean score for all respondents is 49 degrees, which means that, on average, evaluations of police performance across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions are closer the ‘neither poor job nor good job’ response option. The data show that individual municipal and regional averages range between 44 and 57 degrees.

57.3 60 53.7 52.7 50.3 49.8 48.3 46.3 50 44.2 45.6 44.9

40

30

20

10 Evaluation of in Police Crime Controlling

0 s ú a a lka er uk nza rder d Siuna po a o or luk Rosita Waslala u on Cabez M inza B Managu o. r ern B ern B t P h P rth No Sout

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 20. Differences in Evaluation of Police across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015

Table 19 summarizes the sociodemographic factors that are associated with respondents’ evaluations of police performance across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. One of the factors more commonly linked to evaluations of police performance is wealth, measured as ownership of capital goods. The study finds that in municipalities such as Prinzapolka, Bonanza, Managua and the Northern Border, wealthier respondents, on average, evaluate police performance worse than respondents with low levels of wealth. In the municipality of Rosita, however, wealthier respondents evaluate police better than their poorer counterparts.

Education is another important correlate of the evaluation of police performance in several surveyed municipalities and regions. In these areas, those with lower levels of education evaluate the police’s job in controlling crime more positively than those that are more educated.

77 In Bonanza and the Northern Border, there is also a significant relationship between ethnic self- identification and the evaluation of police performance. Respondents who placed themselves with ethnic groups other than Miskitu or mestizo report better evaluations of police performance

In terms of age, while respondents under 35 years of age in Prinzapolka give more positive evaluations of the police than their older counterparts, the opposite is the case in Bonanza.

Finally, male respondents in Bonanza also tend to evaluate police performance slightly female respondents in that municipality.

Table 19. Differences in Evaluation of Police across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 Ownership Level of Ethnic Municipality/Region Gender Age of Goods Education Groups Pto. Cabezas  Siuna Waslala Mulukukú  Prinzapolka   Rosita  Bonanza      Managua (region)  Northern Border    Southern Border

II.7.2 Police Harassment as a Problem

The survey also measures citizens’ perceptions regarding police harassment and whether they consider it to be a problem in their communities:

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)

The data show that a large majority of respondents (73%) say that police harassment is not a problem at all in their neighborhoods. Only 9% of respondents claim that harassment by the police is either ‘a big problem’ or ‘a very big problem’ in their communities. Figure 21 illustrates averages in perceptions of police harassment as a problem across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. To create this figure, responses to the above question were recoded into a scale ranging from 0 to 100, with 0 meaning ‘no problem’ and 100 meaning ‘a very big problem’. The overall average score for the police harassment item is 13 degrees, which means that the average respondent thinks that harassment by police is not much of a problem in their neighborhood. However, the figure shows significant variation among RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. In half of the surveyed municipalities or targeted regions, the average perception of police harassment as a problem is below the overall average of 13 degrees. In remaining municipalities,

78 the average score remains low, suggesting low levels of concern with police harassment. Even in the municipality with the highest average degree of reported police harassment (Puerto Cabezas), responses are on the low end the 0 to 100 scale of reported police harassment.

40 30.8

30 24.4

17.4 17.0 20 14.8 12.9

7.9 10 7.3 5.2 Police Harassment as a Problem a as Harassment Police 5.0

0 ú r r k lka e zas lala u nza rde rd Siuna s po a o o be a luk Rosita W u on Ca M inza B Managua o. r ern B t P hern B h P rt No Sout

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 21. Differences in Perceptions of Police Harassment across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015

Even though the average perceptions of police harassment as a problem are very low in most municipalities and regions, there are several factors associated with these perceptions, the most common being age and level of education, as shown in Table 20. In most surveyed areas in which age is significantly related to perceptions of police harassment (with the exception of Mulukukú), younger respondents are more prone than those who are 36 years or older to think that police harassment is a problem in their neighborhood. Still, the average perception among young respondents remains low in the scale of reported police harassment.

Education is also positively correlated with perceptions of police harassment as a problem in most municipalities and regions. This means that more educated respondents tend to report higher average perceptions of police harassment than those respondents with lower levels of formal education. In Puerto Cabezas, the municipality with the highest perception of police harassment as a problem, there is a 27 degree difference between college-educated respondents and those with no formal schooling (41 to 14).

In Bonanza, the Managua region and the Northern Border, the average score among men is significantly higher than among women when it comes to perceptions of police harassment. In facts, respondents in these municipalities that belong to the highest level of goods ownership report average perceptions of police harassment that double those reported by respondents in the lowest

79 level of wealth. Additionally, in Puerto Cabezas and Bonanza, perceptions of police harassment as a problem are significantly higher among respondents that identify as Miskitu compared to those that say they are mestizo.

Table 20. Differences in Perceptions of Police Harassment across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 Ownership Level of Ethnic Municipality/Region Gender Age of Goods Education Groups Pto. Cabezas    Siuna   Waslala  Mulukukú  Prinzapolka  Rosita Bonanza      Managua (region)    Northern Border   Southern Border 

II.7.3 Police Response Time

Another lens through which police performance can be assessed is to ask respondents about police response time. To that end, the survey included a question to tap how quickly respondents believe the police would respond to a call reporting a home burglary in progress. The question is 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

The study finds that more than half of all respondents say either that it would take the police more than three hours to arrive at their house if there was a burglary (23%) or that they would not show up at all (22%). On the other hand, 21% say that they would expect the police to arrive between 10 and 30 minutes after the call. Figure 22 shows how this question was answered in Puerto Cabezas, Siuna, Waslala and Mulukukú. In Puerto Cabezas and Waslala, the majority of respondents say that the police would take over three hours or not arrive at all. Those are also the most common responses in Siuna and Mulukukú, although they make up less than half of all respondents in these municipalities. Less than 12% of respondents in Waslala and Puerto Cabezas, and less than about a quarter of respondents in Siuna and Mulukukú think that the police would arrive within a half an hour.

80

Less than 10 min 3.4% Less than 10 min 7.0%

No Police/ Between 10 and 30 min No Police/ Would never arrive 8.1% Would never arrive 20.8% 24.8% Between 10 and 30 min 17.1% Between 30 and 60 min 13.8%

Between 30 and 60 min Between 1 and 3 hours 14.4% 17.8% More than 3 hours More than 3 hours 23.5% 36.2% Between 1 and 3 hours 13.1%

Pto. Cabezas Siuna

Less than 10 min 3.0% Less than 10 min 6.5% No Police/ Would never arrive Between 10 and 30 min 17.2% 8.1% No Police/ Would never arrive Between 10 and 30 min 33.6% 18.9% Between 30 and 60 min 16.4%

More than 3 hours 25.1% Between 30 and 60 min 19.2% Between 1 and 3 hours 15.8%

More than 3 hours Between 1 and 3 hours 23.2% 13.1%

Waslala Mulukukú

Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 22. Reported Police Response Times in Puerto Cabezas, Siuna, Waslala and Mulukukú, 2015

Figure 23 looks at reported police response times in Prinzapolka, Rosita and Bonanza. Six-in-ten respondents in Prinzapolka say that the police would show up three hours after the call or not show up at all. In contrast, only 18% of respondents in that municipality say that the police would show within 30 minutes of the call.

In Rosita, roughly a third of respondents (32%) say that the police would never arrive and another third (33%) say that it would take the police between 30 minutes and three hours to arrive. Meanwhile, in Bonanza, approximately a quarter of respondents (27%) say that it would take more than three hours for the police to arrive at the scene, while a similar percentage (24%) think it would take them between 10 and 30 minutes to get to their homes.

81 Less than 10 min Less than 10 min 7.8% 6.9%

No Police/ Between 10 and 30 min No Police/ Would never arrive 10.8% Between 10 and 30 min 29.1% Would never arrive 31.6% 14.6%

Between 30 and 60 min 11.8% Between 30 and 60 min 16.7% Between 1 and 3 hours More than 3 hours 9.8% 13.5% More than 3 hours 30.7% Between 1 and 3 hours 16.7%

Prinzapolka Rosita

No Police/ Less than 10 min Would never arrive 7.7% 12.7%

Between 10 and 30 min 24.3%

More than 3 hours 27.0%

Between 30 and 60 min 14.3%

Between 1 and 3 hours 14.0%

Bonanza

Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 23. Reported Police Response Times in Prinzapolka, Rosita and Bonanza, 2015

Figure 24 shows the response distribution in the region of Managua, as well as the Northern and Southern Border regions. As it was the case in the majority of RACCN municipalities, the most commonly mentioned answers in Managua and the Southern Border are that it would take the police more than three hours to arrive or that they would never get there at all. Conversely, in the Northern Border, four-in-ten respondents say that the police would arrive in their homes between 10 and 60 minutes.

82 Less than 10 min Less than 10 min 2.4% 3.2%

No Police/ No Police/ Would never arrive Would never arrive 20.1% Between 10 and 30 min 21.2% 18.1% Between 10 and 30 min 25.5%

Between 30 and 60 min 14.5% More than 3 hours More than 3 hours 15.4% 21.5% Between 30 and 60 min 16.8%

Between 1 and 3 hours Between 1 and 3 hours 23.3% 18.0%

Managua Northern Border

Less than 10 min 4.9% No Police/ Would never arrive 18.6% Between 10 and 30 min 16.4%

Between 30 and 60 min 13.2% More than 3 hours 26.3%

Between 1 and 3 hours 20.6%

Southern Border

Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 24. Reported Police Response Times in Managua, Northern Border and Southern Border, 2015

II.7.4 Trust in the Police

The last question about the role of the police evaluates trust in the institution. This survey item 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.

B18. To what extent do you trust the National Police? |__|__|

Figure 25 shows the average trust for the police across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. The mean score for all respondents on trust in the police is 54 degrees on the 0 to 100 scale. The figure shows that most municipalities and regions have an average score that is around the mean, with the lowest score being 6 degrees below (48 in Managua) and the highest score being 7 degrees above (61 in Prinzapolka). Overall, these scores suggest that across RACCN municipalities and regions, the police is considered somewhat trustworthy.

83 61.3

56.0 56.6 60 54.6 53.5 54.6 51.6 51.3 51.3 48.1

40 Trust in Policethe 20

0 ú r r k lka e zas lala u nza rde rd Siuna s po a o o be a luk Rosita W u on Ca M inza B Managua o. r ern B t P hern B h P rt No Sout

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 25.Differences in Trust in the Police across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015

Table 21 summarizes the sociodemographic factors that are associated with respondents’ trust in the police as an institution across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. The factor most significantly and consistently associated with trust in the police is wealth, measured as ownership of consumer goods. In a majority of regions and municipalities (with the exception of Managua and Rosita), wealthier respondents trust less in the police than respondents with less wealth. On average, the difference in average trust in the police between those with most and least wealth ranges between 10 to 20 degrees. For example, in Mulukukú, for example, the average score for a respondent with low levels of wealth is 61 degrees on the 100 trust scale. In contrast, the average score for a respondent with high levels of wealth in Mulukukú is 40 points. However, in Managua those with in the highest level of wealth trust the police almost 25 degrees more than the poorest respondents in this region (49 to 26).

Education is also significantly related to trust in the police, but only in Siuna, Bonanza, and the Managua region. Respondents with no formal education seem to have more trust in the police than more educated respondents. In the Managua region, for example, there is a 15 point difference in trust in the police between those with no formal education and respondents who are college- educated (61 to 45 degrees).

Age and ethnicity are also connected to trust in the police in some places. In Prinzapolka, respondents under 36 trust the police more than those who are 36 years and older. In Puerto Cabezas, Miskitu respondents have higher levels of trust in the police than those who identify themselves as mestizo.

84 Table 21. Differences in Trust in the Police across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 Ownership Level of Ethnic Municipality/Region Gender Age of Goods Education Groups Pto. Cabezas   Siuna  Waslala Mulukukú   Prinzapolka   Rosita  Bonanza   Managua (region)   Northern Border  Southern Border 

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.26 This section summarizes two measures regarding the role of the justice system in the RACCN region: confidence in the judicial systems ability to punish the guilty and trust in the judicial system as an institution.

The questionnaire asks respondents if they think that the judicial system would punish the guilty party if they suffered a robbery or assault:

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

The survey results show that roughly a third of all respondents (32%) say that they have little faith that the judicial system would punish the guilty. One-in-five respondents say that they have no faith the guilty party would be punished by the judicial system; and overall, 48% of those surveyed say that they have ‘some’ or ‘a lot’ of faith in the ability of the judicial system to punish the guilty party.

Figure 26 shows the differences across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions in confidence that the judicial system to punish the guilty party in case of a crime. To simplify the analysis, responses to the question above was recoded to a 0 to 100 scale, where 0 is equivalent to ‘none’ and 100 to ‘a lot’. The average response for all respondents in the study is 50 degrees; and Figure 26 shows that in all regions and municipalities the mean score ranges between about 45 and 55

26 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.

85 degrees of confidence. These results show that no region or municipality is too far from the overall mean and that confidence in the justice system’s ability to punish the guilty in case of a crime is between ‘little’ and ‘some’.

55.2 60 53.5 52.4 51.0 52.1 49.4 51.1 47.8 50 44.5 46.1

40

30

20

10

0 a a r ala za e Confidence that the Justice SystemWould Punish the Guilty l olk sit n gua Siuna p o a lukukú R na Was u on a M nza B M Pri Pto. Cabezas uthern Border o Northern BordS

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 26. Differences in Confidence in the Judicial System Punishing the Guilty across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015

Table 22 depicts the sociodemographic factors significantly associated with the confidence in the judicial system punishing the guilty across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. In over half of surveyed areas, wealth related to respondents’ confidence in the judicial system punishing the guilty. Survey results show that, in those regions and municipalities, confidence in the judicial system decreases as levels of wealth increase.

In Siuna, Prinzapolka and the Managua region, respondents under 36 report consistently higher average scores of confidence that the judicial system will punish the guilty than those 36 years and older. Meanwhile, in places like Mulukukú and the Northern Border, confidence in the judicial system’s ability to punish guilty parties decreases when the individual level of education of a respondent increases.

Ethnic self-identification is significantly related to respondents’ confidence in the judiciary in Puerto Cabezas and the Southern Border. While respondents in Puerto Cabezas that identify as mestizo report lower levels of confidence in the judicial system than those that identify with other ethnicities, the opposite is true in the Southern Border region.

Gender plays a role in Waslala, where the mean confidence score for female respondents is almost 9 degrees higher than that of males (48.6 to 40.4 degrees).

86 Table 22. Differences in Confidence in the Judicial System Punishing the Guilty across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 Ownership Level of Ethnic Municipality/Region Gender Age of Goods Education Groups Pto. Cabezas  Siuna  Waslala  Mulukukú   Prinzapolka   Rosita  Bonanza Managua (region)  Northern Border   Southern Border  

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 survey includes the following question:

B10A. To what extent do you trust the justice system? |__|__|

The question asks respondents to report their trust in the justice system on a 1-7 scale where 1 is equivalent to ‘none’ and 7 to ‘a lot’. This scale has been recoded from 0 to 100, scale where 0 is equivalent to ‘none’ and 100 to ‘a lot’. Figure 27 highlights the differences in average trust for the justice system across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. The overall score for trust in the judiciary is 54 degrees for all respondents in the study, which means that, in general, the judicial system is somewhat trusted in RACCN and other targeted regions. Results shows that all municipalities and regions are within 5 degrees of the overall mean, which means that there are no large differences across different regions or municipalities.

87 58.9 57.8 54.9 56.3 60 54.0 54.4 54.5 51.9 48.7 50.6 50

40

30

20 Trust in the Judicial System Judicial in the Trust

10

0 ú r r k lka e zas lala u nza rde rd Siuna s po a o o be a luk Rosita W u on Ca M inza B Managua o. r ern B t P hern B h P rt No Sout

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 27. Differences in Trust in the Judicial System across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015

Table 23 shows which sociodemographic factors are significantly associated with trust in the justice system across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. Ethnicity is related to trust in the judiciary in several municipalities and regions. In Mulukukú and Prinzapolka, for example, those who place themselves in the ‘other’ category have higher levels of trust in the judiciary than mestizo or Miskitu respondents. Conversely, in Bonanza and Managua, those who identify as mestizo are most trusting in the judiciary.

The results also show a significant negative correlation between education and trust in the judiciary (with the exception of Prinzapolka). On average, those with no formal education trust the justice system 8 to 12 degrees more than those with at least some college education. In Mulukukú, for example, the average score in trust in the judicial system for a respondent with no formal education is 61 points, compared with 48 points among those with at least some college education. However, in Prinzapolka respondents that have at least some college education report an average 65 degrees of trust in the justice system, while those with no formal education report an average trust of 58 degrees.

Younger respondents in Mulukukú, as well as the Northern and Southern Border regions are 5 to 10 degrees more trusting of the justice system than adults 36 years and older.

In terms of wealth, while the wealthiest in terms of goods ownerships are the most trusting of the justice system in comparison to those with less wealth in Rosita, the wealthiest respondents in Prinzapolka report the lowest degree of trust in the justice system.

88 Finally, in Puerto Cabezas and the Northern Border region female respondents are significantly more trusting of the judicial system than males.

Table 23. Differences in Trust in the Judicial System across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 Ownership Level of Ethnic Municipality/Region Gender Age of Goods Education Groups Pto. Cabezas  Siuna  Waslala Mulukukú    Prinzapolka    Rosita   Bonanza  Managua (region)   Northern Border    Southern Border 

II.8 Participation in Local Governments and Communities

Civic participation provides both a means by which ordinary individuals become informed about the functioning of local government, and also a platform on which citizens can voice their demands to local government. 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 and healthy democracies.27 In this section, we describe the frequency of individuals’ participation in two key public spaces: municipal meetings and local communities.

II.8.1 Participation in Municipal 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

Figure 28 illustrates the variation in reported participation local government meetings across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. According to the figure, the rate of participation in municipal meetings is low, ranging from 10% to 17%.

27 Almond, Gabriel A. and Sidney Verba. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.

89 16.5% 20 15.1% 15.1% 16.0%

13.0% 13.5%

11.0% 15 11.1% 9.7% 9.5%

10

Attended Municipal Municipal Meeting Attended 5

0 ú r r k lka e zas lala u nza rde rd Siuna s po a o o be a luk Rosita W u on Ca M inza B Managua o. r ern B t P hern B h P rt No Sout

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 28. Differences in Attendance of Municipal Meeting across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015

Table 24 shows which sociodemographic factors are significantly associated with participation in municipal meetings across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions. In nearly half of the surveyed municipalities in RACCN, men participate at a significantly higher rate than women. On average, men report having participated in a local government meeting at a rate that is 10 percentage points higher than women.

Ethnicity is correlated with the rate of attendance in municipal meetings for Prinzapolka, Bonanza, and Managua, though the relationship between these factors is less clear. Respondents that self- identify as Miskitu report the highest rate of participation in Prinzapolka, while those that identify with ethnicities other than mixed or Miskitu report the highest rate of participation in Bonanza and the Southern Border Region. In Managua, on the other hand, mestizos, or mixed, respondents report the highest rate of participation in municipal meetings.

90 Table 24. Differences in Attendance of Municipal Meetings across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 Ownership Level of Ethnic Municipality/Region Gender Age of Goods Education Groups Pto. Cabezas Siuna Waslala   Mulukukú  Prinzapolka   Rosita  Bonanza  Managua (region)  Northern Border Southern Border 

II.8.2 Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem

Beyond participation in official meetings of the local government, the study also measures 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

Across all surveyed areas in RACCN and targeted regions, more than half of respondents (58%) say they never try to help solve problems in their neighborhood. At the same time, 21% say that do help solve community problems about one or two times year; 14% say they do so one or two times a month; and 6% say that they help their communities every week. For ease of comparison across municipalities and regions, responses to this question are recoded on a 0 to 100 scale, where 0 represents having never attempted to solve a community problem, and 100 indicates that the respondents contribute to solving community problems at least once a week. As shown in Figure 29, the average rate of participation in helping solve community problems does not exceed 27 degrees, and can be as low as 15 degrees. This means that respondents, on average, only try to help solve community problems about once or twice a year.

91 27.6 27.2 26.7 30 24.5 24.0 23.4 25 20.7 18.2 19.5

20 14.5

15

10

5 Tried Tried to SolveHelp a Community Problem

0 ú r r k lka e zas lala u nza rde rd Siuna s po a o o be a luk Rosita W u on Ca M inza B Managua o. r ern B t P hern B h P rt No Sout

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Figure 29. Differences in Helping Solve a Community Problem across RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Regions, 2015

According to Table 25, the rate at which respondents try to help solve community problems is close related to their gender and level of education. Across a majority of municipalities in RACCN and other targeted regions of the study, males report helping solve community problems at significantly higher rates than women. Additionally, those with higher education also report more frequent participation in helping solve community participation than the less educated. Those with the post-secondary education report the highest rate of participation in their communities.

Level of wealth in terms of consumer goods does not have an equally consisted correlation with this type of local participation. Though in municipalities like Mulukukú and Rosita, as well as the Northern Border region, higher levels of wealth is associated with higher participation. Similarly, older age is associated with greater efforts to help solve community problems in Puerto Cabezas and Bonanza.

92 Table 25. Differences in Helping Solve a Community Problem across Sociodemographic Factors, 2015 Ownership Level of Ethnic Municipality/Region Gender Age of Goods Education Groups Pto. Cabezas     Siuna Waslala  Mulukukú   Prinzapolka   Rosita   Bonanza    Managua (region) Northern Border    Southern Border  

II.9 Conclusions

This section summarizes the most important findings in the report, with a focus on the differences across RACCN municipalities and targeted regions and especially on the correlations between dependent variables and sociodemographic factors in specific regions or municipalities included in this study.

 In most municipalities between approximately 19 to 28% of respondents reported an instance of a member of their household being victimized by crime. Yet, crime victimization was reported as high as 48.7% in Puerto Cabezas and 42% in Managua.

 Among municipalities with the highest reported rates of crime victimization, respondents with secondary education report that they or someone living in their households was victimized by crime more frequently than those with lower levels of formal education.

 In almost half of the municipalities and regions surveyed, including Puerto Cabezas, Waslala, Bonanza, and the Northern and Southern Border municipalities, those with a higher degree of ownership of goods report higher rates of crime victimization.

 Overall, less than a quarter of respondents in most municipalities report that someone broke into their home in the 5 years prior to the survey.

 In some municipalities, age is also a factor significantly associated to home burglary rates. In Puerto Cabezas, Bonanza, Managua, and the Southern and Northern Border regions, younger adults report higher rates of home burglaries.

 Wealth measured as ownership of goods is significantly linked to crime victimization by theft or aggression. In most municipalities, wealthier respondents are more inclined than respondents with less wealth to report that they have been violently attacked or threatened. The most significant gap in reports of victimization by theft or aggression exists between respondents with the highest and lowest levels of goods ownership.

93

 Gender plays a role in the victimization by theft or aggression in several municipalities. Men report being threatened or violently attacked more often than women. Overall, the rate of males reporting this type of victimization is 10 percentage points greater than females across municipalities and regions.

 Reporting of illegal drug sales can range from less than 20% in several municipalities and targeted regions across the areas surveyed, to over 60% Puerto Cabezas.

 There is a consistent correlation between the level of education of respondents and the percentage in reporting of illegal drug sales across most surveyed areas. Respondents with higher levels of education report higher rates of illegal drug sales in their neighborhood than those with lower levels of education. The most significant gap in reported drug sales exist between those with post-secondary education and respondents that have had no education.

 In most of the municipalities and targeted regions surveyed, respondents report that less than half or almost none of the people in their neighborhood use illegal drugs.

 In half of the areas surveyed, wealthier respondents, in terms of ownership of goods, in the municipalities report higher levels of perception for illegal drug use in their neighborhoods than their less wealthy counterparts.

 There is significant variation in the rate at which respondents report murders occurring in their neighborhoods. Overall, one-in-four respondents (25%) on average say that there have been murders in their neighborhood in the 12 months prior to the survey. Four municipalities (Puerto Cabezas, Waslala, Mulukukú, and Prinzapolka) are well above the mean while the rest of the municipalities and targeted region are either around the mean or below.

 Results do not point to any consistent patterns among sociodemographic factors and the reporting of murders. However, in some municipalities, levels of wealth and education are significantly correlated with the reporting of neighborhood murders. Wealthier and more educated respondents report murders more often than less wealthy and educated people.

 Less than 18% of respondents all surveyed areas except Puerto Cabezas and Prinzapolka report the assault of women in their neighborhoods in the last 12 months.

 In most cases, respondents with higher education and wealth say that there have been assaults on women in their neighborhoods more often than poorer respondents and those with lower levels of education.

 On average, 51% of respondents across all municipalities and regions say that they have heard about human trafficking before.

94  In over half of the surveyed areas, highly educated respondents tend to be more aware of human trafficking than those with lower levels of formal education. The gap in the proportion of respondents with post-secondary and no formal education that report having knowledge of human trafficking ranges from approximately 20 to 50%.

 Although there is some variation across municipalities and regions, the average response to the questions of the seriousness of human trafficking is between ‘not a problem’ and ‘not at all serious’, which suggests that there is a low level of concern for human trafficking in the RACCN municipalities and other targeted regions of Nicaragua.

 While respondents do not necessarily believe that human trafficking is a serious problem in their communities, they still think that teenage and young girls are highly at risk of becoming trafficking victims, more so than adult women.

 Across RACCN municipalities and other targeted regions, the percentage of respondents that report cases of human trafficking does not exceed 15%. These results are in line with those discussed above, where respondents do not seem to report high levels of concern with human trafficking as a problem in their neighborhoods.

 In five of the surveyed municipalities and targeted regions, respondents say that less than half of all reported cases were treated as human trafficking.

 Approximately 70% of all respondents say that the current level of violence in their neighborhood is lower than other places around their communities, and only 10% think that violence in their neighborhood is higher than in other places.

 Nearly half (48%) of all respondents say that the current level of violence in their neighborhood is lower than it was 12 months prior to the survey, while 16% think that violence in their neighborhood is higher.

 An overwhelming majority of respondents (81%) of all respondents say that gangs have had little or no effect in their neighborhoods, while about 19% say that their communities have been affected somewhat or a lot.

 Level of education has the most consistent and significant relationship with differences in perceptions of gang activity. Higher education tends to be associated with higher perceived gang activity in over half of surveyed municipalities or regions. In most of these areas, the most significant gap in perceptions exists between those with a secondary or higher education and those with no formal education.

 The study reveals that 46% of all respondents say that gangs are more of a problem than they were a year before, while 31% say that gangs are less of a problem.

 Though security was the second most mentioned issue (after the economy) by respondents across surveyed areas when asked about the most serious problem faced by their

95 communities no more than 20% of respondents in any of the surveyed municipalities or regions mentioned security as their main concern.

 At least a third of respondents in each surveyed area report having avoided dangerous areas in their neighborhood. In some municipalities more than half of respondents report the same behavior.

 In half of the RACCN municipalities and targeted regions, respondents belonging to higher levels of goods ownership are more prone to report avoiding dangerous areas than their poorer counterparts. On average, there is a gap of 30 percentage points between those belonging to the highest level of wealth and the lowest.

 In more than half of RACCN municipalities and targeted regions, a greater proportion of respondents with higher levels of education report avoiding certain areas in their neighborhoods because they consider them dangerous in comparison to those with lower levels of formal education.

 Roughly a third of all respondents (34%) think the police is doing a poor job of controlling crime in their neighborhoods. Conversely, 39% of respondents evaluate the job the police does as ‘fairly good’ or ‘very good’. Approximately a quarter (27%) of respondents have a neutral opinion.

 Education is an important correlate of the evaluation of police performance in several surveyed municipalities and regions. In these areas, those with lower levels of education evaluate the police’s job in controlling crime more positively than those that are more educated.

 A large majority of respondents (73%) say that police harassment is not a problem at all in their neighborhoods. Only 9% of respondents claim that harassment by the police is either ‘a big problem’ or ‘a very big problem’ in their communities.

 In most surveyed areas in which age is significantly related to perceptions of police harassment, younger respondents are more prone than those who are 36 years or older to think that police harassment is a problem in their neighborhood. Still, the average perception among young respondents remains low in the scale of reported police harassment.

 More than half of all respondents say that it would take the police more than three hours to arrive at their house if there was a burglary (23%) or that they would not show up at all (22%). On the other hand, 21% say that they would expect the police to arrive between 10 and 30 minutes after the call.

 In a majority of regions and municipalities and targeted regions, respondents in higher categories of wealth trust less in the police than respondents with less wealth. On average, the difference in average trust in the police between those with most and least wealth ranges between 10 to 20 degrees.

96

 Roughly a third of respondents (32%) say that they have little faith that the judicial system would punish the guilty. One-in-five respondents say that they have no faith the guilty party would be punished by the judicial system; and overall, 48% of those surveyed say that they have ‘some’ or ‘a lot’ of faith in the ability of the judicial system to punish the guilty party.

 On average, those with no formal education trust the justice system 8 to 12 degrees more than those with at least some college education.

 The rate and local participation across surveyed areas is low. Between 10-17% of respondents report having participated in a municipal meeting in the 12 months prior to the survey. On average, respondents report helping solve community problems about once or twice a year. Men consistently report higher rates of local participation than women.

97

Part III. Armed Conflict and Citizen Security in Waspán

98 III.1 Context and Background

The municipality of Waspán is situated in the northern border of the RACCN region of Nicaragua, adjacent to Honduras. LAPOP’s initial study design included Waspán in both the qualitative (focus group) and quantitative (survey) components of this study. Due to violent confrontations between indigenous Miskitu residents and settlers or “colonos”, and the fall of the bridge in Sisín that provides access to Waspán, LAPOP removed the survey component and instead followed the focus group component with 30 in-depth interviews of key stakeholders in the municipality about issues related to the armed conflict, citizen security, and the role of the state.28

The Miskitu ethnicity and language dominate Waspán. One of the most often cited concerns in focus groups carried out in this municipality is the increasing conflict, often armed and violent, between locals of Miskitu ethnicity and “colonos” over the violation of indigenous territory rights. According to some Miskitu respondents, in early December the “colonos” were making a series of threats by writing in stones and trees and even sending anonymous letters to the radio, demanding that the Miskitu leave their lands before Christmas or they would burn their homes and kill their animals. Mestizo respondents who spoke to our interviewers say that no such threats were ever made and that Miskitus are using them as a pretext to attack “colonos” and drive them away.

In the midst of this situation, one interviewer was dispatched to Waspán to conduct 30 in depth interviews between December 6th and December 10th, 2015. The in-depth interview sample includes nine municipal authorities, six members of NGOs, and 15 young adult residents.

III.2 Perspectives from In-Depth Interviews

The interviews touched on three main subjects: armed conflict between Miskitus and “colonos”, crime and violence, and the role of the state. Questions about the role of the state asked about the role of the police and the judicial system in addressing issues related to the armed conflict, and the role of the government in fixing the transportation issues that resulted from the collapse of the Sisín bridge. It is important to note that in-depth interview results only represent the opinions of interviewees and do not necessarily reflect the perceptions of the population of Waspán.

III.2.1 Armed Conflict

All of the local authorities interviewed say that the armed conflict between Miskitus and “colonos” is a serious issue, yet none of them identified it as the most serious problem that Waspán is facing today. Still, they highlighted the degree to which the conflict has affected citizens in Waspán.

A local authority explained that the conflict affects aspects of community life, like education, since several communities affected by the ethnic conflict were not able to open their schools, placing the children of these communities at risk. When asked if the conflict is getting better or worse, there is no consensus among the authorities who were interviewed.

28 The questionnaire for these in-depth interviews can be found in the Appendix.

99

The interviews conducted with members of NGOs operating in Waspán suggest that there is widespread concern that the ethnic conflict between “colonos” and Miskitus will not be resolved soon. Among young respondents, there is concern that the central government has not done enough to stop the conflict, which they believe contributes to the persistence of the conflict as a problem.

When asked about specific threats made by “colonos” to Miskitus regarding burning their homes and killing their animals, a local authority said,

Hombre, hay que estar claro aquí en Waspán hay dos partidos fuertes el primero es el frente y el segundo YATAMA, ahora con la destitución del cargo del diputado Brooklyn Rivera, ahora esta gente andan inventando cosas, asustando a la gente por la radio que tiene este WAN yo no sé qué, ahí pasan hablando barbaridades que el pueblo no quiere escuchar, esta radio está loca eso es muy mentira, muy mentira. El gobierno central está manejando directamente, mandan comisión, hace ocho días andaba una comisión visitó todas las comunidades, donde están los colonos y normal, tranquilo, es que nosotros estamos esperando sacar nuestro animales por eso estamos aquí para mientras.

A local NGO coordinator in the city explained, “Los Colonos no han salido de los territorios, si los Colonos salen de los territorios, el conflicto va disminuir, pero los Colonos fácilmente no van a salir de los territorios, porque ellos han comprado esas tierras.” Another member of a local NGO in Waspán said that he believes the “colonos” purchased the land legally and then took advantage of the situation by bringing in more settlers, making the conflict harder to resolve.

A local resident expressed concern that one of the more serious consequences of the armed conflict could be food shortage, given that many displaced Miskitu communities were mainly agricultural. The interviewee stated, “Los mismos Miskitu sobreviven de la agricultura, trabajan la tierra, ahora ellos tienen un temor de entrar a trabajar y de cosechar sus cultivos, ya sean arroz, frijoles, tubérculos como: la yuca y el plátano, etcétera, ahorita hay una gran crisis alimentaria.” There is also concern that local authorities who attempt to resolve the conflict are being threatened.

III.2.2 Crime and Violence

Issues related to crime and violence were also mentioned by a large amount of respondents as important problems in Waspán. Interviewed authorities from the local government as well as from the central government, members of NGOs working in the area, and local citizens expressed concern with crime and some (but not all) reported rising crime and insecurity in the municipality.

One example of criminal activity cited by authorities is the theft of livestock, or “abigeato”. An official with a national agricultural agency echoed the concern that a lack of police officers in the area contributes to the widespread thievery of farm animals in Waspán, stating,

…hace como tres meses, estuve conversando con el comisionado…planteaba que aquí hay muy pocos policías y acordate que el municipio es grande son ciento ocho comunidades y dar cobertura a todas esas comunidades es mentira y los compañeros policías buscan resolver pero, esta difícil y la delincuencia ha aumentado, por eso el abigeato está en vivo,

100 van camionetas de todos los lados y traen destazado hasta cinco vacas y esto afecta grandemente a las comunidades. Los compañeros policías son muy pocos y para ir hasta el lugar no hay fondos, presupuesto de atender ahí, entonces los maleantes se aprovechan.

Among young respondents, drugs are commonly cited as the source of most criminal activity in their community. A young student claimed that drug users in his community resort to stealing or assaulting to get more money and buy more drugs. As he described, “Como aquí venden drogas, marihuana, cuando fuman eso ya comienzan a robar y si no encuentran la droga comienzan asaltar, te quitan celular y después van a comprar marihuana.”

Gang activity, and youth involvement in it, is also a concern. While several respondents said that there is no gang activity in their neighborhoods, most indicated that there are several areas in Waspán affected by gangs. According to a government official, gangs are more common in (and operating across) neighborhoods with low police patrolling.

Gang activity, drug trafficking, and crime are related issues, according to several respondents. One local authority argued that violent crime, perpetrated by gangs, is mostly related to the issue of drug trafficking, saying, “Eso viene a aumentar la delincuencia en el aspecto que incrementan los robos tanto los robos a las casas como robos con intimidación y que se ha estado viendo que ha venido en aumento en estos lugares…”

A member of the city council told the interviewer that drug trafficking is a city wide problem and that most neighborhoods are affected by it,

La gente prefiere comprar drogas que una libra de arroz y lo que lo hacen son profesionales, niños de once y diez años que andan en las calles están consumiendo drogas. En cada barrio hay un expendio de drogas y no solo es uno, por ejemplo: donde vivo hay hasta cinco expendios de drogas, sin tomar en cuenta los que la venden de manera ambulante, entre los mismos pandilleros se venden la droga.

Another government worker linked drug trafficking directly to the issue of poverty in the region and said that as long as people deal drugs as a mean of survival, drug trafficking will not disappear, “No disminuye porque hay personas que sobreviven de eso, es su forma de vida, lo que más se usa aquí es la piedra, ellos lo cocinan y venden.”

Several young respondents also associate the drug problem with poverty and claime that some young people get into drug trafficking to make a living, and then they also start using.

III.2.3 The Role of the State

The interviewer asked respondents about the state of the roads around Waspán, as well as the state of the buses that transport people to other municipalities in the area. Most respondents showed concern for the state of the roads and the lack of maintenance they receive from the government. One local authority mentioned that he has lived in Waspán for 16 years and only remembers the road being worked on four or five times.

101 A local authority also mentioned the need for more buses to accommodate the growing transportation demand. A current member of the city council also complained that transportation is inefficient and that public funds have not been invested properly in maintaining the roads. Other respondents that are common users of public transportation also complained about the quality of the roads and the risk that passengers have to take every day traveling on overcrowded buses on precarious roads for long hours every day. As one interviewee described,

Bueno primero está el camino que está deteriorado, el costo hace unos meses atrás yo di como cincuenta o sesenta córdobas en el precio del transporte y hay un peligro y riesgo en el transportista porque a veces salen un bus o dos buses y siempre van llenos y hasta van guindadas la gente y es un riesgo para esa gente que haya un accidente, muerte y todo eso. Entonces es bastante crítico el caso del transporte aquí en el casi del municipio, diferentes problemáticas hay transporte urbanos que van hacia las comunidades tienen sus rutas igual las carreteras están bien deterioradas.

The collapse of the Sisín bridge has created serious economic issues for Waspán, by affecting ground transportation in and out of the municipality. LAPOP’s interviewer asked respondents about the role of the local and national government in solving these types of problems. Some local authorities reported while the local government has done little to solve the problems, the national government has,

Pues aquí el gobierno local, si hablamos de aquí local no ha hecho nada, incluso ha llevado camiones que ha destruido las calles en vez de ayudar más bien lo arruina…el gobierno nacional si, desde hace quince días comenzaron a reparar, tiene como tres días que los buses pasan normal y se resolvió ese problema.

Resource limitations underlie a weak local response, per an interviewee from a local NGO.

Respondents were also asked to evaluate the role of the police in helping ensue citizen in Waspán. Overall, responses were mostly negative; though a few respondents said they are satisfied with the work the police is doing. There was, however, consensus on the opinion that there are not enough police officers to take care of all the crime problems in the area, a sentiment mirroring that from the focus groups conducted in Waspán. Most respondents, including local authorities, reported having been victims of crime in one way or another.

A local NGO member echoed the complaint that there are not enough police officers in Waspán. As the interviewee explained,

Bueno, sinceramente yo no estoy tan satisfecho, porque en Waspán no hay muchos policías y con esto, no estoy culpando a la autoridad policial porque Waspán es el Municipio más grande de Nicaragua. Waspán cuenta con ciento quince Comunidades, tiene una extensión territorial muy extensa y con eso Waspán, solo cuenta creo que con veintiocho policías y con esa cantidad de policías, teniendo Waspán quince barrios, que respuesta va dar la policía a estos problemas, así que el servicio de las autoridades policiales está muy bajo.

102 A local student also told our interviewer about a negative experience she and her family had with the police,

Relacionado al robo que hubo aquí nosotros llamamos de inmediato a la policía y llamamos y no contestaban y a las dos horas que paso todo vinieron a tomar fotos nada más entonces el señor bien enojado les pregunto: que porque no habían contestado las llamadas y ellos respondieron que simple y sencillamente no tenían autorización de hacer nada, fue una orden que se le bajo entonces por eso no podían hacer nada.

Other Waspán interviewees had more positive views about the role of the police and claimed that they are doing a better job than in previous years.

Perceptions of the justice system are also mostly negative. Almost all respondents had negative opinions about the work that the judiciary system does in Waspán. A local authority mentioned that the local prosecutor left Waspán due to the ethnic conflict and they are still waiting for a replacement. Another local authority blamed the inefficiency of the judicial system for a lack of resources, which causes some cases to be tried in other jurisdictions, like Puerto Cabezas. Some respondents also reported that they perceive the local justice as corrupt.

III.3 Conclusions

Views regarding the armed conflict, crime and violence, and the role of the state according to in- depth interviews conducted in Waspán can be summarized as follows:  The ethnic conflict is an ongoing concern for the majority of respondents. There are varying opinions on the intensity of the violence during the conflict, but most participants agree that unnecessary violence occurred at the end of last year.

 Petty crime is a concern for residents of this area. The general perception is that it has increased as a consequence of drug trafficking/consumption in Waspán. Respondents say that there is moderate gang activity in Waspán, which is also related to drug trafficking.

 Most participants claim that the collapse of the Sisín bridge has had negative implications for commerce as well as security. Additionally, interviewees argued that the roads leading out of Waspán, especially to Puerto Cabezas, are not well maintained, and that public transportation is unsafe.

 Almost all participants complain that there are not enough police officers to tackle the rise on crime in their communities. Overall, trust on the police and the judiciary is very low and many perceive some degree of corruption within both institutions.

103

Part IV. Understanding the Specific Problems of Coastal Municipalities through Focus Groups

104 IV.1 Understanding the Specific Problems of the Northern Coastal Municipalities through Focus Groups

This section presents the principal qualitative findings for each municipality in which focus groups were conducted in RACCN. We focus the subsections below on the most recurring themes observed in the focus groups. The most common participants’ perceptions of the main problems affecting their municipalities are: the sale and use of illegal drugs, crime victimization and insecurity, dissatisfaction with police, domestic violence and violence against women, human trafficking, and ethnic relations and indigenous territory rights. It is important to note that focus group results only represent the opinions of participants and do not necessarily reflect the perceptions of the population of the RACCN region or other municipalities of interest in this baseline study. While not representative of the population as a whole, discussions in the focus groups provide critical insights into perceptions of problems among selected members of the population and enhance our understanding of the dynamics of communities, crime, violence, ethnicity, and other important issues in the region and in this study.

IV.1.1 Puerto Cabezas

Selling and Use of Illegal Drugs and Alcohol Participants perceive a very serious and widespread problem with the sale of drugs in local “expendios”29 and the use of drugs, particularly by youth. One young participant expressed concern saying,

Bueno, en mi opinión el problema más grande en nuestra región es las drogas porque los jóvenes se meten en las drogas y se pierden ahí, ya no pueden salir y en nuestra región las autoridades no piensan hacer nada, de cómo parar esos expendios que hay y dejando hasta ahí, no se ponen las pilas.

Another mirrored this feeling by saying, “Lo de la droga aquí se ha aumentado bastante y ósea los jóvenes son los que más la consumen y no sé hay que cómo ponerle un alto a esto.”

A young participant explained the term “expendio” as follows, “El expendio es donde ellos venden la marihuana, la droga lo que es el crack o como le digan esos son expendios, a lo cual ese personal no descansa sea día o noche madrugada las veinte y cuatro horas tiene que estar vendiendo.”

A participant from the focus group with civil society participants described the root of the drug problem by saying,

Puerto Cabezas es el puente donde existe la presencia de droga, Puerto Cabezas es el puente por donde se transita todos los medio navales, pasan por acá frente a Bilwi, las

29 Expendios by definitions are local shops or stores that sell household essentials. However, among focus group participants of RACCN the term “expendios” was used specifically to reference local places were drugs are sold.

105 autoridades de la policía con la marina de guerra, han incautado drogas en cantidades, dinero en efectivo en cantidades.

Alcohol abuse is also perceived as a serious problem for society, as it is easy to access, even for those underage. As one member of the civil society focus group explained, “Porque más que todo los chavalos están metidos en la droga, y en el alcohol si ellos no toman no hacen nada, y ya cuando están tomados un poquito drogados tienen esa fuerza.” A member of the local authorities described a recent experience,

En una esquina frente al colegio yo vi un grupo de jóvenes allí pero como que algo había sucedido dije yo será que alguien se golpeó, pero el taxi pasó tan cerca yo pude observar de que tenían una bolsa de ron y entre todos estaban tratando de quitar un poquito, poquito, y lo más triste es que había un bebé en medio de ese grupo porque son jóvenes, padres adolescentes y yo dije no puede ser, qué futuro tiene ese bebe si desde a hora ya está en ese ambiente, entonces es preocupante.

Unemployment is referenced as the main cause of the rise in drug sales as it is seen as a viable way of making money, especially for the youth. This has led to the proliferation of expendios in every neighborhood/barrio. As one participant from the focus group with authorities said, “El desempleo es un puente de la droga.” At the same time, the drug problem is cited as the main cause of rising crime, including assaults, robberies, and domestic violence.

Participants expressed particular concern over the drug problem among youth and how they fear it is affecting the family unit and morality of society. This was a particular concern reported by participants of the focus group with civil society members, including one person that said, “la desintegración familiar por la situación de las drogas” was of great worry in Puerto Cabezas. Another participant mirrored this sentiment by saying, “La drogadicción…nos está afectando y no solo es en la calle, hasta dentro de la casa, la familia, con los hermanos, con los vecinos”. As one participant explained, drugs have become so common among young people that, “Ya los jóvenes de ahora no saben lo que es distracción sana cuando [antes] se salían las familias de paseo.”

The drug problem in Puerto Cabezas is perceived as out of control, particularly because participants report that drugs are easy to find. For example, one young participant explained, “Yo he visto hasta en las universidades, en las escuelas secundarias los mismos muchachos llevan droga y le venden al compañero.” Participants also reported the presence of expendios near elementary schools which has increased fear of enrolling children in schools. One participant from the civil society focus group explained,

Al entorno de los colegios ya no hay seguridad porque están vendiendo droga, muchas de las personas que llegan a ofrecer alimento a los alrededores de los colegios son los que facilitan la droga, ya los padres se están dando cuenta de esta realidad y aparte de esto ha habido caso de violaciones por parte de las pandillas en esos sectores.

Another added, “Reina la inseguridad hacia los estudiantes y docentes porque hay muchos alrededor del barrio hay muchos expendios de droga entonces hay robos, delincuencia.”

106 Focus groups participants from Puerto Cabezas blamed police corruption as a main contributing factor in the growth of the drug problem. They claim that police are aware of expendios but they do not do anything about them and that there is impunity for people who run local expendios. One participant from the civil society focus group argued that, “La policía está tan corrupta que autorizan a los expendios que venda tranquilamente, y ellos se van a cobrar el derecho que les dan a los comerciantes que venden droga y se quedan quietos, no sucede nada.” And one young participant reitierated this point about the police saying,

Ellos saben muy bien donde están los lugares…desde que estoy chavalito escucho el nombre y siguen vendiendo. La policía sabe muy bien que ahí se vende, pero no hacen, no buscan mecanismos como poder hacer desaparecer. Ellos dicen que salen…a detener a los narcotraficantes, a los que andan transportando, a esos sí. Pero a los que están dentro de la ciudad que son los más importantes que son los que vienen fregando a la juventud eso no lo resuelven. Entonces creo que hay una debilidad grande de parte de la policía en cuanto al respecto los expendios de drogas.

Another factor participants cite as contributing to the drug problem in Puerto Cabezas is the lack of rehabilitation centers and prevention programs, as well as the lack of government support and resources to combat the drug problem, especially among the youth. One local authority explained,

Nosotros no tenemos aquí un lugar de rehabilitación, nada tenemos, no contamos con un lugar de rehabilitación, de prevención. No estamos trabajando lo suficiente porque no hay organismo que acompañe en la prevención… ¿Cómo podemos hacer de aquí para mandar a rehabilitar en Managua? No tenemos acceso, cuesta demasiado, toda esta situación es muy desfavorable.”

Another participant explained that seized properties and vehicles from drug busts could be used more effectively for drug prevention purposes,

Aquí en Puerto Cabeza hay varias casas, propiedad que entre comilla han quitado y ahí está encerrado, cerrados con candado y tantos niños en las calles, ¿por qué no crear centro para capacitaciones? Ya me entiende, si capturan y quitan los vehículos, ninguno de esos vehículos están aquí, todos están en Managua entonces esos vehículos por lo menos dárselo al Ministerio de Salud, darle al Ministerio de Educación.

Crime Victimization and Insecurity Insecurity is often cited as the most serious problem in Puerto Cabezas. Participants frequently attribute feelings of greater insecurity and experiences with crime to widespread problems with drugs and unemployment. Participants also cite the lack of policing and impunity as reasons for growing criminal activity. As explained by a member of the local authorities,

Aquí no hay seguridad ciudadana, por ningún motivo no hay, y tampoco hay una esperanza de tener una seguridad de los ciudadanos, aquí no hay libre circulación, aquí la gente camina con miedo, los indígenas están refugiándose en las ciudades como en Waspán, como en Bilwi y en otras partes, porque hay temor de que lleguen a matar de noche, hay

107 violaciones a las mujeres, hay un montón de cosas que están sucediendo en Nicaragua, y que el gobierno se hace el ciego, el sordo y todo, que no da atención a nuestra región.

Participants explain that petty theft is extremely common and the frequency of household theft is growing. Armed robberies are common but the types of weapons used are “armas blancas,” such as knives and machetes. As one young participant reported,

En el caso mío el temor que tengo yo fue por mí experiencia vivida a mí me asaltaron a mano armada y fue con arma blanca con un cuchillo entonces el temor de ahora de hoy día nadie puede salir a la calle supongamos que libremente porque tienes que estar como loco volteando a ver quién pasa quien no pasa en un dos por tres te vengan y te apuñaleen o te venga a robar, eso lo que es el robo y los asaltos a mano armada que ellos están haciendo es mi experiencia.”

Participants often report fear of walking in their neighborhoods at night because of the possibility of being robbed or attacked. A participant from the focus group with civil society members of Puerto Cabezas reported that, “A las 6 de la tarde ya no puedes andar en la calle porque ya te asaltan, si tienes un anillo o algo, porque ellos también quieren sobrevivir.” Due to this sense of insecurity, participants reported having to arm themselves to feel safer. Participants said that they walk with machetes and knives, “Aquí todos caminan con machete y cuchillo.” And although this is a measure taken to combat insecurity, it has led participants to feel as though they live in a war zone, as one participant explained, “Pero eso ya no es por seguridad, es una guerra campal.”

The fear of crime is of particular concern for children in school as robberies have increased inside schools and security is lacking in terms of infrastructure and security officers. One member of the civil society focus group explained,

La matrícula era alta pero cada año ahora hace dos tres años atrás, ya viene bajando la matrícula y algunos padres de familia se quejan y no quieren que sus hijos estudien en ese centro escolar por la misma situación de que llegan muchos muchachos vagos a robar la mochila de los niños y asaltan a los docentes que llegan a trabajar.

Violent crimes, like homicides, are much less common and are reported to only take place when rival neighborhood youth, often referred to as gangs, fight. When asked about gang activity in neighborhoods, most report presence of small groups of young men that often engage in fights with rival neighborhoods and participate in armed robberies. Participants of focus groups with at- risk youth and local authorities insisted that rather than organized, identifiable gangs, what people commonly referred to as “pandillas”, only small neighborhood groups are involved in drugs, crime, and fights. A police officer argued that, “Aquí no tenemos pandillas verdad, porque pandilla tiene una estructura, tiene una organización, tiene una dirección.” And as explained by one young participant,

Bueno es extraño de que la pandilla tenga una identidad, todavía no se está dando esa incidencia, bueno porque todos conocemos ya sabemos cuáles son los barrios donde se está dando más incidencia de eso… El Alemán, El Cocal, El Muelle son los más reconocidos aquí, San Judas también, pero que ellos tenga una identidad que diga ‘sos de

108 mi banda’ no todavía no hemos llegado a eso, identificando por medio de señas, tatuajes, todavía no hemos llegado a eso.

Fights between these small groups are often over neighborhood/barrio territory. As one young man explained in reference to youth violence, “Lo que se ve más reflejado es la, como le podríamos decir ‘yo soy más que vos’ o, por territorio, por barrio, yo soy de allá y que, digamos conflictos por pura tontería por pura locura.” One member of the civil society focus group expressed deep concern over these youth fights saying, “Los jóvenes están muriendo aquí, barrio con barrio.” In Puerto Cabezas, this issue was highlighted as a problem that prevents young men from going to school and participating in extracurricular activities out of fear of being threatened or attacked by rival groups. As another young participant explained,

Es peor tener enemigos que usar droga por experiencia propia, cuando tenía enemigos no podía salir ni al esquina, cuando saque mi quinto año fui estudiar en la Universidad BICU y no pude estudiar, hasta momento no he podido estudiar por lo mismo, mis enemigos estaban amenazando mucho.”

A civil society focus group participant reiterated this problem, “Ellos no quieren estudiar porque tienen conflicto con vecinos, con otros del mismo barrio de donde ello están, dicen que no pueden ir a estudiar porque ahí los agarran.

Participants argue that unemployment, along with the proliferation of drug use and sales in Puerto Cabezas are the main causes of increased robberies and overall crime. As a participant of the focus group with local authorities said, “El desempleo como decían algunos compañeros por ahí también tiene que ver mucho en esto, la drogadicción, ustedes y yo sabemos que donde hay droga hay delincuencia, y donde hay delincuencia pues la gente mata, la gente viola.” A civil society focus group participant further explained, “Si al lado de mi casa hay un expendio de droga segurito que me van a robar todas las noches, porque los que consumen la droga no trabajan y quieren dinero van a buscar de dónde sacarlo.” Another participant added,

Tengo que venir saliendo de un callejón después de las seis y ya no cruzo ahí, ni mando a mis hijos hacer los mandados. Yo ya tengo creo más de un año que no voy a misa de noche, aquí hay costumbre que en la iglesia hay misa de noche y ya no voy porque yo sé que voy saliendo pero no sé si voy entrar bien, porque de los otros barrios también cruzan por ahí, y ahí hay un punto donde ellos se mantienen para asaltar.

Dissatisfaction with Police and Law Enforcement Institutions Participants expressed great dissatisfaction and a lack of trust toward the police and the local judicial system in Puerto Cabezas. This was the case even among participants in the focus group with local authorities in which there were three police officers participating. The police are often cited as having knowledge of the location of expendios, but participants report a lack of action to eradicate local drug sales. Even though participants tended to report that the police do respond relatively quickly to calls reporting drug sales, they also say that the police are corrupt and take bribes to allow expendios to remain open or warn expendios when a raid is coming. For example, as one civil society focus group participant said,

109 ¿Por qué la policía no ha podido llegar a cerrar ese expendio de droga? ¿Qué no son las autoridades ellos, para cerrar ese expendio de droga? Y escuchar el llanto y el martirio de esa madre que de noche no puede dormir pensando que su hijo no ha llegado a su casa, y que está pensando que le habrá pasado a su hijo, la policía hace caso omiso a ese tipo de súplica de esas madres de Puerto Cabezas, que ahora se suman comunidades donde hay afectación de drogas.

Another participant added, “La policía debe he hacer su trabajo de eliminar estos expendios, saben dónde están y no se activan, nunca hacen nada.”

Police are seen as incompetent and participants often linked widespread crime to police complicity. A member of the civil society focus group argued that, “No, no es parejo la ley solo protege a la gente que tiene plata y a los delincuentes, la gente normales no tienen.” Another participant added,

El problema se da porque nosotros que somos afectados por los delincuentes a veces no sabemos a dónde ir, porque como todos hablábamos aquí, ir a la policía es perder tiempo, si vamos nos preguntan, nos hacen una entrevista kilométrica, y quieren que vayamos a traer al delincuente en primer lugar.

Participants cite these occurrences as reasons that lead them to distrust the police, as a member of local authorities said, “a mí me asaltan mi celular y yo no recurro a la policía porque no van a resolverme el caso. Lo hice yo personalmente, le llevo un caso a la policía y más bien me quieren retener mi celular.”

Participants repeatedly expressed concern for widespread impunity and lack of consistent patrolling, especially at night. A participant from the youth focus group expressed concern over this issue saying, “En Managua ellos tienen puestos de distritos, ellos le dicen distritos a las ubicaciones de puesto policial, aquí en Puerto no vemos eso, vos te vas donde el retén a altas horas de la noche como a las nueve, diez de la noche y no hay un puesto policial.”

Participants also expressed frustration because although there is a police helpline, it does not work, or the police are nonresponsive to the calls. As one young participant explained, “La policía tiene una línea gratuita, algo que no funciona comenzando por ahí, vos le llamas a la policía diez mil veces, diez mil veces, tal vez una vez te va a contestar entre las 24 horas.”

Participants report that police bribery is very common, particularly as related to police receiving bribes to allow expendios to stay open, and even alert expendios of raids. As cited above, it was very common for participants to report that police had knowledge of the locations of expendios but did nothing about them.

In terms of local courts, participants expressed high levels of dissatisfaction with the number of cases that go unresolved. Participants cite lack of “seguridad jurídica”. A member of the civil society focus group described the problem,

Es mal trabajo que hace el complejo judicial es pésimo, aquí el que tiene dinero es el que tiene su derecho, y el que no tiene dinero aquí, es caso perdido, y para las personas que

110 vienen de la comunidad, le dan un mal trato, por lo que le dicen, venite mañana, mañana, otro día. Las personas se cansan y se van. Y nunca resuelven el caso, y ni siquiera le dan abogado del estado tribunal.

The local judicial system is also seen as politicized, often answering to governing national party interests. As stated by a participant from the focus group with local authorities, “vas a los juzgados y te ven el color político, vas a la policía y te ven el color político.”

Domestic Violence and Violence against Women Domestic violence is reported as very common. A young participant explained,

La violencia intrafamiliares es muy común. Es cierto [que] no hay mucho femicidio por parte de acá, pero parte de estos hombres, pero lo que más se ha visto son los golpes o maltratos físicos sicológicos que le dan no solo a la mujer, tanto a los niños.

A member of the focus group with civil society summarized her opinion on the matter saying,

El tema de violencia intrafamiliar es bastante, casi yo podría decir que existe casi el noventa por ciento, pero se ha hecho un esfuerzo bastante grande en la comisaría de la mujer, antes no existía pero ahora si existe y ha estado trabajando acompañando a las organizaciones que trabaja con las mujeres dentro de las comunidades y los barrios. No se ha podido resolver todos los casos que ha venido haciendo demanda pero si de una forma ha bajado un poquito, tal vez estamos a sesenta por ciento todavía enfrentando esta situación sobre la violencia sexual, eso todavía existe.

A police officer in attendance from Puerto Cabezas expressed serious concern about the problem of domestic violence and assured the group that the police was working hard to combat this issue,

Los delitos relacionados hacia las mujeres, donde las mujeres son víctimas de violencia sexual, física, psicológica, o económica, estos delitos son delitos que están siendo muy priorizados por nuestra institución, inclusive está en nuestro modelo policial, están en el eje. Tenemos ocho ejes de atención ciudadana, este es uno de los ejes en donde nosotros tenemos que darles atención especializada a estos delitos. No solamente la comisaria es la instancia especializada pero este es un elemento, un componente que toda la policía le tiene que dar prioridad a la atención y enfrentamiento de estos delitos.

The main causes the participants point to for widespread cases of domestic violence are drug and alcohol use, as well as a “machista” culture. A local authority argued that, in Puerto Cabezas, “El machismo provoca la violencia, provoca diferente tipos de violencia hacia las mujer.” Although participants often reference growing citizen knowledge of women’s rights and where to go to for help (i.e. Comisaria de la Mujer), the problem of domestic violence persists. One participant from the group with civil society members reported that,

Por la misma droga que los jóvenes solo dedican a buscar marihuana, crack no a trabajar tanto, entonces al consumir la droga en exceso ya comienzan a buscar guaro, más droga y más droga, y a ir a pelear con su mamá, con su hermano, con su papá porque quiere

111 robar algo de la casa, tal vez en la calle no encuentra que robar entonces, eso pasa con los hijos. Ahora con algunos maridos también, cuando el marido usa drogas entonces comienza el problema en el hogar. Eso es normal…se ha convertido en algo normal en las comunidades.

Participants report that domestic violence is particularly common in indigenous communities. One young participant said, “He visto y escuchado por ejemplos esas violencias intrafamiliares se dan más en las comunidades, en aquellas mujeres que no conocen sus derechos todavía ni la leyes.”

One particularly worrisome issue that was reported as a now common occurrence was sexual molestation of young girls by fathers, stepfathers and other male family figures, particularly in smaller and remote Miskitu communities. A young participant reported knowing about these types of cases saying, “Incluso hay padres que les llegan a tener hijos sus propias hijas, es una violencia intrafamiliar y la madre tal vez está de acuerdo por temor a que el hombre la golpee le diga algo, de esos casos se dan más en las comunidades, que las golpeen.” Participants from the civil society group reported something similar, “El incesto es muy común, las violaciones son muy comunes, que tocan las niñas es muy común, es una costumbre, es algo como decir es algo que están en el presente que casi no se le conocen como un delito.” Another person added, “Hay un porcentaje dentro de esos embarazos precoces que vienen de violencias de familias que abuzan a las niñas del mismo tío, primo que las violan sobre todo en las comunidades.”

Some participants also report sexual harassment by employers or professors. For example, one young woman reported, “Yo he visto actualmente que ahora para conseguir un trabajo los jefes quieren que te acostes con él.”

Human Trafficking The issue of human trafficking (“trata de personas”) is a serious and growing problem. The issue was of particular concern among the participants in focus groups with authorities and members of NGOs and civil society. However, young participants also had knowledge of the issue of human trafficking, as explained by one participant,

Yo entiendo por trata de persona, un ejemplo llega usted y me dice que viene de tal parte, que me va a llevar a estudiar a su país, y que me va a dar los estudios etc., etc. Pero resulta que claro, yo tengo que estar de acuerdo me sale la oportunidad me lleva, me manda pero ya estando allá me tienen como tipo esclava o me ponen a prostituir. Si de hecho para no regresar a mi país me quitan documento, mi pasaporte, todo eso para que no regrese ya y teniéndome como esclava y prostituyéndome y sacando un costo de mí, y los señores véndemela, ellos ganan.

Another young participant added,

En mi opinión si se ha visto por lo que hay falta de recursos en las comunidades, viene otros que tienen finca, señores, le gusto la niña viene y le dice a la mamá prácticamente un soborno o a como lo quieren tomar los demás. Viene y le dice le doy tanto pero me voy a llevar a la muchacha y la mamá está de acuerdo y siempre ‘te voy a estar dando mensual tu dinero pero tu hija se tiene que ir conmigo.’ La mama supongamos que acepta porque

112 necesita del dinero y deja que se vaya con él, digamos que la tiene como su pareja la pone como prostituta o la tiene directamente esclavizada dentro de su hogar.

Participants say that cases of human trafficking are known but they are often not reported to the authorities. In fact, a police officer argued that,

Caso objetivo no tenemos, inclusive hemos preguntado cuando andamos en la vista.Yo personalmente he andado en esas comunidades hacemos reuniones, asamblea con los líderes, los Wihta, no recibimos ninguna denuncia de trata de persona, ninguna, esto quiero aclarar ¡verdad! Pero hay como dicen acá ese wisa, wisa,30 pero objetivamente en el lugar ínsito en la población donde nosotros vamos a esos lugares para ver, verificar, levantar diligencia, objetivamente nada.

However, a participant disagreed saying, “la policía lo acaba de decir no tenemos registrado pero está funcionando, está funcionando de la forma más sofisticada.”

Indeed participants report hearing of occurrences of human trafficking mostly of girls and in smaller communities, particularly those of the Río Coco. Cases are attributed to drug traffickers that cross from Honduras to take young men and women to do manual labor and are sexually abused. A participant from the focus group with civil society members explained,

Es un tema de mucha preocupación para todos los padres de familia en la región, sobre todo en las comunidades en las riveras del Río Coco, hemos sabido que han venido las zonas de diversos lugares extranjeros, y que han venido a engañar a las madres de manera fácil y sencilla, porque de alguna manera se apoderan de niñas, niñas menores de edad y que luego están siendo trasladadas a Honduras para comercializarlas, para venderlas o para dedicarlas al sexo, a que presten ese servicio.

Another participant reported knowing about a specific case of human trafficking,

Habían hace unos tres, cuatro años atrás un caso en Waspan que un grupo de jóvenes de la Juventud Sandinista se fueron hacia un taller, eran más o menos como veinte y cinco jóvenes y desaparecieron y después aparecieron aquí en Puerto, con costo lograron liberarlos porque ya estaban en un destino que nadie sabía qué harían, les quitaron celular todos los documentos y después lo más raro es que después desapareció el caso, nadie más percibía porque el caso, quien los llevaba habían los rumores por donde quiera pero nadie estaba como por aclarar la situación.

Participants report a lack of government effort to address the problem of human trafficking and that people resort to selling girls as an economic need. As explained by a member of the civil society focus group,

La misma falta de las presencia de las autoridades correspondientes es el puente para que esta gente se lleve a las niñas entonces, no hay participación de la policía que son la

30 “Rumors” in Miskitu.

113 autoridad que tiene que velar por la seguridad ciudadana y que no se está haciendo a capacidad porque luego esta gente lleva a la niña a la parada de buses, la llevan al muelle, la montan en las embarcaciones que van para Bluefields, Corn Island, o las llevan para el lado de Cabo Gracias a Dios, o las llevan para el Río Coco para cruzarlas a Honduras. Ellos tienen una cadena, una red donde están trabajando de esa manera y eso es de mucha preocupación.

A local authority added, “No hay presencia de las instituciones o de los organismos que puedan atender esos temas, migración no hay, hay policía pero yo no creo lo suficiente para el territorio que es el Rio Coco.”

Ethnic Relations and Indigenous Territory Rights Often, the first cited problem by participants in NGO/civil society and local authorities focus groups was the increasing conflict, often armed and violent, over Miskitu territory rights and the presence of “colonos” (people from the Pacific that invade with apparent legal authority from the central government to buy land that is historically Miskitu territory). Participants report this as a growing problem in recent years and one that is seen as a failure in the judicial system to protect Miskitu human and territory rights. Since most participants identify as Miskitu they report feeling marginalized and disrespected. Participants often reference the Ley 445 that is supposed to protect Miskitu territory rights. They also report a general sense of loss of Miskitu traditions, “pérdida de costumbres y leyes indígenas”.

A participant of the focus group with local authorities of Puerto Cabezas summarized the problem saying,

No hay respeto a la propiedad comunal, a la propiedad de los pueblos indígenas, hay una inestabilidad total, no hay respeto al derecho, no hay respeto hacia la opinión, a la costumbre, a nuestra tradición de los pueblos indígenas de parte del estado de Nicaragua. ¿Por qué? Porque el estado se ha encargado de invadir, de apoyar a los colonos, e invadir a la propiedad de los pueblos indígenas. Ellos no solo vienen y mandan, si no que los apoyan en todo lo que respecta. Aquí no existe la policía, aquí los policías no cubren no dan acompañamiento a la seguridad ciudadana. Hay una inestabilidad en las comunidades, ahorita que las comunidades viven tensionadas. ¿Por qué? Porque los colonos aparte de entrar violentando los derechos como una guerra apropiándose de las tierras indígenas, ahora empiezan a matar a los dueños de las tierras y, ¿qué hace la policía? más bien los acompaña a estos invasores a estos colonos por órdenes quizás del estado, del gobierno.

Another participant added,

Los colonos están invadiendo tierras, esta invasión se debe a la acción de muchas autoridades que están electas a trabajar en favor del pueblo y que ahora se vierten de una manera diferente siendo participe de la corrupción, que hoy se viene originando verdad. Ya tenemos nosotros denuncias escritas en nuestro poder donde se mencionan a varios señores en la comunidad de Sahsa, que están vendiendo tierras y que ahora los comunitarios están demandando que se les devuelva su dinero.

114

A member of the civil society group gave the following example as related to this growing problem,

En el sector de Río Coco en la comunidad La Esperanza hay presencia de colonos armados. Estos colonos entraron a la comunidad disparando armas de guerra como son AKA. Casualmente ahora la misma comunidad se armó con fusiles 22, armas caseras, lanzas, flechas y tienen también escopetas, tratando de dar seguridad a la comunidad. Todo esto conlleva verdad a una inestabilidad en la rivera del Río Coco, dado que hay comunitarios que no están durmiendo, no están descansando en paz, sumándose así la presencia de colonos en la comunidad de Pahara.

Participants expressed particular concern over the violence between these “colonos” and local indigenous people that often leads to deaths. As explained by a local authority,

Hay muertos. Asesinan a personas indígenas y quedan impugne esas muertes, y vemos que cada vez va más en aumento. A veces no nos damos cuenta porque son comunidades muy lejanas, y nosotros que estamos en la ciudad no manejamos lo que está pasando en las montañas grandes que tardan días de salir de adentro para afuera… Los colonos, o sea invasores de tierras indígenas, están asesinando porque son personas que están entrando en tierras indígenas con mucho dinero y con un argumentos bien pesado, y hasta el momento, las autoridades competentes, la policía, el Ejército, la Fiscalía, los jueces, la Corte Suprema de Justicia nadie [actúa]. Todo mundo sentimos que se está en un ambiente de cómo proteger y defender a los invasores de tierras, a los colonos.

Additionally, local authorities that identify as Miskitu say they feel abandoned by higher governmental authorities on this issue of territory rights and regional autonomy. As expressed by one participant,

Nosotros estamos separados, digamos en el sentido de una relación de apoyo, atención desde el nivel central hacia nuestras regiones, ¿ya me entiende? y te digo en esta Costa Caribe, la Región Autónoma Atlántico Sur, estamos en la norte, también hay sus diferencias, ahora todas las atenciones es en lado de Bluefields y Corn Island porque ahí promueven el turismo etc., aquí también hay instituciones que promueven el turismo pero no tienen ni una bicicleta, no tienen ninguna infraestructura.

Moreover, participants report unfair treament of indigenous people affected by territorial invasions, saying,

Solo a los indígenas maltratan la policía le hace eso, no a los a los invasores de tierras. A ellos la policía no los investiga, ni un colono está bajo la reja, detrás de la reja, solo están indígenas. ¿Qué quieren hacer los indígenas? Quieren defenderse solos, y la policía están matando tanto indígena. Nadie escuchó pero sí, mataron a un colono después de que mató a un indígena, lo mataron los comunitarios. Y diario la policía anda investigando quien mató a ese colono, pero ahí no dicen: ¿quién mató a ese indígena? Pero por parte de los indígenas es una persecución por defender sus derechos.

115 Conclusions for Puerto Cabezas According to the opinions of the focus groups in Puerto Cabezas, the use and sale of illegal drugs, the increasing conflict and violent confrontations over Miskitu territory rights, and the sexual crimes and violence are the issues of most concern in the municipality. Participants feel that the drug problem in the municipality is out of control, particularly as related to the use of drugs by the youth and increasing local sales of drugs as a means of income due to widespread unemployment. Participants blame the proliferation of drug use and sales on the lack of police effectiveness in combating illegal drug activities as well as their complicity in taking bribes to allow the local “expendios” to remain active. Participants link the increasing drug problem and unemployment with growing insecurity, armed robberies and youth violence, all of which also is reported to contribute to participants’ lack of trust in the police.

Regarding participants generalized concern over increasing armed conflict over Miskitu territory disputes, most participants felt personally affected by the gravity of the situation as most of them self-identified as belonging to the Miskitu ethnicity. Participants reported widespread sentiments of disrespect and violations of Miskitu rights, both territorial and cultural, by local and national authorities.

Participants in Puerto Cabezas also expressed serious concern with the pervasiveness of domestic violence, particularly as related to the sexual molestation of young girls, as well as the number of human trafficking cases that go unreported and uninvestigated by authorities. Despite increased resources for women who are victims of domestic abuse, violence against women by husbands is reported as very common and is often reported as the result of alcohol and drug abuse. However, one of the most pressing concerns for participants is the high number of cases of sexual molestation of young girls by father, stepfathers and other familiar male figures. These cases most often go unreported as do cases of human trafficking, which are reported as most likely to take place long the Río Coco where there is a lack of border patrolling efforts.

IV.1.2 Waspán

Selling and Use of Illegal Drugs Focus group participants in Waspán report the sale and use of illegal drugs as very common in the municipality. The problem is of particular concern among the youth. As one young participant explained, “este año se ha empeorado, porque la misma droga aparte de eso, los muchachos no tienen nada que hacer, y la delincuencia se ha aumentado, por lo que algunos chavalos, hay algunos jóvenes que son alumnos también ellos llevan licor a sus clases.” Another young particpant reported knowing of peers who often sell drugs in parks where youth gather to play soccer,

Aquí yo conozco a ciertos chavalos aquí a veces vienen a jugar y si vos los observas de largo ellos caminan en el bolso, en la bolsa mochila, ellos lo caminan ellos vienen y hacen su negocio aquí, ellos vienen venden en la calle hacen su billetito y se van otra vez para la casa, y aquí prácticamente como ella decía los compañeros policía manejan bien, perfectamente pero solo los quedan viendo y se van.

116 Participants often expressed the lack of effective action by local police and national armed forces to address what they perceive as an uncontrollable problem. In comparing Waspán to Managua, a local authority argued,

En Managua a cada rato viven quebrando esos expendios aquí nadie quiebra un expendio, todo mundo está bien calladito, estos expendios van creciendo y con el perdón y el respeto de los compañeros policías, ellos saben perfectamente quienes son los que trafican aquí, y no hacen nada, ¿por qué no lo hacen?, ¿qué está pasando?, ¿a quién tienen comprado?, ¿por dónde van?, ¿quién tiene el problema? No sé si ellos lo saben, pero ese problema necesita ser resuelto aquí en la Costa Atlántica.”

A young participant agreed with this sentiment, “Se han aumentado muchos expendios de drogas, y lo peor de aquí es que la gente sabe quiénes son los que venden droga y no hace nada la policía.” Another person added that the pervasiveness of local drug sales had reached even far away indigenous communities, “Aquí ahora en las comunidades hay muchos expendios de aquí hasta Ulwas hasta Bismuna, de estos expendios la policía sabe y nunca hacen nada.”

Another concern expressed by participants was the perceived lack of local resources, such as rehabilitation centers to help young drug users. One young participants expressed his concern saying, “Aquí debería de haber un centro de rehabilitación como en Managua, porque los jóvenes se están exponiendo mucho al peligro… Debería de haber un centro de rehabilitación para que cambien a esos jóvenes para que no sigan.”

Participants explain the pervasiveness of drugs in Waspán as a consequence of the municipality’s proximity to drug trafficking activity across the border with Honduras. Participants were particularly concerned with the lack of governmental action to patrol and control the border with Honduras from whence most drugs are reported to enter their communities. Drug traffickers across the border with Honduras are reported as being heavily armed and often threatening residents of the Río Coco on the Nicaragua side that cross over in search of day jobs. As one young participant acknowledged, “hace poco estaban pasando una nota por la noticia de que el Rio Coco es ruta principal del transporte de las drogas.” A participant from the civil society focus group explained,

“Hablando del expendio, sabemos muy bien que no es un municipio muy grande y a la vez vulnerable pero estamos de frente a una zona fronteriza que la mayor parte de la drogas vienen de abajo de Rio Coco abajo pero, ¿qué es lo que pasa?, al entrar aquí a Waspán es una vía libre.

A police officer attributed the ability of drugs to reach Waspán as due to the lack of immigration authorities, saying,

No hay un lugar que controla a la gente que son fuera de aquí de nuestro lugar, que son ¿cómo le dicen? migración, no hay migración, no hay un control y con la poca fuerza que tenemos nosotros la policía, entonces ahí le da el poder a los que trafican, a los que traen drogas, le dan más espacio para que hagan su trabajo. En ese aspecto a la policía la tienen un poco de manos cruzada para trabajar uno, otro, cuando uno quiere actuar por ejemplo allanar una casa, dice que la policía no puede ir sin ningún documento, mientras no traiga

117 documentos usted no puede entrar en mi casa, me tenes que presentar o si no el que sale demandado es la policía.”

Another important factor that perceived by participants as leading to the increase in the use and sale of illegal drugs is unemployment. A participant from the local authority described the situation by saying, “La situación más sentida por el pueblo o por los comunitarios, primero es el desempleo, pero el desempleo nos lleva a diferentes actos negativos…eso conlleva a diferentes conductas, muchos chavalos se han enfocado en las drogas.”

Participants often linked the problem of drugs to increased insecurity and crime. One participant belonging to the local authorities argued that, “La delincuencia ha aumentado por la introducción de droga. Ahora los jóvenes que usan drogas no respetan como decía el alcalde, a líderes comunitarios, ni a los policías respetan porque usan droga. Para mí, el problema más grande es la introducción de las drogas.” A civil society group member reported that, “Por donde yo vivo hay expendio de droga. Yo ahora en la noche ni si quiera camino en la iglesia, si porque entran los ladrones los que usan la droga entran y salen y uno ya no puede andar con libertad.”

Just as participants in Puerto Cabezas reported, participants in Waspán felt that the drug problem among youth is affecting the family unit and morality of society. As one young participant explained,

Muchos niños sufren. Por ejemplo por mi barrio hay un expendio de droga en donde los niños más pequeño son los que sufren porque la mamá de día venden droga, de noche salen a ganarse la vida de la prostitución, después los niños a altas horas llegan los hombres quieren droga, no hay, golpean a los niños a la una, dos de la madrugada se oyen escuchar llorar a los niños, y son niños cuidando a sus hermanitos, a sobrinitos y si no los cuidan los maltratan y no les dan educación entonces los niños también salen bien afectados con esta situación de la droga.

Crime Victimization and Insecurity Insecurity and crime were often reported as the most serious issue facing the municipality of Waspán, particularly as a consequence of unemployment and drug abuse. As a young participant explained,

Es el desempleo. Por el desempleo que hacen los políticos, porque los políticos si vos no eres de un partido no te dan trabajo. Uno tiene que ser de un partido del Frente o de Yatama porque si no vas con ninguno entonces quedas en el aire porque no te dan trabajo. Eso es lo que surge la delincuencia y el robo, porque otros jóvenes tienen sus familias, pero sin embargo no tienen como mantenerlos, [entonces] es cuando ellos ya empiezan a robar o asaltar es cuando ello ya tienen que buscar la manera de sobrevivir.

A participant from the civil society focus group also expressed concern over unemployment, “El otro problema más grande como dice el desempleo total aquí en el municipio estamos cero, creo que del 100% de la población indígena, trabaja el 20% los profesores.” In terms of the perception of drugs as a cause of increased crime, a local authority member explained, Para mi puede ser la raíz, ese es el que induce hacer todos estos delitos, porque el drogadicto es como que siente una

118 necesidad cuando no tienen dinero, lo que hacen ir a robar para satisfacer esa necesidad que tiene, para mí eso es la raíz de todo esto.

Robberies were reported as the most common type of crime. A young participant described the situation in her neighborhood, “La delincuencia ha ido incrementado cada vez más y no solo de noche sino que también a plena luz del día hay andan los delincuentes, el barrio donde yo vivo es un barrio bien transitado casi puro comercio y tanto niños y adultos son los delincuentes.” Another participant described a recent incident in which she was robbed, “Si hace poco iba en compañía de una amiga y unos muchachos en bicicletas que iba nos asaltó me quito el teléfono celular y las bicicleta ni son de ellos son bicicleta robado y ahora se ponen hasta máscara en la cara.”

Moreover, participants also reported that armed robberies by outside community residents have been increasing. For example, one participant from the civil society focus group explained,

En el caso de los robos a las casas hay una nueva modalidad que es a caballo, los comunitarios vienen de Ulwas, Saupuka usan los caballos como para engañar a la gente que no andan, o sea ya no escuchas pasos de personas escuchas de animales y esa es la nueva modalidad.

A local authority expressed a similar concern,

Soy el fundador de este barrio, y he visto muchas cosas, he escuchado también pero aquí los ladrones vienen de la comunidades cercanas de Kisalaya, Laguntara y Wiswis, ellos tienen sus días de venir, cada quince días o diez días, vienen para robar bien armados, esto es un problema grande y la policía no se hace nada ni ha podido controlar.

Juvenile crime and violence were reported as the most serious threats to citizen security. Participants link this issue with the growing drug problem and gang activity. One civil society focus group member reported that,

Ahorita se puede decir que uno ni en su propio barrio está seguro, porque viene pandilla de otros barrios a ser daño a su barrio donde vos estas, ahí es a veces donde se miran y confrontan entre pandillas de un barrio y el otro, tal vez los muchachos que son así vagos por decir esa palabra de tu barrio pero te conocen, pero si vienen otros de otros barrios no te respetan te pueden hacer cualquier daño.”

However, it is important to note that, like in Puerto Cabezas, the description of “pandillas” in Waspán is also in reference to neighborhood groups of young men that often fight others from rivaling neighborhoods rather than organized groups typically described as gangs.

One of the main concerns among participants regarding the increase in juvenile crime is that laws protecting those that are underage make any crime fighting efforts very difficult. As one participant explained,

119 Como la delincuencia se da más con los muchachos jóvenes uno pone la denuncia pero por la edad dicen que no pueden hacer nada, no hay justicia que sea especialmente para la niñez y la juventud. En Puerto yo sé que hay, pero aquí a nivel local no, entonces si agarran al muchacho, retardan la justicia no pasan la información y por el mismo tiempo que pasa dicen que ya pasaron las setenta y dos horas y lo dejan libre o a veces es menor de edad y no podemos apresarlo dicen, creo que sería necesario crear un juzgado de adolescentes.

Participants expressed fear of crime particularly at night due to lack of street lighting and police patrols. One young participant reported that, “Solo los días domingos también me puedo sentir un poquito segura porque mi casa es en un barrio pero ya de los días de semana aunque sean los días de noche estoy insegura porque no se sabe a qué hora es que puede suceder algo.” A participant from the civil society group added,

La delincuencia cada día ha venido aumentando y hasta el momento cuando son las siete de la noche no puedes salir a la calle, si yo quiero salir a la calle tengo que salir acompañado de tres personas más debo de llevar hielera, caña, cuchillo, cutacha todo lo que se ocupa en el mar porque hay tres personas ahí adelantito preparándose para atacar ellos se creen todo, si alguien anda con una bolsa tal vez papeles creen que tiene dinero lo asaltan, asaltan a las mujeres, asaltan a los niños que andan en bicicleta, asaltan a quien sea.”

Another participant representing local authorites described that,

Por ejemplo a veces yo voy a salir bastante tarde de la oficina y está, bueno ahorita que vaya por ejemplo está súper oscuro súper, súper oscuro, en las noche en todas las calles por donde quiera yo entrar está oscuro, entonces que ahí siempre hay una esquinita donde siempre están los asaltantes porque está oscuro, y las casas son apartadas entonces cuando yo grito ni tiempo me va a dar de gritar por ejemplo, si tengo luz afuera de mi casa es por esfuerzo entre los vecinos que hicimos los postes, y los hoyos y luego logró llegar el cable pero de ahí más adelante no hay alumbrado público en la calle, entonces solo lo que yo tengo en mi patio es lo que puedo alumbrar pero de ahí el resto no, entonces eso me provoca una inseguridad está súper oscuro, y los ladrones andan rodeando en todos eso lados.”

Dissatisfaction with Police and Law Enforcement Institutions Participants in Waspán reported widespread dissatisfaction with police and law enforcement institutions. Not only do participants, including police officers that participated in the focus group with local authorities, report that there are not enough officers to cover the municipality, but they are report that police lack training, equipment, and financial assistance. Participants tended to report lack of police patrols, particularly at night. Participants not only blame local government for this, but lack of attention by the national government. Regarding the lack of police resources, as reported by a civil society group member, La policía no tiene medios, no hay transporte para movilizar.” A police officer added,

120 Con la poca fuerza que estamos no basta para dar esa seguridad tanto en Waspan, tanto en las comunidades. A veces da problemas por ejemplo, están dando en un barrio, somos dos, tres policías y estamos dando cobertura en un barrio y otro barrio no podemos dar cobertura, salen dos a misión, uno de estos que estamos en total somos treinta y dos policías, de los treinta y dos policías, son cinco policías que tienen que mantener en San Carlos, porque hay un puesto ahí, entonces ahí tiene, de esos treinta y dos tienen que ir cinco allá, de esos cinco tiene que estar relevando cada mes entonces, ahí no podemos, no basta para dar cobertura a otras comunidades que tenemos que ir a dar cobertura, entonces no basta.

Another police officer added,

Aquí es el municipio más grande de Nicaragua, ahorita estamos cuatro aquí, en la calle no hay patrullas. ¿Por qué? No hay policías ahorita, y para atender esos de mi parte yo pienso, la población me mira a mí, me llama y después me pone las quejas yo solito atender esos diecinueve mil personas difícil, difícil, aquí necesitamos más, y nosotros unos en las asambleas y en las reuniones le decimos, les explicamos a la gente sobre las dificultades que tenemos nosotros, pero la gente siempre quiere respuesta de nosotros.

In terms of police unresponsiveness, one local authority reported,

Yo soy juez comunal del barrio Carlos Fonseca, uno de los quince barrios más peligrosos, en ese barrio hay muchos jóvenes malos hay veces pasan problema y yo por querer apoyar aconsejar para que no roben, más sin embargo me pegaron los mismos maleantes, fui a la policía a poner la denuncia pero siempre decía venite mañana, y fui al juez local a la fiscalía, desde el 29 de mayo no pudieron resolver el caso, hasta que me di cuenta que mi expediente estaba engavetado en la oficina, tuve que forzar y entrar a la oficina y tuve que exigir para que resuelvan el caso. Eso es un problema grande, ahora tenemos miedo y temor de enfrentar a los delincuentes porque nadie nos protege, la policía peor nunca hace nada.

Similarly, a civil society group member reported, “Hace dos semanas entraron a robar a mi casa, se llevaron todo, puse la denuncia a la policía y no hicieron nada, aquí en Waspán no hay ley, la ley existe solo en papel, esto es un problema grande por lo que no hay control hacia los expendedores.”

One of the major obstacles for policing in Waspán is that police officers are known residents of the municipality, and since the population of the area is quite small, police officers are often personally threatened and targeted by criminals when they are off duty. As one young participant said, “Los policías son del municipio, y digamos que cierto días andan de civil, están amenazados.” As explained by a member of the civil society focus group,

Son amenazados porque yo recuerdo que hace diez, quince años habían policías aquí de Siuna, Bonanza, Puerto todo si miran un bolo lo agarran lo arrastran lo llevan y lo meten, pero como estos policías son de aquí, lo agarran después al día siguiente…Así le pasó a una policía, casi le queman la casa, se levantó hacer sus necesidad la tía y cuando miró

121 en llamas la casa. Ya me entiende hasta ese extremo hay aquí y ahorita solo la mayor parte [de las policías] son mujeres.

The police are also accused of complicity with local drug sales and taking bribes to allow expendios. As reported by a young participant, “La policía no hace nada porque la policía es también cómplice de los expendios de droga, y al final también le pagan a la policía para que no digan nada, porque la policía sabe muy bien quienes son pero al final no hacen nada.” A member of the civil society focus group added,

Los mismos policías conocen donde venden droga, cuantos expendios de droga hay en una reunión nos dijo…aquí hay treinta y cinco expendios de drogas [y] conocen perfectamente, pero, ¿por qué ellos no llegan a detener ese expendio de droga?... fuimos a la casa donde vende droga y nosotros como toda autoridad [comunitaria] fuimos a decir,’ mire señora venimos porque tenes esos productos aquí, por favor deje eso,’ y sabe que nos dijo lo tengo escrito ahí, sabe que nos dijo mira que andan haciendo ustedes si yo caigo preso mañana salgo, porque la misma policía sabe, y yo les pago a ellos les doy su coima, ellos reciben su tajada.

Domestic Violence and Violence against Women Rape and femicide are reported as some of the most common types of crimes in this area, but other types of domestic violence are also reported. In reference to rape, a local authority expressed concern saying, “Hay un peligro grave para las adolescentes que están en la calle que son las violaciones de parte de los hombres mayores.” In terms of other types of physical abuse, a young participant argued,

Eso si aquí es muy común ya pudiera catalogar como un problema de salud pública, porque usted llega en el hospital van maltratada, dicen que los van a meter preso, los meten preso pero ellas mismas se encargan de llevarle la comida, de atenderlo en la cárcel, después retira la denuncia y se lo lleva a su casa para que vuelva el maltrato hacia ella y los niños.

Local authority participants reported that, despite efforts to increase women’s access to legal and health resources to escape domestic abuse, the problem persists. One member of the civil society group explained,

Nosotros estamos en una organización de mujeres apoyándolos, y estamos tratando de cómo apoyar a las víctimas a que vayan, o sea enseñar, ¿cómo es que se llama? La ruta de acceso a la justicia, al hacer eso los agresores lo que hacen es amenazarnos a nosotros como parte del plan. Por estar informando, ayudando, entonces qué pasa con la violencia aumenta más, y la persona, la víctima ya siente miedo y no puede acudir a las instancias superior para pedir ayuda, siempre sigue en esa violencia que vive, eso sí lo he vivido. Los maltratos infantiles que existen aquí bastante, entonces todo eso, es lo que he vivido.

The main causes that participants report for widespread cases of domestic violence are drug and alcohol use, as well as a “machista” culture. As explaned by a young participant,

122 La violencia intrafamiliar también viene de unos hombres que tienen vicio, también son consumidores de droga, entonces llega donde la esposa le pide dinero y cuando ella se niega a darle el dinero la golpean la maltratan o a sus hijos también los maltratan y por medio de la droga. De la misma droga es que hacen eso, entonces de ahí viene la violencia intrafamiliar también.

A local authority representative added,

Entre pareja hombre, mujer si hay bastante [violencia], porque unos tienen el mismo problema de droga, después el licor también, algunos hombres tienen la mañas de irse a tomar licor y cuando ya terminan los riales van a la casa llega preguntando al niño por la mamá, llaga dando golpes y dice que no hay violencia, van los golpes, la agrede, después sicológicamente.

A civil society group member disagreed with this, saying, “Yo creo que el alcohol y las drogas no son las razones principales de la violencia intrafamiliar, es el machismo arraigado en cada hogar.”

Participants also report the widespread sexual molestation of young girls by fathers and stepfathers and other male figures known by the victim. Participants expressed high concern for these types of cases because they go unreported to and unpunished by authorities. As reported by civil society focus group participant,

Yo tengo un poquito de acceso con la forense acá y los casos más comunes acá son padrastros que violan a las niñas, eso se ha vuelto bastante común en vecinos violando a niñas, eso la gente no lo ve, la gente no platica mucho de eso, pero el forense revisa bastante casos de ese tipo.

In fact, participants explained that in many cases of rape in indigenous communities, the issue is “settled” through some sort of payment, often in the form of goods or cattle. For example, a young participant explained, “Cuando se dan violaciones, lo que hacen es les dan una vaca o un cerdo a cambio de no caer preso, ahí se arreglan con los jueces [comunitarios].”

Young participants also reported sexual harassment in schools and the workplace. For example, on participant explained,

Estudiantes que vienen de las comunidades y los docentes se aprovechan dicen que a cambio de sexo les van a regalar notas, o si no, si han reprobado a cambio de un favor sexual hacen que ellas pasen y no ven su capacidad. Si no otra clase extra, en el trabajo también, aquí en la cuestión laboral hay mucho acoso sexual por parte de los jefes te dicen si te acostas conmigo mantienes tu empleo, por esa parte también hay muchos jóvenes que prefieren no pedir empleo porque saben que hay personas que tienen esa actitud.

Human Trafficking Human trafficking was repeatedly mentioned as another very frequent type of crime in Waspán.

123 It is not often officially reported to authorities but there was consensus among focus group participants that human trafficking happens often, especially in communities of the Río Coco. The most common case reported was the selling of girls to drug traffickers across the Río Coco in Honduras for sexual exploitation. One young participant reported knowing about these types of cases, “Ahí mismo se da la trata de niñas, la venta de niñas, por la misma necesidad por falta de empleos niñas se venden.” Another added,

Las familias mismas por un ingreso económico porque piensan que esos narcotraficantes van a mantener bien a sus familias, y si uno les reclama a ellas entonces ya viene las matanzas, ahorita ese es el problema serio, el ejército está regado en esas comunidades por temor a que los otros vengan y si cruzan aquí dicen que los van a fusilar.

Another young participant even reported witnessing an event,

“En el rio, en todo el rio en un viaje que fuimos para Cabo Gracias a Dios una muchacha de catorce años llega un panguero, el panguero que nos llevó negocio con el papá se la llevó por ochocientos pesos a la muchacha, todo el viaje se pasó aprovechando y ya cuando el ya no quería la llevó a Cabo Gracias a Dios ahí él ya no la quería.

Members of the civil society focus group also reported cases,

De las comunidades las organizaciones de mujeres que vienen de río arriba son las que están denunciando bastante los casos donde los narcotraficantes llegan y compran a las niñas vírgenes, les pagan a los papá cierta cantidad de dinero por esa chavala cuando la chavala, cuando la chavala a ellos les gusta y ya no es virgen le pagan otra cantidad, luego se la llevan para lado de Honduras ha habido casos que las familias no saben qué pasó con ellas, han habido casos que después de que ya las usan las traen de nuevo a las comunidad.

However, many participants in Waspán also talked about the exploitation of boys and girls that come from remote Miskitu communities to live with families in Waspán to be closer to schools. These children and teenagers are forced to do housework for the families they live with in exchange for room and board. As a local authority explained, “Y entonces tiene que estar estudiando, trabajando, trabaja haciendo los trabajos domésticos de la casa, y muchas veces son abusadas por los hombres de la casa.”

One of the major problems participants reported as exacerbating human trafficking is the lack of immigration monitoring on the border with Honduras. Likewise, lack of employment and general poverty are said to lead families and girls to be tricked into exchange for goods or money. One example reported by a member of the civil society focus group involved the forced marriage of a girl in exchange for money,

Un caso de Kisalaya donde la mama está obligando a la muchacha a casarse con un muchacho que no es de la comunidad, solo porque le lleva queso, que le ayuda a sembrar en sus parcelas….Hay otro caso de otra muchacha que la trajeron de otra comunidad donde ella tuvo que huir porque la mamá la estaba presionando que se case con un señor

124 de ahí entonces ahora ella se viene y la mamá le mando a decir que está bien pues, si ella no se quieren casar con ese hombre que no importa que la hermana pequeña se tiene que casar, porque el hombre ya le ha dado cosas a ellos a cambio de esa muchacha.

Ethnic Relations and Indigenous Territory Rights The invasion by “colonos” into Miskitu territory and the lack of true indigenous autonomy were problems reported primarily by members of NGOs and civil society groups in Waspán. As one member of the civil society focus group said, “Por el momento en todo el municipio el problema más grande es la invasión de los colonos.”

Participants expressed anger because they felt forced to accept outsiders into their indigenous territories. Another participant from the civil society group explained,

Los indígena Miskitu no manejamos lo que es coexistencia y cohabitación, pero los grandes políticos detrás de la mesa detrás del pueblo sacó ese famoso cohabitación, ahorita nosotros nos estamos organizando el pueblo ahorita nos vamos a levantar porque nuestros ancestrales nos han dejado esta tierra, ahorita el problema de los colonos nos está terminando nuestro corazón de Nicaragua.

Yet participants acknowledge that the reported problem of invasion by “colonos” is rooted in “legal” permissions and territory rights granted by local and central governments. One participant explained,

Yo he viajado algunas comunidades de San Carlos y a esos lados donde la gente misma ha dicho los papeles que andan los colonos están firmados por X o Y persona tanto de un bando como el otro, incluso un señor que es colono me dijo; me enseñó me platicó la ruta que ellos hacen para poder entrar a X lugar quien les da el papel como hace aquella persona todo, todo desde que llega al registro civil la persona que le vendió, todo me lo contó.

As in Puerto Cabezas, participants in Waspán linked the problem of “colonos” with increased violence, saying,

Si usted se mete por todos los llanos por el monte, toda esas montañas se han metidos esa gente que han venido del pacifico y no son gente sana, son gente delincuente, que han asesinado, que han robado y se han venido a meter aquí en las montañas de la Costa Atlántica. Y el problema, esos colonos son los que estoy diciendo, esos son los que ahorita están trayendo la violencia más peor, terrible, porque las comunidades se están levantando a defender lo que les pertenece y esta gente se han venido a meter así, y se ha visto que gran parte de las personas son delincuentes han venido corriéndose de las autoridades.

Conclusions for Waspán Similar to those from Puerto Cabezas, participants from Waspán report problems related to the use and sale of illegal drugs as among the most important for the municipality. Participants also link the drug problem to increased crime, but they place more emphasis on the growing sale of drugs within indigenous communities. Participants from Waspán also expressed more concern in

125 comparison to those from Puerto Cabezas over the lack of police and military patrolling of the Honduran border given that the Rio Coco is a well-known route for drug-traffickers. As in Puerto Cabezas, participants in Waspán linked the drug problem to growing insecurity and unemployment, as well as lack of police action. Likewise, lack of trust in the police was not only expressed as a being consequence of their ineffectiveness in combating drugs and crime, but also due to both corrupt practices by the police as well as an under-resourced police force.

Participants in Waspán also reported feeling very insecure in their neighborhoods, especially at night, for fear of being robbed or physically assaulted. Juvenile crime, as in Puerto Cabezas, was also an important element of perceptions of insecurity in Waspán.

Perceptions of the pervasiveness of sexual violence Waspán were similar to those of participants in Puerto Cabezas. Domestic violence and the sexual abuse of young girls are viewed as a common occurrence, and most participants reported personally witnessing cases of human trafficking. Participants also reported domestic violence as being largely linked to alcohol and drug abuse.

Like in Puerto Cabezas, the reported invasion of “colonos” into Miskitu territory and violent confrontations as a result of these territorial disputes was also perceived as one of the most important problems facing Waspán.

IV.1.3 Bonanza

Selling and Use of Illegal Drugs Participants in Bonanza reported drug and alcohols abuse as one of the most worrying problems in the area. According to a young participant, “Los jóvenes aquí lo que más se están enfrentando es a la drogadicción.” In general, these problems are perceived as having worsened in recent times and are more severe in Bonanza relative to other areas of the mining triangle. As mentioned by a member of local authorities, “El tema del alcohol ha aumentado… Bonanza en alcoholismo ganamos más que en otros municipios.” A participant from the civil society focus group said that, “Bonanza era sana, pero hoy en día lo que es la droga y el alcohol lo tienen terminado” y que “el licor aquí en Bonanza ha hecho destrucciones.” Participants of the youth focus group expressed that use of drugs as also worsened, especially as the age of first time user is now younger. One person indicated that, “Han empeorado más lo el alcohol, todo el día de la semana pasan bebiendo.” Another person added, “En el caso de mi barrio, hay bastantes niños que son de 12, de 13 para arriba que consumen bastante.”

Participants associate this increase in drug and alcohol abuse with increased migration of people to Bonanza, and in general to the mining triangle, who are attracted by gold mining. Participants say that the migrant population comprises mostly young people who work in “Güirisería" (artisanal mining). One participant from the civil society focus group reported that, “Nosotros vemos la gente nueva que viene a nuestro municipio, ese es un mal reflejo a nuestro municipio, ese es un montón de borrachitos sucios sin aseo personal pidiéndole al que pase: regálame 5 córdovas, una media, entonces eso da un mal aspecto en la ciudadanía.” As explained by another participant,

126 Los jovencitos andan metidos en esos hoyos, no se meten por meterse, son jóvenes que andan drogados…el 95% de los güiriseros son personas jóvenes, son personas que están ahí en ese rango de edad, si son ellos quienes realizan la principal actividad económica del municipio y son ellos quienes tienen los recursos lógicamente, ellos son los que gastan el dinero y lo gastan de manera inadecuada.

A participant from the local authorities in Bonanza reported that, “Hemos platicado con muchos de estos jóvenes, ellos dicen que mientras no chupan [beben alcohol], no jalan [se drogan], no producen oro; tienen que estar con droga, tienen que estar con alcohol.”

Participants perceive that alcohol and drugs have significant effects on public safety. As mentioned by one local authority member, “La violencia va creciendo día a día y si se le hace un chequeo general a esta persona que ha cometido esta alto crimen, está fusionado con alcohol y drogas.” Focus group participants associated the use of drugs and alcohol with the increase of crimes such as robberies, murders, and domestic violence. As mentioned by a participant from the civil society group, “Además de eso, eso crea la misma inseguridad en los barrios, en las comunidades, porque ya la persona tomada, ya drogada, ya no es la misma, es violente, es irrespetuosa, y eso crea una inseguridad en la ciudadanía.” One young participant reported that, “a la gente en el puente, allá como en mi barrio, se lo consumen todo y después se ponen a asaltar a la gente, lo golpea, le roba, si no lo pueden apuñalar.”

Young participants also reported that drunk or drugged people often resort to criminal extremes. For example, one participant said that, “La persona desea que inhala, ese se dio, se atrevió a asesinar a otra persona solo por satisfacer sus necesidades, sólo por andar fumando marihuana”. Las autoridades reportan hechos similares: “como le decía anteriormente, los asesinatos, si hacen un estudio médico, la persona presenta alcoholismo, sino drogas.”

Participants from Bonanza explained that one of the main consequences of alcoholism and drug addiction can be observed in reports of domestic violence. Participants from authorities, youth, and civil society focus groups all established a link between alcohol, drugs, and violence, particularly violence against women. One person from the focus group with local authorities argued that, “La drogadicción conlleva a la violencia, muchas mujeres callan cuando los maridos las golpean tomados porque ya bueno y sano son otra cosa.” Another participant offered a similar opinión, “Y eso [el alcoholismo] ha venido a provocar consecuencias fatales porque de ahí se derivan los problemas del hogar, las familias separadas, los hijos abandonados, trabajo de la niñez, violencia”.

Finally, participants disapproved of the work of authorities in trying to solve the drug problem. For example, in the focus group with civil society members it was stated that, “Hay mucha pasividad por parte de nuestras autoridades”, while another participant added, “Los que venden drogas tienen contacto con la policía, tienen un enlace con la policía porque hay personas que tienen un expendio que todo el mundo sabe que ahí venden droga y llegan los cateos de la policía y nunca encuentran nada.” Nevertheless, a person from the focus group with local authorities emphasized that, “La policía está implementando un plan bolo [ebrio], que los están recogiendo todos los fines de semana y después los mandan a hacer trabajos en beneficio de la comunidad.”

127 Crime Victimization and Insecurity Participants say crime is a general problem in Nicaragua, but one that is also perceived to be increasing. In the focus group with civil society members in Bonanza, a participant said, “Yo creo que es un problema general [el crimen y la delincuencia], yo creo que nos afecta a todos los municipios.” Among young participants, it was said that, “Ha aumentado, el asesinato ha aumentado.” A participant from the civil society focus group reported that, “De unos 10 años a acá ya realmente es una inseguridad peligrosa, está más peligroso, ya no se puede salir a ninguna parte porque ya si usted compra algo, miran billete, lo esperan allá adelante, lo pueden hasta matar.”

When participants were asked about the most common types of crimes, they generally mentioned murders and robberies. One participant said, “Es raro de que un fin de semana o mediados de la semana no maten a alguien y generalmente las víctimas en la mayoría son las mujeres”. That is, murder is reported as being strongly linked to domestic violence. The fear of fatal attacks seem to be widespread, as one young person reported, “Aquí no puede salir, no es seguro aquí de noche, porque ya nos ponen el cuchillo, sino le entregan lo que andan, le meten el cuchillo.”

Regarding theft, participants expressed a great fear of street crime, and that this fear limited their movements at certain times of day and in certain sectors of the district. A focus group participant from Bonanza’s local authorities said that, “Nosotros por seguridad en la familia, nadie sale después de las 6 y media.” Another person from the group with civil society members said, “No, no me siento seguro por eso no me gusta salir por la tarde.” And a participant from the group with youth indicated that, “No me siento segura porque tengo que comprar así algo, y ahorita no hay luz y ahí se mantienen puro hombres y se mantienen fumando.”

One of the most common crimes reported by participants was home robbery. As mentioned by a local authority, “El más frecuente es el domiciliar, porque le roban, esos ladrones son profesionales porque le roban lo que pueden vender rapidito.” In the focus group with civil society members, someone reported that, “Se meten a robar no sé cómo pero a la gente la duermen de forma que no se dan cuenta.” And one young participant expressed that, “Ya no podemos estar seguros en nuestro hogar [porque] una casa se cierra con candado por fuera…entonces rompen el candado y se meten, se roban más que todo la ropa para venderla.”

Another crime that is also perceived as common is rustling. A local authority member mentioned that, “El mayor indicio en los delitos y las denuncias de Bonanza según reporte de la policía nacional, tanto a lo que hace Bonanza y el triángulo minero, son los delitos de abigeato.” Some first-hand accounts were reported. For example, in the civil society focus group, one participant recounted how, “A él [su suegro] se le comieron como 5 animales, incluso ahí en la misma propiedad de él, como a 50 metros de donde él duerme, lo pelaron al animal y solo le dejaron los huesos.” Given the perceived ineffectiveness of the police in cases like these, one strategy participants say they have adopted is self-defense. In fact, one local authority even said that, “Yo lo que hice fue armar a mis cuidanderos para que el ladrón que llegue ahí, se defiendan del ladrón y no me roben.”

As was mentioned earlier in this section, participants in Bonanza often blamed people from outside of the district as those responsible for crimes, principally those of Miskitu origin. For example, a

128 participant from the focus group with local authorities argued that, “No son ladrones de aquí de Bonanza…lamentablemente son muchachos Miskitu en cuanto a los robos.” Mining is argued to be the principal reason for the influx of criminals, as one participant put it, “El mismo auge del oro que ha traído gente extraña al municipio es lo que ha creado más inseguridad porque toda esa gente está tomando las calles, personas que no conocemos completamente.” Similarly, a young participant reported that, “En los negocios a veces, los mismos Miskitus se meten a robar, en el mercado…y las ventas son de madera, arrancan las tablas y se meten por arriba y saquean todo.” However, an important distinction is made by one participant in regards to murders, “En cuanto a los asesinatos, son los mestizos, entonces ahí es un mundo muy diferente, es raro escuchar que un Mayagna asesinó a otra persona o un Miskitu asesino.”

Dissatisfaction with Police and Law Enforcement Institutions The perceptions participants have toward the police in Bonanza are quite critical, but participants recognize that the police lack sufficient resources to combat crime problems in the municipality. As one participant from the local authorities explained, “Estamos en una inseguridad pero a pesar de todo la policía apoya, no podemos, no da abasto, porque hay demasiados delincuentes y pocos policías.” Another participant from the local authorities focus group indicated that, “El problema es lo siguiente, hay veces no cuentan con medios, dos, la mayoría de los policías que tiene el municipio de Bonanza son policías voluntarios.”

Participants from the civil society focus group linked the police with acts of corruption involving local drug sales. For example, one participant mentioned that, “Los que venden droga tienen contacto con la policía, tienen un enlace con la policía porque hay personas que tienen expendio que todo el mundo sabe que ahí venden droga y llegan los cateos de la policía y nunca encuentran nada.” Another participant even indictated that, “Esa misma gente [los que venden droga] quema a otro vendedor también pero solo para que la policía tenga que hizo una captura de un pez pequeño pero a un pez gordo está por otro lado, solo para tapar las apariencias.”

The participants from the focus group with at-risk youth were the most critical of police. One participant argued that reporting a crime to the police is useless, “No le podemos avisar a la policía porque la policía no va a hacer nada…Por ejemplo, yo voy a poner la denuncia, yo llamo a un policía, me dice si quieres que lo vaya a traer, dame tanto.” Another young participant concluded that, “La policía no hace nada, lo que más existe y lo que más se da es la corrupción” y que “más bien la policía también nos viene a corromper.”

Young participants also reported that police abuse is frequent. One participant claimed that, “La policía también andan pegándoles a los bolos, a inocentes, les pagan con amansa-bolos, yo digo que es correcto también, pero no que se exagere.” Another participant added, “Eso es común, que los policías agredan a los habitantes, a veces agarran a los pobres borrachitos que no están haciendo nada y los golpean…no tienen orden para detener a alguien, cualquier cosa le pegan a uno.”

Domestic Violence and Violence against Women Domestic violence is perceived to be a common problem in Bonanza. Participants from all focus groups reported first-hand accounts of violence against women and children. A participant from the civil society group indicated that, “En ese aspecto creo que todos hemos sido testigo de alguno

129 u otro caso.” In fact, just a few days before the focus group with civil society members was carried out, several instances of domestic violence appeared on the local news. A participant from the civil society group recalled, “Esta semana que pasó, dos sucesos en el mismo barrio, creo que ocurrió el esposo golpeando a la esposa y le quiere quemar la casa, el otro que la macheteó, dos casos violentos y que todos estamos viendo cada día.” Violent fights within families are reported to commonly take place at night, disturbing the peace in the neighborhood. A participant described the problem, “Uno no duerme tranquilo, está espantado también porque estás escuchando Dios mío a quién estarán matando, carreras, disparos.”

As mentioned earlier in the section on crime and insecurity in Bonanza, participants reported that murders, of women in particular, are quite common. Participants reported that these problems have worsened with time and that they think it is worse in Bonanza than in other municipalities. One participant explained, “Hace 15 o 20 años se miraba pero no a ese extremo y casi me atrevo a decir que en Bonanza se está viendo más violencia que en otros lados.” One reason participants gave for this worsening of domestic violence is what they perceive as a counterproductive consequence of the Ley 779 that punishes those guilty of physical abuse of women with the same severity as femicide. As a participant from the civil society focus group indicated, “El hombre ahora dice: mejor la mato porque de todas maneras me van a echar preso.” A young participant also argued, “Si viene el marido y golpea a la mujer, se sabe que aun así, siempre va a ir a la cárcel, por eso ellos se integran a la necesidad de matarla y huir a las montañas… [como consecuencia] la [ley] 779 más bien ha venido a aumentar los asesinatos.”

Focus group participants also reported that lack of economic resources for women as the principal reason for which women, after being abused, continue to stay with their partners. For example, a participant from the civil society group described the case of a women heard arguing, “Tengo 3 hijos, él es el único sostén de la casa y entonces si yo me separo de él, que voy a hacer con 3 chavalos o sin trabajo y el trabajo que tengo no me da para mantenerlos.”

In addition to the physical abuse of women, participants also report the frequency of child abuse. A participant from the focus group with civil society recounted, “Otros casos que he visto también son los maltratos de los niños, nosotros en el barrio con mi esposo hemos tenido que pegar grito a media noche [para detener la agresión].” Due to unemployment, children are often put to work by parents, and participants reported that there are instances in which children are physically punished when they come home with no money. A young participant gave an example, “He visto también a los niños de seis, siete años, los mandan a vender bananos, tortillas, cosas así, y si no les llevan el dinero, les pegan.” Other young participants reported that children are also used in robberies.

Although participants explained that there are means for the defense of children, it is not common that child abuse is reported. A participant from the group with at-risk youth said, “Aquí hay un centro de atención Mi Familia, los niños podrían ir allí y decir que los padres mucho los maltratan, pero como ellos no pueden, no saben defenderse.”

Rape is another type of violence against women often reported by participants. One participant indicated that, “Las violaciones a los menores, a las adolescentes…ha aumentado esta incidencia y es triste ver cómo muchas veces no se hace justicia, quedan impunes, porque eso es un crimen”.

130 Participants even indicated areas in which rape is most common, places women are advised to avoid. For example, one participant recounted, “Hay violaciones, aquí atrás del podium, ahí violan, fuman, incluso las quieren violar y les pegan y se corren…y la mujer se quedó llorando ahí”.

Human Trafficking In contrast to Puerto Cabezas and Waspán, human trafficking (trata de personas) is not reported as being a grave problem in Bonanza. When asked if they understood what human trafficking was, most participants were able to give an accurate definition. For example, a participant from local authorities defined it as, “Engañar a los niños, a las personas, llevar a otro lado ofreciendo un empleo, ofreciendo una prenda, un cargo, algo.” A participant from the civil society focus group gave this definition,

El tráfico…en este caso es con personas, sí que se roban niños o que se roban muchachas adolescentes, las engañan, les dicen que allá van a tener buena vida, van a ganar dinero, y al final las quieren para otras cosas, para prostituirlas o bien para asesinarlas y vender los órganos.

Young participants also associated human trafficking with prostitution. One young participant mentioned that human trafficking happens when, “personas que agarran a otras personas y las explotan en el sentido de prostituirlas.” Another participant linked human trafficking to forced labor, saying, “También no solo de prostituirlas, sino que las agarran, las llevan hacia otros lugares y los obligan a hacer trabajos forzosos, trabajos duros sin salarios, a veces sin comida y eso llega hasta la muerte.”

Participants from the focus group with local authorities explained that human trafficking is not common in Bonanza, but that there have been cases among vulnerable groups, like indigenous communities, and that these types of crimes are not very visible because they are often not officially reported. One participant said,

La trata de personas se viene a dar en los sectores más vulnerables, como en las comunidades, por lo menos de que vienen y se llevan a las muchachas y les dicen que van a ir a hacer un trabajo de doméstica…son hechos que no son denunciados ante las autoridades competentes.

Participants also reported widespread fear of reporting human trafficking cases. One young participant explained, “Habremos jóvenes que nos da pena decirlo frente a una autoridad porque tal vez hay una amenaza de muerte.”

In focus groups with members of civil society and at-risk youth, participants recounted cases of disappeared children from recent years. These cases were associated with human trafficking. One young participant mentioned one case, “Se perdieron varios en el colegio, cuando salían no sabían de ellos…Ningún niño apareció…Se estuvieron perdiendo varios niños, pero no sé qué se hicieron, porque no los encontraron, yo digo que los usaron para eso [trata de personas].” As a response to this case, participants reported that some schools have taken precautionary measures, as explained by one participant, “Ahora en los colegios tienen que llegar los padres de familia a

131 traerlos hasta su sección y tienen que darle su nombre…los tienen que conocer la maestra para que se los lleven”. Nevertheless, one participant from the civil society focus group denied that these cases of disappearances were cases of human trafficking but were due to family problems, saying, “Son cosas entre familia, por lo menos el papá se lo roba [al niño] a la suegra y se lo lleva.”

Ethnic Relations and Indigenous Territory Rights Participants report that as a result of migration, there has been an increase in conflicts over territory in the municipality between indigenous populations and “colonos.” Participants explained that “colonos” settle in indigenous territories and claim ownership, or buy lands at cheap prices. One participant from the local authorities described the issue saying,

En los últimos años vivimos enfrentando esto…el sector indígena en esta zona, los Mayagna, porque históricamente los indígenas han tenido propiedad comunal, ningún indígena Mayagna tiene su parcela privada o registrada…pero en los últimos tiempos hay comunidades indígenas que tienen más de 100, 150 años de existencia que están perdiendo total sus tierras.

A participant from the civil society group agreed, saying, “Ellos [los colonos] vienen, engañan a las comunidades y venden porque es baratísimo aquí, así que compran manzana tras manzana y de ahí viene el despale y eso está afectando el medio ambiente, la ecología…así que esa situación es grave.”

Nevertheless, a participant from the local authorities argued that the judicial system is taking into account this problem and that it is implementing actions to punish territory invaders. The participant said,

Este daño que han venido a hacer los colonos a las propiedades indígenas, en este caso con conocimiento y afirmaciones que puedo dar, porque son hechos que ya se han procesado y de hecho que es un tema muy importante, eso es a lo que hace el delito de usurpación de dominio público comunal.

Conclusions for Bonanza Participants in Bonanza reported drug and alcohols abuse as among of the most worrying problems in the municipality, and as in Puerto Cabezas and Waspán, linked drugs to rising crime victimization and insecurity. However, Bonanza participants attributed growing concerns over drugs and crime mostly to the influx of Miskitu migrants in search of jobs in gold mining.

Just like in the coastal municipalities, participants in Waspán, expressed lack of trust in the police due to their ineffectiveness in fighting the sale of drugs and failures to provide citizen security. Another similarity with the coastal municipalities are reports of petty theft as among the most common type of crime, as well as reports of a high rate of juvenile violence and crime. However, murders and cattle rustling were reported to occur much more frequently in Bonanza.

Similar to Puerto Cabezas and Waspán, Bonanza participants’ also perceived a widespread occurrence of domestic violence and its relationship to drug and alcohol abuse. However, in

132 Bonanza participants expressed higher concern for the frequency of femicide cases. Although participants seem to understand what human trafficking entails, particularly as related to prostitution, human trafficking is not reported as being as grave a problem in Bonanza.

Participants from Bonanza also expressed a concern over growing territorial conflicts in the municipality between indigenous populations and “colonos, although not to the same degree as participants in Puerto Cabezas and Waspán. Unlike in these coastal municipalities, the majority of participants from Bonanza identified as mestizo.

IV.1.4 Siuna

Selling and Use of Illegal Drugs In comparison to the focus groups in other municipalities discuss thus far, participants from Siuna do not report the use of drugs and alcohol as a grave problem. Nevertheless, participants did express concern over a perceived increase in drug addiction and alcoholism. A participant from the focus group with civil society indicated that, “En el caso del consumo de marihuana se ha venido incrementando.” A young participant added, “Miro yo bastante drogadicción, alcoholismo.”

Participants tended to associate problems of drug addiction and alcoholism with domestic disputes and domestic violence. However, domestic violence is seen as a cause of substance abuse, not a consequence of it. A participant from the focus group with at-risk youth indicated that, “Muchos jóvenes…se meten en ese vicio tal vez por problemas familiares…porque hay violencia en su casa, contra sus padre o madres, entonces tal vez decepcionados se meten a vicios.” Other causes for drug addiction and alcoholism highlighted by participants were unemployment and lack of opportunities for the youth. A participant from the civil society focus group reported that, “Si yo recibo diez paquetitos y me regalan uno…como no hay empleo y son dependientes, se quedan con un paquete y venden nueve.”

The main perceived consequence of the use and sale of illegal drugs and alcohol is an increase in citizen insecurity. A young participant explained, “Hay muchos bares, antes no habían mucho bares, entonces todo eso implica el aumento de la delincuencia.” Participants report fear of walking on the streets and having to change their daily routines in response to this fear. As another young participant explained, “Los muchachitos desde los doce años ya están fumando marihuana entonces si nosotros queremos salir a divertirnos a la disco, a dar una bailadita, da miedo”. Similarly, a local authority participant expressed that, “Uno no está seguro ni en su mismo municipio, porque los jóvenes ahora caminan drogados”.

Another reported consequence of drug and alcohol abuse in Bonanza is violence against women. A participant from the focus group with civil society members explained, “Las mujeres que tienen problemas de violencia en sus hogares es del producto del consumo…de marihuana, una persona en su estado normal se retracta de decir cosas, pero ya con uso de estas cosas provoca violencia”.

Participants reported poor evaluations of the police’s fight against drug trafficking. Similar to other municipalities discussed, participants report that police are often complicit with drug dealers and

133 warn them of upcoming raids. One young participant indicated that, “La policía le pasa información directa al traficante, lo llaman, ‘van a hacer un cateo a tu casa, salte, córrete.’”Another young participant reported that, “El [policía] antidrogas que había antes, lo mandaron a otro lado porque se estaba uniendo con las bandas.” Nevertheless, a number participants recognize some accomplishments by the police. One participant said, “La policía ha estado capturando a personas que comercializaban sobre todo marihuana [y] las drogas…ha disminuido, digamos en un veinte por ciento acá en esta región, se han destruido varios expendios donde la policía ha incautado droga.”

Finally, participants from the civil society focus group mentioned two additional points in reference to the illegal use and sale of drugs in Bonanza: the origin of the drugs that come into the municipality and the gravity of the drug problem, “Los traficantes de marihuana la cultivan en las profundidades de la reserva de la biósfera…[y] el problema de la venta está aumentando pero pleito entre los negociantes aún no [es un problema].”

Crime Victimization and Insecurity Participants mention lack of security as one of the most worrisome problems for Siuna and surrounding municipalities. As one participant from the local authorities summarized, it is “Lo que más afecta aquí es la seguridad ciudadana…afecta a nivel de todo el triángulo minero,” while another participant added, “El más importante radica en la inseguridad, en la delincuencia.” However, some participants from the local authorities thought that the problem of citizen security is less worrisome in Siuna in comparison with other areas, saying, “Comparado con otras zonas, son menos los índices de problemas que se da en la zona” and “comparado a las otras dos minas, aquí es menor.” Nevertheless, participants agree that crime and insecurity have been growing in Siuna. As a young participant expressed, “Uno [antes] podría caminar a altas horas de la noche…ahora es algo peligroso.”

Younger participants and members of the group civil society reported that the origin of the rise of crime rates and insecurity was due to migration, although unlike in Bonanza, they did not associate crime specifically with indigenous migration as a consequence of mining activity. As one young participant mentioned, “Ahora vienen más delincuentes de afuera, tanto como los de adentro que circulaban antes.” A participant from the civil society group reported that, “Uno de los principales factores es…la migración,” while a local authoriy added, “Hay ladrones que le pueden robar a uno su cartera, porque se han venido gente de otros lados, de aquí no…se han venido muchas personas a buscar como robar.”

One of the most commonly reported acts of crime was cattle rustling, which was reported as a problem in both rural and urban areas, although some participants indicated that it is a sporadic problem. According to a participant from the civil society focus group, Actualmente en el municipio y en la región se está dando mucho lo que es el robo de hato ganadero.” Participants explained that this is a problem that affects mainly the poor, for whom the theft of one cow represents a major part of their wealth. As a participant from the local authorities mentioned, “El problema [afecta] a las personas más pobres, que le roben una vaca al que solo tiene una vaca y ahí el problema es más preocupante.” Participants reported that in many cases, rustling involved the use of violence. For example, another local authority told of known case of saying, “El [un

134 campesino] iba arreando un ganado por un camino, le balearon, le llevaron el ganado y estas situaciones se viven a diario en las lejanías de nuestro municipio.”

Another frequently reported criminal act was home theft. A young participant recounted that, “Estaba mi familia dentro de la casa y dejan las ventanas abiertas o las hicieron forzar pero se metieron a la casa y estaban dormidos, estando dormidos se sacaron todo.” As a local authority added, “Por lo general en el patio, le sacan el metal para irlo a vender como chatarra pero adentro de la casa se da pues.” Another young participant concurred saying, “Hasta dentro de las casas roban motos,” while another added, “Se venden las piezas para repuestos.” A participant from the focus group with members of civil society compared the occurrence with the theft of cars, “De carros casi no hay, pero de motos sí, de partes sí.” Overall, participants reported the theft as motorcycles as an extended problem in the municipality. As a local authority summarized, “Otro problema de robo que se ha generalizado es el robo de moto, usted deja mal parqueada una moto ahí y cuando a la hora ya se desaparece.”

Robberies using violence are also mentioned by participants as problematic in Siuna. A young participant argued that one factor leading to the increase in violent robberies is lack of street lights, “Instalan luminarias pero a los días de instalarlas ya no funcionan, entonces… aprovechan a robar.” Participants also blamed widespread unemployment. Participants report that robberies with violence tend to increase during special seasons, such as national holidays. A participant from the civil society group said, “Las inseguridades se dan por eventos, por ejemplo, las fiestas patrias…y aquí puede venir gente que te va a robar a la vuelta…le quitan la billetera, pero son eventuales, cada vez que hay un evento grande.”

Participants in Siuna tended to associated criminal acts with youth groups linked to drug use; however, as in the other municipalities, these groups were not quite considered formal gangs by focus group participants. A participant from the local authorities explained,

No lo podemos calificar como pandilla…aquí ha habido un grupo como de siete chavalos que han tenido cierta fama porque se meten a las casas, se meten a las oficinas, roban equipos de oficina o roban utensilios de las casas para ir a venderlo…y seguir fumando marihuana, pero no podemos calificarlos como pandillas.

Nevertheless, juvenile crime is reported to increase fear and insecurity among the population, which participants indicate leads them to change their lifestyles and daily routines, especially young participants that are more frequently out on the streets at night. One young participant indicated, “Ya se siente inseguridad, tantos casos que han ocurrido aquí en el municipio…entonces sí da temor de salir a las calles, ya uno no puede distraerse dignamente, a ver juegos deportivos.” However, a participant from the focus group with civil society seemed to feel safe within his own neighborhood, “En mi caso, en mi casa me siento seguro, yo puedo ir a la hora que sea, salir en mi barrio, yo me siento seguro aunque lo toman como peligroso.”

Dissatisfaction with Police and Law Enforcement Institutions There is a generalized perception among focus group participants in Siuna that the police are not doing their job. Local authorities, members of civil society and young participants alike report poor performance evaluations for the police. One participant from the local authorities stated, “uno

135 llama a la policía para que llegue y no se aparecen” y que “cuando pasan estos robos pequeños, uno llama a la policía, haces la denuncia, y al final no hacen nada, no recuperas nada.” A young participant emphasized this point by saying, “entonces pues realmente la policía aquí no sirve para nada.”

One of the reasons participants gave for their negative evaluations of the police is that they are not effective in resolving complaints. A young participant argued, “Si hablamos de los casos que se han resuelto en la policía, creo que ni el cinco por ciento de los caso se han resuelto.” As in Bonanza, participants do not perceive this inefficiency as a product of lack of human or logistical resources. As one local authority stated, “Sí, el número de policías yo creo que es suficiente y hay medios de transporte también que son adecuados,” while another added that, “Considero yo, es una opinión muy personal que es una cantidad óptima para acá, para el territorio de Siuna.” However, although participants tended to think that police personnel was sufficient for urban areas, they were not as confident when it came to rural areas. As a local authority explained, “Hay muchas cosas en el campo y a veces la policía llega hasta ocho días porque a veces no hay policías, están ocupados haciendo otra cosa.” A participant from the civil society focus group indicated that, “Carecemos de un cuerpo policial altamente extendido…entonces cuando quiere llegar la policía [a sitios alejados], ya no está el cuerpo.” A young participant added, “Siempre hay uno que otro caso en las comunidades, que bandas organizadas, que esto, que lo otro, y la policía simplemente va a verificar, a hacer trabajo de campo más que todo porque no se resuelve nada.”

Young participants in Siuna were particularly critical of police personnel and their training. One person argued, “Los que están trabajando en la policía están nada más por recibir un salario, no porque realmente sea un apostolado para ellos”, while another added, “Los policías no están capacitados para ejercer ser policías porque vemos muchos policías que ni secundaria acaban, no estudios.” Yet another young participant concluded that perhaps the lack of good police is due to lack of people that actually want to do the job, saying, “Es la necesidad, que nadie quiere ese trabajo y entonces captan a esa gente tal vez que tiene necesidad, no hay otro trabajo.”

Authorities reported another aspect of the police which they perceive as problematic. One person indicated that, “Jay mucha gente que tiene desconfianza de manifestar sus problemas porque la policía ahora es muy partidaria…no puede confiar porque desconfía de las mismas autoridades.”

Participants not only reported that they did not think the police did their job, but they also indicated that the police are often involved in criminal acts and abuse of power. A participant from the local authorities reported that,

Yo he visto también aquí se da extorsión en el ámbito de la policía, ha habido casos y yo conozco casos que te detienen con la moto porque la andas ilegal, mira, yo te voy a dar 500 pesos pero déjame pasar, y te dejan pasar [los policías], entonces para mí eso es una extorsión.

And a young participant indicated that, “En vez de ayudar a la sociedad, lo maltratan, maltratan a la sociedad.”

136 Given these concerns about the police, the participants from Siuna report that many citizens have opted to hire personal security, or what they call “voluntary police.” However, one participant explained that these private guards, “lo que hacen [es ver] problemas pequeñitos… [pero] un caso de violencia, de que mataron a la señora o a la muchacha, eso no lo van a poder controlar.” A participant reported that in some cases people even hire police officers as personal security guards, “Tienen que hacerse acompañar por agentes policiales para poder transitar con dinero.”

Domestic Violence and Violence against Women Domestic violence and especially violence against women was frequently mentioned by focus group participants in Siuna. As a participant from the local authorities described, “Se ve bastante la violencia entre padres y los hijos, se pelean delante de sus hijos o que la maltratan a la mamá, maltrato psicológico, maltrato verbal”, while a young participant reaffirmed, “El tipo de violencia que más se escucha es a las mujeres…porque aquí se escuchan los casos pero no se denuncian.”

One of the main reasons participants give for the incidence of domestic violence is drug and alcohol consumption, although this factor is not emphasized as much by participants in Siuna as by participants from other municipalities. For example, a participant from the civil society focus group indicated, “Las mujeres que tienen problema de violencia en sus hogares es del producto del consumo…el consumo de marihuana.” However, other participants argued that the principal cause of the exacerbation of domestic violence is the enactment of Ley 779. A participant from the civil society group reported that, “En Siuna ha crecido mucho lo del maltrato contra las mujeres, es una reacción adversa contraria a la ley 779, que es la ley contra la violencia hacia las mujeres.” Participants explained that the problem arises because the law stipulates that the punishment is imprisonment for both the physical abuse of women and femicide. Hence, as on participant put it, aggressors then use more extreme violence, especially under the influence of drug and alcohol, and tend to think, “‘Si me vas a echar preso, no mejor te mato.’ O sea esa es la posición de una persona ebria, borracha, drogada, entonces ahí tenemos las muertes de las mujeres, no es justificante pero se da.”

To add to the complicated nature of domestic violence, participants also tended to indicate that even when aggressors are jailed, it is their female partners that advocate for their freedom. For example, a participant from the civil society focus group recounted, “He conocido parejas en donde el broder golpea a la mujer, la deja herida y toda reventada y se va a demandarlo, se lo llevan preso, lo detienen dos días, después se va la misma mujer y retira la denuncia.” Along the same lines, a young participant reported, “Le digo: denúncialo. [Y me contesta] ‘No, porque él lo hace así, porque me quiere, él me ama, él me quiere.’ Entonces muchas veces como mujer se le da el espacio a que el varón me agreda.”

In other cases, participants reported that the victims do not report domestic abuse because of fear of possible societal repercussions, “A veces las mujeres no hacen, no denuncian por sus hijos…por lo que diga la gente, [los hijos] tienen que tener su familia, su papá, mamá y su hijo, no tiene que ver ni mujer soltera que esté criando a su hijo sola…y por eso callan.” Another reason participants reported for failures to report domestic violence is the handling of complaints. As a young participant explained,

137 Las mujeres no van a denunciar porque dicen unas que es un proceso bastante largo…cuando llegan allá a poner la denuncia van a papeleos y todo eso es un proceso largo…y como es tan largo mejor nos quedamos calladas para no ir a hacer más grande los conflictos.

Women were not the only victims of domestic violence discussed. Participants also expressed concern over the violence against children. A participant from the focus group with civil society indicated that, “En las escuelas…los niños llegan maltratados pero muchas veces el niño no dice porque le han dicho que no lo diga…uno se da cuenco cuando ve las marcar, le ve los correazos.” As a consequence, participants argued that this leads to a perpetuation of violent behavior, as abused children later become abusing parents. As a participant from the local authorities said, “Entonces los niños van con esa cosa [la violencia] y cuando llegan a una etapa ya adulto, ellos se casan e igual como mi mamá y mi papá me pegaban, y lo mismo, eso va en cadena.”

Within the topic of violence against women, the issue of rape was reported by focus group participants as very serious. A participant from the local authorities reported that, “Hay violaciones y muchas cosas en el campo y a veces la policía llega hasta ocho días.” Similarly, a young participant recounted that,

Por el sector de la pista aérea es que hay bastantes violaciones…cualquiera puede estar violando ahí…las mujeres se quedan calladas por vergüenza y por temor, también por pena, por el qué dirá la gente, mejor me quedo callada, me ahorro ese problema, mejor no pasó nada…entonces las mujeres están siendo violadas pero se quedan calladas por temor.

Another young participant added, “Una muchacha que salió a las diez de la noche de la disco y se montó en un taxi…pero en vez de llevársela a su casa se llevaron a una zona que es bien alejada, la intentaron violar, la golpearon”.

Human Trafficking Human trafficking is not reported as a serious concern in Siuna, with participants reporting that it is not frequent. A participant from the civil society focus group explained, “No es muy común, pero de vez en cuando se pegan unos golpes por acá de ese tipo, tránsito de las niñas de trata de blancas, trata de personas”. A young participant agreed, “Puede haber sus casos pero no tenemos conocimiento”.

Participants from the local authorities tended to associated trafficking with the deception used to lead victims to think they can obtain better jobs. As one person described, “Por ejemplo, yo le digo a usted, yo te ubico diez personas en un trabajo en tal país o le ofrezco un buen salario si se va a hacer un trabajo conmigo a otro lado, aunque lo lleve engañado para hacer otro tipo de trabajo.” Another local authority referred to prostitution and drug trafficking specifically, saying, “A los jóvenes por lo general o para que trasladen droga o se los llevan a otro país como un negocio de la otra persona que los está sacando” y que “prostituirlas, ese es el objetivo principal.”

Some focus group participants did recount cases related to human trafficking, including cases of victims that are trafficked to other countries or women that are deceived into being used in

138 prostitution networks, but clarified that this is not a problem in Siuna. As a local authority explained, “Aquí en Siuna no, al lado de Managua…en Managua sí hay bastante…como que lo enamoran a uno con esas cosas y cuando uno es chavalo es tonto.” Participants also reported cases missing children that were supposedly kidnapped to be used in trafficking networks. One participant from local authorities recounted, “Habían agarrado a unos niños…entonces el niño se brincó y corrió y no se lo pudieron llevar pero esos otros niños sí se desaparecieron.”

Ethnic Relations and Indigenous Territory Rights A rarely mentioned issue in Siuna, but still one discussed with particular concern, was the invasion of indigenous territories by “colonos”. Unlike in other municipalities, however, participants in Siuna associated this migration with environmental degradation. A participant from the local authorities expressed concern saying, “La destrucción que hay en los bosques, los recursos naturales, también tiene que ver con las invasiones de personas que han venido de otro lado, hay un caso serio en la comunidad sikita, de que están invadiendo sus tierras, que son tierra de la etnia Mayagna.” A young participated affirmed that, “Los invasores que se aprovechan de las tierras vírgenes para explotarlas y así destruir el ecosistema.” These settlers or “colonos” are mostly identified as being from the Pacific and other municipalities.

Participants report that this struggle between “colonos” and indigenous populations generates significant legal problems. As a local authority explained,

Se negocia su propiedad y se entra y una persona que entra solamente a negociar tierra y al regreso se lleva una buena plata, solamente negociando eso, y cuando llegamos…entonces ellos no quieren salir, te mencionan que este terreno es del gobierno…pero nosotros sabemos que es parte de nuestra propiedad del terreno, es una tierra indígena.

Participants often referred to Ley 445 in defense of their argument that the settlement of colonos in indigenous territory is illegal. As in the municipalities of Puerto Cabezas and Waspán, participants also reported cases of fatalities in violent territorial disputes, as a young participant reported, “Se han visto casos que se ponen violentos [los colonos], donde han matado a los que dirigen ahí la comunidad, como son los indígenas Mayagnas…y los colonos los están violentándolos.”

Additionally, the issue of timber resources is reported as adding to the complexity of territorial issues. Participants explain that indigenous territories in Siuna contain a large amount of timber resources that are exploited illegally, and participants perceived a difference between a settler who exploits resources “illegally” and an indigenous famer that wants to use wood for personal needs. As a young participant argued, “La explotación de la madera, de los recursos maderables, y que pasa si un pobre campesino va a cortar un árbol para hacer su casa, no se le permite, y que él es solo un árbol, pero sí se les permite a las empresas entrar y destruir la reserva.” Participants also claim there is a lot of corruption associated with the timber industry. A participant from the focus group with civil society argued that,

El soborno se daba en torno al tráfico de madera, ese era el principal objetivo porque tal vez había una persona en un puesto y tenía que pasar la madera y como tenemos

139 ordenanza, no se debe transitar madera…entonces uno habla, hey mira, voy a pasar una tablita, te voy a dar cien pesitos, ese es soborno pues.

Conclusions for Siuna In comparison to the focus groups in other municipalities discuss thus far, participants from Siuna do not report the use of drugs and alcohol as a grave problem. However, similar to other municipalities discussed, participants in Siuna also report police corruption and complicity in the local sale of drugs.

Insecurity, rather, seems to be of most concern for participants in Siuna, even though some participants think that crime is not as high as in other areas of RACCN. Similar to participants in Bonanza, participants blame increased robberies on migration into Siuna (although they do not associate it directly with indigenous migration specifically), and report that cattle rustling is among the most common types of theft. As in other municipalities, feelings of insecurity are exacerbated by the perceived pervasiveness of juvenile violence and crime.

Lack of trust and dissatisfaction in the police is reported to a similar degree in Siuna as in the other municipalities of RACCN where we conducted focus groups. Unlike participants in Waspán, , those in Siuna perceive the resources of the police force to be sufficient, yet report that the police is slow to act when cases are brought to them and they are often linked to involvement in criminal activity.

As in focus group from other municipalities, domestic violence is reported as very common in Siuna, particular as related to the frequency of rapes. However, human trafficking is not as serious of a concern.

Once again, territorial conflicts between indigenous populations and “colonos” are reported by participants in Siuna. However, the most serious concern for participants in this municipality in regards to this recurring issue was its harmful effects on the environment and natural resources of the RACCN region.

IV.1.5 Conclusions

Part IV of this report presents the main findings from qualitative data collected through 12 focus groups with 125 participants, which aimed to collect information on perceptions of citizen security and identify risk factors perceived to affect the populations of Puerto Cabezas, Waspán, Bonanza, and Siuna. Hence, the results discussed in this report reflect the opinions of focus group participants and do not necessarily represent the perceptions of the larger population of RACCN or Nicaragua.

Our analysis of focus group data reveals a number of trends in participants’ perceptions of the most important issues facing their municipalities. Participants in the four municipalities reported the use and sale of illegal drugs as among the most serious problems in regards to citizens’ security. Drug and alcohol abuse problems are commonly reported as a consequence of unemployment, but also as the main cause of rising crime, including assaults, robberies, and domestic violence. These

140 problems were of particular concern in terms of the youth in RACCN given consistent reports of juvenile crime and violence, especially the presence of small group of young men that often engage in fights with rival neighborhoods and armed robberies. Hence, crime and feelings of insecurity were often reported as equally concerning problems for citizen security in Puerto Cabezas, Waspán, Bonanza, and Siuna. However, while armed robberies were the most frequently reported type of crime in Puerto Cabezas and Waspán, murder and cattle rustling were perceived as more common in Bonanza and Siuna.

Another common trend among focus group participants was their lack of trust and dissatisfaction with the police and law enforcement institutions. Criticism of the police was often based on reports of police ineffectiveness, complicity in drug sales, and corruption. However, an additional concern among participants in Puerto Cabezas and Waspán was the lack of resources their police forces depended on to do their job.

Domestic violence, particularly as related to violence against women and young girls, was also reported as common across all four municipalities. While the sexual molestation of young girls was one of the most pressing concerns for participants in Puerto Cabezas and Waspán, participants from Bonanza reported higher frequency of femicide and those in Siuna perceived rape as particularly worrisome. Most participants perceived domestic violence as a consequence of drug and alcohol abuse. Although participants often cited growing resources for victims of domestic abuse, the problem persists in their neighborhoods.

Human trafficking was reported as serious problem principally in Puerto Cabezas and Waspán. However, it is clear that participants from all municipalities, including Siuna and Bonanza, understand what human trafficking is and have knowledge of trafficking cases. Yet, it is important to note that participants used “trata de personas” and “tráfico de personas” interchangeably when referring to human trafficking. Participants in Puerto Cabezas and Waspán expressed particular concern over the vulnerabilities of populations living along the Río Coco on the border with Honduras, a well-known route for drug-traffickers. Participants in both of these municipalities also reported insufficient government resources to patrol the border and the exacerbation of human trafficking due to unemployment as poor families resort to the extremes of selling young girls to meet financial needs.

Lastly, growing concern over violent conflict between indigenous populations and “colonos” is reported by participants in Puerto Cabezas, Waspán, Bonanza, and Siuna. However, the problem is reportedly more severe in the coastal municipalities where the Miskitu ethnicity and language dominate.

141 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 7 municipalities in the RACCN (Bonanza, Prinzapolka, Puerto Cabezas, Rosita, Siuna, Waslala, and Mulukukú), region and the departments of Chinandega, Estelí, Nueva Segovia, Madriz, and Jinotega (Northern Border region), Río San Juan and Rivas (Southern Border Region), and Managua.

Before the fieldwork, Borge y Asociados, the consulting firm in charge of the fieldwork, carried out a pre-test supervised by LAPOP in which they collected 24 interviews in rural and an urban in Puerto Cabezas and Managua. After the pre-test, with the final version of the questionnaire, LAPOP worked with the consulting firm to train interviewers on the questionnaire, sampling strategy and the use of the android devices.

The survey was fielded from September 19th to December 19th, 2015. The following table shows the schedule in each region.

Municipality/Region Dates From the 10th – 14th of October; and Puerto Cabezas from the 10th – 19th of December From the 17th – 30th of October; and Prinzapolka from the 23rd – 30th of November Rosita From October 11lth to November 11th From the 17th of October to the 20th of Bonanza November From the 17th of November to the 2nd Siuna of December Waslala From the 1st – 21st of November Mulukukú From the 1st – 22nd of November From the 10th of October to the 2nd of Southern Border November From the 19th of September to the 6th Managua of 29th of October Northern Border From the 2nd to the 27th of October

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.

142 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 the seven municipalities regions in the RACCN region and the three targeted of Managua and Northern and Southern Borders of Nicaragua. The sample design does not permit comparisons across urban versus rural, but does allow comparisons across ethnic groups, education, and wealth levels.

With respect to gender, the distribution of men and women is equal in all regions (50% versus 50% in RACCN; 49.9% versus 50.1% in the Southern Border; 50.2% versus 49.8% in the Northern Border; and 50.3% versus 49.7% in the Managua, respectively)

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 RACCN, younger adults are 49.1% and older adults the remaining 50.9%. In the Southern Border, younger adults are 47.8% and older adults are 52.2%. In the Northern Border, younger adults are 49.6% and older adults are 50.4%. In Managua, younger adults are 49.7% and older adults are 50.3%.

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 wealthy. We should note that these comparisons are relative. We refer to wealthy or rich people as those that own a higher number of consumer goods in comparison with less wealthy or poor people in this sample, who own a smaller number of consumer goods.

Self-reported ethnicity was collected in 8 categories: white, Mestizos, black or creole, Miskitu, Garifuna, Mayagna, and other. Mestizos make up the majority of the sample (73.3%). In this report we have divided it into a variable to distinguish Mestizos, Miskitus, and people with other ethnic background in order to maximize number of cases in each category. Mestizos are 67.7% of the respondents in RACCN, 93.6% in the Southern Border, 80.1% in the Northern Border, and 81.8% in Managua. Miskitus are 21.2% of the respondents in RACCN, 0% in the Southern and Northern Borders, and 0.4% in Managua. Within the ‘other’ label, whites are 5.1% in RACCN, 4.1% in the Southern Border, 17.9% in the Northern Border, and 16.2% in Managua. Black people are 2.2% in RACCN, 2.8% in the Southern Border, 1.6% in the Northern Border, and 1.6% in Managua. In RACCN, 3.6% identify in Mayagna, though no respondents in the other areas identify with this group.

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.

143 Appendix 2: Variables by Municipality and Region

Differences in Perceptions of Security as Most Important Problem across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Security as the Most Serious Problem in Pto. Cabezas 26.3% 40

30

13.9% 20

8.9%

10 Security as the Most Serious Problem

0 Low Medium High

Ownership of Goods

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Security as the Most Serious Problem in Prinzapolka

25

7.1%

20

15 9.4%

10

2.8% 5 Security as theMost Serious Problem

0 Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

144 Security as the Most Serious Problem in Managua

20

13.5%

15

7.1% 10

5 Security as the Most Serious Problem

0 Male Female

Gender

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Security as the Most Serious Problem in Northern Border

20 14.3%

15

8.3%

10

5 Security as theMost Serious Problem

0 Male Female

Gender

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

145 Differences in Perceptions of Insecurity across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Perception of Insecurity in Siuna

60 54.9

47.7 50

40

30

20 Perception of InsecurityPerception of

10

0 Younger adults Older adults

Age 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Perception of Insecurity in Mulukukú 59.7

60 48.2

50

40

30

20 PerceptionInsecurity of

10

0 Mixed Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

146 Perception of Insecurity in Prinzapolka 53.9 60

50 41.7

40

30

20 Perception of InsecurityPerception of

10

0 Younger adults Older adults

Age 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Perception of Insecurity in Rosita

80 80 63.7

53.1 60 60 47.7 46.1 45.3

40 40

20 20 PerceptionInsecurity of PerceptionInsecurity of

0 0 Younger adults Older adults Low Medium High

Age Ownership of Goods

80 62.9 80

60 50.8 49.5 60 51.0 47.1 41.7 37.6 40 40

20 20 Perception of Insecurity Perception of Insecurity

0 0 None Primary Secondary Higher Mixed Miskitu Other

Level of Education Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

147 Perception of Insecurity in Bonanza

80 80

61.9 63.0 61.4

58.1 57.7 52.3 60 60 47.7

40 40 Perception of Insecurity of Perception Insecurity of Perception

20 20

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Perception of Insecurity in Managua

100

76.1

80

55.8 56.4 60 53.2

40 PerceptionInsecurity of

20

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

148 Differences in Avoidance of Dangerous Areas across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood in Pto. Cabezas

80 80 63.8%

57.1% 52.5%

48.9% 49.5% 60 60

39.1%

40 40

16.7%

20 20 Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood in Siuna 71.4%

100 100

65.2% 80 80

60 60

40.0% 34.6% 36.3% 40 40 24.6%

20 20 Avoided Walkingin Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood Avoided Walkingin Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood

0 0 None Primary Secondary Higher Mixed Other

Level of Education Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

149 Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood in Prinzapolka 87.5% 100 100 63.3% 80 80

60 48.0% 60 34.5% 37.3% 40 40

20 20

Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood in Areas Dangerous in Walking Avoided 0 Neighborhood in Areas Dangerous in Walking Avoided 0 Male Female Low Medium High

Gender Ownership of Goods

100 100 63.2% 80 80 60.6% 35.7% 45.7% 60 60 40.9% 32.5% 40 40 31.3%

20 20 Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood in Areas Dangerous in Walking Avoided Neighborhood in Areas Dangerous in Walking Avoided 0 0 None Primary Secondary Higher Mixed Miskitu Other

Level of Education Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood in Bonanza

80 80 59.3%

39.5% 60 60 43.3% 34.2% 31.1% 40 40 20.0% 20.0% 20 20

Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood in Areas Dangerous in Walking Avoided 0 Neighborhood in Areas Dangerous in Walking Avoided 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

80 55.9%

60 37.9% 40 20.6%

20 Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood in Areas Dangerous in Walking Avoided 0 Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

150 Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood in Managua

80 80

64.3% 64.2% 61.7%

36.0% 60 51.4% 60 46.7%

40 40

20 20 Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood

0 0 Younger adults Older adults None Primary Secondary Higher

Age Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood in Northern Border 56.8%

60

50 40.0%

40 26.1%

30

20

10

Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood Areas Dangerousin Walking Avoided 0 Low Medium High

Ownership of Goods

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

151 Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood in Southern Border 48.6% 60 60

50 42.9% 50 36.0% 38.3% 36.4% 30.7% 33.6% 40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10 Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

152 Differences in Household Crime Victimization Rates across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Household Crime Victimization in Pto. Cabezas

80 80 64.4% 61.3%

51.9% 50.8% 60 60 44.9%

36.6%

40 40 22.6% Household Crime Victimization Crime Household Victimization Crime Household

20 20

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Household Crime Victimization in Siuna 43.5%

60

40 24.7%

17.6%

20 8.6% Household Crime Victimization Crime Household

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

153 Household Crime Victimization in Waslala

50 30.8%

40

21.6% 30

20 12.3% Household Crime Victimization Crime Household 10

0 Low Medium High

Ownership of Goods 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Household Crime Victimization in Mulukukú 27.0%

30

15.2%

20

10 Household Crime Victimization Crime Household

0 Mixed Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

154 Household Crime Victimization in Prinzapolka 42.1%

60

50 34.3%

40 29.3%

30 17.9%

20 Household Crime Victimization Crime Household

10

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Household Crime Victimization in Bonanza

60 60 40.7% 50 50 32.6% 35.4% 40 40 25.4% 17.5% 30 30 16.2% 14.4% 20 20

10 10

Household Crime Victimization Crime Household 0 Victimization Crime Household 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

41.2% 60

50

40 26.3% 19.1% 30

20

10

Household Crime Victimization Crime Household 0 Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

155 Household Crime Victimization in Managua 54.4% 60 60 51.7%

43.3% 50 50

40 40 29.8% 25.2%

30 30

12.0%

20 20 Household Crime Victimization Crime Household Victimization Crime Household

10 10

0 0 Younger adults Older adults None Primary Secondary Higher

Age Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Household Crime Victimization in Northern Border

60 60

50 50 36.0% 40 32.0% 40

30 30 17.3% 18.4% 20 20 9.8%

10 10

Household Crime Victimization Crime Household 0 Victimization Crime Household 0 Younger adults Older adults Low Medium High

Age Ownership of Goods

60 43.2% 50

40 27.5% 30 12.1% 15.4% 20

10

Household Crime Victimization Crime Household 0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

156 Household Crime Victimization in Southern Border

50 50 34.3%

40 40

26.9%

30 30 21.7% 17.4% 14.7% 19.5% 18.0%

20 20 Household Crime Victimization Crime Household Victimization Crime Household

10 10

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

157 Differences in Home Burglary Rates across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Home Burglaries in Pto. Cabezas

60 60 47.5% 45.9% 41.7% 50 50 33.8% 32.1% 40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

Someone Stole or Tried to Steal in Home in Steal to Tried or Stole Someone 0 Home in Steal to Tried or Stole Someone 0 Younger adults Older adults Low Medium High

Age Ownership of Goods

49.2% 60 49.2%

50

40 28.1% 16.1% 30

20

10

Someone Stole or Tried to Steal in Home in Steal to Tried or Stole Someone 0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Home Burglaries in Mulukukú

50 35.8%

40

30

17.2% 14.5% 20

10 Someone Stole or Tried to Steal in Home

0 Low Medium High

Ownership of Goods 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

158 Home Burglaries in Prinzapolka 75.0%

100 100

80 80 57.9%

50.0%

60 60

28.6% 40 40 31.6% 26.7% 23.1% Someone Stole or Tried to Steal in in Home to Steal or Tried Stole Someone in Home to Steal or Tried Stole Someone 20 20

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Home Burglaries in Bonanza

30 30 22.0%

25 25 18.1%

20 20 10.0%

9.3% 8.9% 15 15

4.7% 10 10 Someone Stole or Tried to Steal in in Home to Steal or Tried Stole Someone in Home to Steal or Tried Stole Someone

5 5

0 0 Younger adults Older adults None Primary Secondary Higher

Age Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

159 Home Burglaries in Managua 26.3% 30 21.1%

25 16.8%

20 8.0%

15

10

5 Someone Someone orStole Tried to Steal in Home

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Home Burglaries in Northern Border

50 50

33.3% 40 40 26.4% 30 30 17.3% 14.7% 20 20 8.7%

10 10

Someone Stole or Tried to Steal in Home in Steal to Tried or Stole Someone 0 Home in Steal to Tried or Stole Someone 0 Younger adults Older adults Low Medium High

Age Ownership of Goods

40.0% 50

40

22.0% 30 17.2%

20 13.0%

10

Someone Stole or Tried to Steal in Home in Steal to Tried or Stole Someone 0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

160 Home Burglaries in Southern Border 21.1% 25

20 13.4%

15

10

5 Someone Someone orStole Tried to Steal in Home

0 Younger adults Older adults

Age 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

161 Differences in Victimization by Theft or Aggression across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Victim of Theft or Aggression in Pto. Cabezas

80 80 63.0% 60.7%

60 60 44.7% 42.9%

40 40

20 20 Victim of Theft or Aggression or Theft of Victim Aggression or Theft of Victim 0 0 Male Female Younger adults Older adults

Gender Age 80 80 62.7% 62.5% 59.2% 51.9% 60 46.4% 60 46.1% 29.0% 40 40

20 20 Victim of Theft or Aggression or Theft of Victim Aggression or Theft of Victim 0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Victim of Theft or Aggression in Siuna

80

47.8%

60

40 29.6%

23.2% 17.1%

Victim of Theft or Aggression or Theft of Victim 20

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316asic11316

162 Victim of Theft or Aggression in Waslala

80 80

51.9%

41.7% 60 60

38.6% 35.3% 29.9% 40 40

19.5% 21.9% Victim of Theft or Aggression or Theft of Victim Aggression or Theft of Victim

20 20

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Victim of Theft or Aggression in Mulukukú 49.1% 60

50 38.8%

40 27.5%

30

20 Victim of Theft or Aggression or of Theft Victim

10

0 Low Medium High

Ownership of Goods 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

163 Victim of Theft or Aggression in Prinzapolka

120 120 87.5%

100 100

68.4%

80 80 53.3% 55.7% 52.6% 60 60 46.9%

30.8% 40 40 Victim of Theft or Aggression or Theft of Victim Aggression or Theft of Victim

20 20

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Victim of Theft or Aggression in Rosita 49.0% 60 60

44.0% 50 50

34.3% 34.8%

40 30.0% 40

30 30

20 20 Victim of Theft or Aggression or Theft of Victim Aggression or Theft of Victim

10 10

0 0 Male Female Low Medium High

Gender Ownership of Goods

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

164 Victim of Theft or Aggression in Bonanza 32.1% 40 40 25.6% 22.5% 29.9%

24.6%

30 30

17.1% 15.6%

20 20 Victim of Theft or Aggression or Theft of Victim Aggression or Theft of Victim

10 10

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Victim of Theft or Aggression in Managua

80 80 57.9% 60 46.7% 60

36.9% 40 40 25.9%

20 20 Victim of Theft or Aggression or Theft of Victim Aggression or Theft of Victim 0 0 Male Female Younger adults Older adults

Gender Age 44.4% 80 80

60 60 51.3% 49.3% 44.6% 30.7% 40 40 19.6% 20 20 4.0% Victim of Theft or Aggression or Theft of Victim Aggression or Theft of Victim 0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

165 Victim of Theft or Aggression in Northern Border

50 50 36.9% 34.4% 40 40 24.7% 23.1% 30 30 17.4%

20 20

10 10 Victim of Theft or Aggression or Theft of Victim Aggression or Theft of Victim 0 0 Male Female Low Medium High

Gender Ownership of Goods

42.1% 50

40 31.9% 22.4%

30 20.1%

20

10 Victim of Theft or Aggression or Theft of Victim 0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Victim of Theft or Aggression in Southern Border

60 60

50 50 33.9% 40 40 32.1%

30 20.5% 30 22.7%

20 20

10 10 Victim of Theft or Aggression or Theft of Victim Aggression or Theft of Victim 0 0 Male Female Younger adults Older adults

Gender Age 48.6% 60 60

50 50 34.0% 28.0% 40 40 23.5% 23.6% 30 19.8% 30 22.3%

20 20

10 10 Victim of Theft or Aggression or Theft of Victim Aggression or Theft of Victim 0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

166 Differences in Reported Illegal Drug Sales across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood in Pto. Cabezas

100 70.4%

80 68.2%

60

38.6%

40

Illegal Illegal inDrug Sales Neighborhood 20

0 Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood in Siuna

50 30.4%

40

30 17.3%

14.8% 20 10.4%

Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood in Sales Drug Illegal 10

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

167 Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood in Waslala

60 60 36.4%

50 50

33.3%

31.2% 40 40 26.3%

30 30 19.8% 15.1%

20 20 Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood in Sales Drug Illegal Neighborhood in Sales Drug Illegal

10 10

0 0 Male Female None Primary Secondary Higher

Gender Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood in Mulukukú

50 37.8% 50

40 40

30 30 21.1% 18.5%

20 20

8.2% IllegalDrug Salesin Neighborhood IllegalDrug Salesin Neighborhood 4.8% 10 10

0 0 Low Medium High Mixed Other

Ownership of Goods Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v. RACCN2015Basic11316

168 Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood in Prinzapolka

100 78.9% 100

80 80

48.5% 60 60 51.4% 44.4% 30.8%

36.8% 35.1%

40 40 Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood in Sales Drug Illegal Neighborhood in Sales Drug Illegal

20 20

0 0 None Primary Secondary Higher Mixed Miskitu Other

Level of Education Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood in Rosita 32.1% 50 50

40 40

21.1% 30 21.7% 30 17.7%

14.0% 20 20

Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood in Sales Drug Illegal Neighborhood in Sales Drug Illegal 6.3%

10 10

0 0 Male Female None Primary Secondary Higher

Gender Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

169 Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood in Bonanza

50 50

40 40 24.4%

30 19.6% 30 15.0% 20 20 10.9% 9.5%

10 10 Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood 0 0 Younger adults Older adults Low Medium High

Age Ownership of Goods

50 32.4%

40

30 15.5% 20 7.4% 10 Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood 0 Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood in Managua

80 80 33.3%

53.2% 52.0% 60 52.1% 60

38.0% 35.2% 28.6%

40 40 Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood in Sales Drug Illegal Neighborhood in Sales Drug Illegal 20 20

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

170 Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood in Northern Border

50 50 38.6%

40 32.5% 40 26.2% 24.1% 30 30

20 20 8.1% 10 10 Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood 0 0 Male Female Low Medium High

Gender Ownership of Goods

37.9% 50

30.6% 40 21.2% 22.9% 30

20

10 Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood 0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood in Southern Border

80 80

60 60 38.2% 40.8%

40 28.0% 40 23.4% 28.5%

20 20 Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood 0 0 Younger adults Older adults Low Medium High

Age Ownership of Goods

80 54.1% 60

35.3% 40 25.0% 25.6%

20 Illegal Drug Sales in Neighborhood 0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

171 Differences in Reported Illegal Drug Consumption across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Drug Consumption in Neighborhood in Pto. Cabezas

80

53.7

60 46.5

36.8 40

20 Drug Consumption in Neighborhood

0 Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Drug Consumption in Neighborhood in Siuna

25

17.9

20

13.3

15

10

Drug Consumption in Neighborhood 5

0 Male Female

Gender

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

172 Drug Consumption in Neighborhood in Waslala

25 25 18.1

16.5 17.0 20 20

10.9 13.8 15 11.3 15

10 10 Drug ConsumptionNeighborhood in Drug ConsumptionNeighborhood in

5 5

0 0 None Primary Secondary Higher Mixed Other

Level of Education Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Drug Consumption in Neighborhood in Mulukukú 15.8 20 20

12.8 14.0

15 15 10.5 6.3

10 10

Drug ConsumptionNeighborhood in 5 Drug ConsumptionNeighborhood in 5

0 0 Low Medium High Mixed Other

Ownership of Goods Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

173 Drug Consumption in Neighborhood in Prinzapolka

50 40.5 29.2

40 29.6

30

20

Drug Consumption in Neighborhood 10

0 Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Drug Consumption in Neighborhood in Rosita 19.3 25

20 14.3

15 10.3

10

Drug Consumption in Neighborhood 5

0 Low Medium High

Ownership of Goods

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

174 Drug Consumption in Neighborhood in Bonanza

40 40

25.0

30 30

20 14.5 20 13.8

11.3 8.0 7.4

Drug ConsumptionNeighborhood in 10 Drug ConsumptionNeighborhood in 10

0 0 Low Medium High Mixed Miskitu Other

Ownership of Goods Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Drug Consumption in Neighborhood in Northern Border 20.4 25 25

18.0

20 20

13.9 12.7 11.0 15 15

10 10 Drug ConsumptionNeighborhood in Drug ConsumptionNeighborhood in

5 5

0 0 Male Female Low Medium High

Gender Ownership of Goods

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

175 Drug Consumption in Neighborhood in Southern Border 17.8

20 14.8

15 10.3

10

5 Drug Consumption in Neighborhood

0 Low Medium High

Ownership of Goods

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

176 Differences in Reported Murders across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Murders in Neighborhood in Pto. Cabezas 49.4% 60 35.5% 40.0% 50 28.8%

40

30

20 Murders in Neighborhood

10

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Murders in Neighborhood in Siuna

50 33.0% 28.8%

40

30

16.2%

20 Murders in Neighborhood

10

0 Low Medium High

Ownership of Goods

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

177 Murders in Neighborhood in Waslala

60 48.3%

50 39.3%

40

30

20 Murders in Neighborhood

10

0 Male Female

Gender

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Murders in Neighborhood in Mulukukú

60 60 46.3% 44.6% 50 50

33.3% 40 40 26.1%

30 30

MurdersNeighborhood in 20 MurdersNeighborhood in 20

10 10

0 0 Male Female Mixed Other

Gender Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

178 Murders in Neighborhood in Prinzapolka 86.7% 100 62.5% 100 73.7%

80 80 47.4% 49.3% 60 60 39.8% 37.4% 40 40

20 20 Murders in Neighborhood in Murders Neighborhood in Murders 0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

100

69.7% 80 35.7% 60 31.5% 40

20 Murders in Neighborhood in Murders 0 Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Murders in Neighborhood in Rosita 30.8% 40 28.4% 40 23.7% 23.9% 20.8% 30 30

10.0% 20 20 6.9%

10 10 MurdersNeighborhood in MurdersNeighborhood in 0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

40 25.9%

30 12.9% 20 6.7%

10 MurdersNeighborhood in 0 Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

179 Murders in Neighborhood in Bonanza 28.9% 32.1% 40 40 27.5%

30 30 15.0% 20 20

5.7% 10 10 Murders in Neighborhood in Murders Neighborhood in Murders 0 0 Younger adults Older adults Low Medium High

Age Ownership of Goods

40 28.3% 25.6%

30 15.0% 13.3% 20

10 Murders in Neighborhood in Murders 0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Murders in Neighborhood in Managua 11.1%

30

20 15.1%

6.9%

10 Murders in Neighborhood

0 Low Medium High

Ownership of Goods

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

180 Murders in Neighborhood in Northern Border

25 16.8%

20

15 8.3% 6.4%

10 3.5% Murders in Neighborhood

5

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Murders in Neighborhood in Southern Border

25 17.9%

20

15 9.3%

10 Murders in Neighborhood

5

0 Younger adults Older adults

Age

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

181 Differences in Reported Violence against Women across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Violence Against Women in Neighborhood in Pto. Cabezas

80 80 55.6%

51.8% 60 47.8% 60 47.2% 39.3%

33.3%

40 40 20.7%

20 20 Violence AgainstWomenNeighborhood in Violence AgainstWomenNeighborhood in

0 0 None Primary Secondary Higher Mixed Miskitu Other

Level of Education Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Violence Against Women in Neighborhood in Siuna

25 14.8%

20

10.0%

15

4.3%

5.6% 10

5 Violence Against Women in NeighborhoodWomen in Against Violence

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

182 Violence Against Women in Neighborhood in Waslala 21.7% 40 28.8% 40

30 30

16.9%

20 20 12.9% 11.3%

7.1% 5.2% 10 10 Violence Against Women in Neighborhood Violence Against Women in Neighborhood

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Violence Against Women in Neighborhood in Mulukukú

50 50

27.8%

40 40

18.9% 30 30

15.0%

20 20

7.8% 5.9% Violence AgainstWomenin Neighborhood Violence AgainstWomenin Neighborhood 10 5.3% 10 3.4%

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

183 Violence Against Women in Neighborhood in Prinzapolka

60 51.1%

50

32.3% 40

30

7.1% 20

10 Violence Against Women in NeighborhoodWomen in Against Violence

0 Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Violence Against Women in Neighborhood in Bonanza

25 25

14.0% 13.8% 20 20

15 15 6.0% 10 10 5.7%

5 5

Violence Against Women in Neighborhood in Women Against Violence 0 Neighborhood in Women Against Violence 0 Male Female Younger adults Older adults

Gender Age

18.5% 25

20

15 8.8%

10 4.8%

5

Violence Against Women in Neighborhood 0 Low Medium High

Ownership of Goods 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

184 Violence Against Women in Neighborhood in Managua

40 40

16.7% 11.1%

30 30 22.0%

20.1% 19.8%

20 20 11.2%

8.7%

10 10 Violence Against Women in Neighborhood Violence Against Women in Neighborhood

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Violence Against Women in Neighborhood in Northern Border

25 25 19.5% 17.6%

20 20 11.6%

15 9.1% 15

10 10 2.2% 5 5

Violence Against Women in Neighborhood in Women Against Violence 0 Neighborhood in Women Against Violence 0 Younger adults Older adults Low Medium High

Age Ownership of Goods

20.0% 25 18.1%

20

15 5.2% 7.1% 10

5

Violence Against Women in Neighborhood in Women Against Violence 0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

185 Violence Against Women in Neighborhood in Southern Border

25 25

20 20 13.3% 12.2% 15 15 5.8% 10 6.3% 10 6.5%

5 5

Violence Against Women in Neighborhood in Women Against Violence 0 Neighborhood in Women Against Violence 0 Younger adults Older adults Low Medium High

Age Ownership of Goods

18.8% 25

20

15 6.7% 8.7% 6.9% 10

5

Violence Against Women in Neighborhood in Women Against Violence 0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

186 Differences in Knowledge of Human Trafficking across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Has Heard of Human Trafficking in Pto. Cabezas 68.8% 80 80 60.3% 55.6% 60 60 43.5% 35.7% 40 40

20 20

Has Heard of Human Trafficking 0 Has Heard of Human Trafficking 0 Younger adults Older adults Low Medium High

Age Ownership of Goods

71.2% 80 59.2%

60 40.4%

40 19.4%

20

Has Heard of Human Trafficking 0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Has Heard of Human Trafficking in Siuna

80

47.8%

60 43.2%

32.0% 40 28.6%

20 Has Heard Has Heard Humanof Trafficking

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

187 Has Heard of Human Trafficking in Waslala

100 100

66.7%

80 80

57.7%

60 46.5% 60 47.8%

41.3%

34.2% 32.9% 40 40 Has Heard of Human Trafficking Has Heard of Human Trafficking

20 20

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Has Heard of Human Trafficking in Prinzapolka 57.9% 80

60 38.6%

40 29.3% 25.6%

20 Has Heard Humanof Trafficking

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

188 Has Heard of Human Trafficking in Bonanza

60 60

35.3% 40.7% 50 50

40 40 32.3% 26.3%

21.9% 30 30

14.7% 20 20 Has Heard of Human Trafficking Has Heard of Human Trafficking

10 10

0 0 Low Medium High Mixed Miskitu Other

Ownership of Goods Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Has Heard of Human Trafficking in Managua 100 100

79.1%

80 80 66.0% 52.0% 61.7% 64.2% 58.2% 33.3% 60 60

40 40 Has Heardof Human Trafficking Has Heardof Human Trafficking

20 20

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

189 Has Heard of Human Trafficking in Northern Border

100 100 86.3%

79.7% 74.2% 80 72.6% 80 67.5% 59.6%

54.9%

60 60

40 40 Has Heard of Human Trafficking Has Heard of Human Trafficking

20 20

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Has Heard of Human Trafficking in Southern Border

100 100

80.0%

80 80 70.8% 69.6%

62.3% 55.4% 59.4%

60 60

40 40 Has Heard of Human Trafficking Has Heard of Human Trafficking

20 20

0 0 Male Female None Primary Secondary Higher

Gender Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

190 Differences in Perception of Human Trafficking as Problem across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Human Trafficking as a Problem in Neighborhood in Pto. Cabezas

40 40

30.7

26.8 23.0 27.7 23.2 30 30

21.1

20 20

10.0

10 10 Human TraffickingProblemNeighborhood a as in Human TraffickingProblemNeighborhood a as in

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Human Trafficking as a Problem in Neighborhood in Waslala 30.4

40 40

19.8

30 30

20.3

16.2

20 20

12.9 9.5

10 10 Human TraffickingProblemNeighborhood as a in Human TraffickingProblemNeighborhood as a in

0 0 None Primary Secondary Higher Mixed Other

Level of Education Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

191 Human Trafficking as a Problem in Neighborhood in Mulukukú 19.4 25 19.0

20

12.2 9.7

15

10

5 Human Trafficking asain Problem Neighborhood 0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Human Trafficking as a Problem in Neighborhood in Rosita 25.0

50 50

40 40

25.9 27.3

30 22.8 30 23.5

18.7 15.0 20 20

10 10 Human TraffickingProblemNeighborhood as a in Human TraffickingProblemNeighborhood as a in

0 0 None Primary Secondary Higher Mixed Miskitu Other

Level of Education Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

192 Human Trafficking as a Problem in Neighborhood in Bonanza 23.2 21.9 25 25 17.4 18.1

17.2 20 20 14.5

15 15

10 10

5 5 Human TraffickingProblemNeighborhood a as in Human TraffickingProblemNeighborhood a as in

0 0 Younger adults Older adults None Primary Secondary Higher

Age Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Human Trafficking as a Problem in Neighborhood in Northern Border

14.8 20 20 13.9 12.6 15 15 9.4 8.3 10 10 4.9

5 5

0 0

Human Trafficking as a Problem Neighborhood in Younger adults Older adults None Primary Secondary Higher Human Trafficking as a Problem in Neighborhood in a Problem as Trafficking Human Age Level of Education

20

12.3 15

6.6 10

5

0

Human Trafficking as a Problem Neighborhood in Mixed Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

193 Differences in Perceived Levels of Violence across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Perception of Violence in Neighborhood in Pto. Cabezas 43.1 60 46.5

50

33.3 40

30

20

10 Perception of Violence in Neighborhood in Violence of Perception

0 Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Perception of Violence in Neighborhood in Siuna 19.4 25

20 12.4

15 7.8

10

5 Perception of Violence in Neighborhood in Violence Perception of

0 Low Medium High

Ownership of Goods 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

194 Perception of Violence in Neighborhood in Rosita

40 27.1 27.0

30

20 9.4

10 Perception of Violence in Neighborhood in Violence of Perception

0 Low Medium High

Ownership of Goods 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Perception of Violence in Neighborhood in Bonanza

40 40 26.5

30 30 20.7

15.5 20 12.8 20 11.2

10 10

Perception of Violence in Neighborhood in Violence of Perception 0 Neighborhood in Violence of Perception 0 Younger adults Older adults Low Medium High

Age Ownership of Goods

40 23.3 30 19.4 13.8 20 9.2

10

Perception of Violence in Neighborhood in Violence of Perception 0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

195 Perception of Violence in Neighborhood in Northern Border

25 25 17.6 15.9 20 20

10.8 15 10.8 15 8.4

10 10

5 5

Perception of Violence in Neighborhood in Violence of Perception 0 Neighborhood in Violence of Perception 0 Younger adults Older adults Low Medium High

Age Ownership of Goods

25 16.0 14.3 16.7 20

15 7.9 10

5

Perception of Violence Neighborhood in 0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

196 Differences in Perceived Trend of Violence across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Trend of Violence in Neighborhood in Pto. Cabezas

80 80

58.3 57.6 56.2

60 60 47.1 45.2

39.7 37.8

40 40 Trend Violence of in Neighborhood Trend Violence of in Neighborhood 20 20

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Trend of Violence in Neighborhood in Rosita

50 50 40.5

38.2 38.8 36.7 36.6

40 40

25.5

17.2 30 30

20 20 Trend of Violencein Neighborhood Trend of Violencein Neighborhood

10 10

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

197 Trend of Violence in Neighborhood in Bonanza

50 50 36.4 33.7 40 40 26.8 25.8 28.3 30 20.2 30 18.8

20 20

10 10

0 0 Trend Violence of in Neighborhood Trend Violence of in Neighborhood Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

50 32.4

40 30.5

30 14.7 20

10

0 Trend of Violencein Neighborhood Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Trend of Violence in Neighborhood in Southern Border

50 40.7 40.1 37.9

40 30.9

30

20

Trend of Violence in Neighborhood in Violence of Trend 10

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

198 Differences in Reported Presence of Gangs across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Gangs in Neighborhood in Pto. Cabezas

80 80

50.3 52.4 53.1 60 51.8 48.3 60

41.4 35.4

40 40 GangsNeighborhood in GangsNeighborhood in

20 20

0 0 None Primary Secondary Higher Mixed Miskitu Other

Level of Education Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Gangs in Neighborhood in Siuna 20.0 25

14.6

20 13.5

15

10 Gangs in Neighborhood in Gangs

5

0 Low Medium High

Ownership of Goods 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

199 Gangs in Neighborhood in Mulukukú 20.2 24.0 30

25

16.5 14.9 20

15

Gangs in Neighborhood Gangs in 10

5

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Gangs in Neighborhood in Prinzapolka

40

30.3 26.3

30 14.1

20 Gangs in Neighborhood in Gangs 10

0 Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

200 Gangs in Neighborhood in Rosita

40 40

27.3 26.1

23.8 30 22.9 30 21.2

16.8 13.7

20 20 GangsNeighborhood in GangsNeighborhood in

10 10

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Gangs in Neighborhood in Bonanza

40 40 29.4

30 23.3 30 18.3

20 13.9 20 11.6

10 10 GangsNeighborhood in GangsNeighborhood in

0 0 Younger adults Older adults Low Medium High

Age Ownership of Goods

40 40 27.2

25.8 30 21.5 30 20.1

11.1 20 11.5 20 11.7

10 10 GangsNeighborhood in GangsNeighborhood in

0 0 None Primary Secondary Higher Mixed Miskitu Other

Level of Education Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

201 Gangs in Neighborhood in Managua

40 40 33.1 31.9

28.1 27.6

25.5 30 30

17.2

20 20 GangsNeighborhood in GangsNeighborhood in

10 10

0 0 Younger adults Older adults None Primary Secondary Higher

Age Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Gangs in Neighborhood in Northern Border

40 40 28.6

30 23.8 30

17.5 17.4 20 20 7.9 10 10 GangsNeighborhood in GangsNeighborhood in

0 0 Younger adults Older adults Low Medium High

Age Ownership of Goods

40

24.7 24.0 30 16.6

15.7 20

10 GangsNeighborhood in

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

202 Gangs in Neighborhood in Southern Border 21.8 20.5 25 25

16.2

20 20 14.9

13.5

15 15

10 10 GangsNeighborhood in GangsNeighborhood in

5 5

0 0 Younger adults Older adults Low Medium High

Age Ownership of Goods 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

203 Differences in Reported Trend of Gang Activity across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Trend in Gang Activity in Pto. Cabezas 66.7

100 77.8

65.2 80

51.9

60

40 Trend in Gang Activity Gang in Trend

20

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Trend in Gang Activity in Waslala 88.5 100 100 81.5

65.6

80 80

46.7 45.5

60 60

40 40 Trend Activity Gang Trend in Activity Gang Trend in

20 20

0 0 Younger adults Older adults None Primary Secondary

Age Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

204 Trend in Gang Activity in Prinzapolka 50.0 120

100 71.9 53.8 80

48.1 60

Trend in Gang Activity Gang in Trend 40

20

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Trend in Gang Activity in Rosita

120 120 75.0 83.3

100 100

58.8 80 55.3 80

60 60 44.1 Trend Activity Gang Trend in Activity Gang Trend in 40 16.7 40

20 20

0 0 Low Medium High Mixed Miskitu Other

Ownership of Goods Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

205 Trend in Gang Activity in Northern Border 78.6

100 100 75.0 67.9

80 80 65.8

35.0 48.5 60 60

40 40 Trend in Gang Activity Gang in Trend Activity Gang in Trend

20 20

0 0 None Primary Secondary Higher Mixed Other

Level of Education Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

206 Differences in Perceptions of Security as Most Important Problem across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Security as the Most Serious Problem in Pto. Cabezas 26.3% 40

30

13.9% 20

8.9%

10 Security as the Most Serious Problem

0 Low Medium High

Ownership of Goods

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Security as the Most Serious Problem in Prinzapolka

25

7.1%

20

15 9.4%

10

2.8% 5 Security as theMost Serious Problem

0 Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

207 Security as the Most Serious Problem in Managua

20

13.5%

15

7.1% 10

5 Security as the Most Serious Problem

0 Male Female

Gender

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Security as the Most Serious Problem in Northern Border

20 14.3%

15

8.3%

10

5 Security as theMost Serious Problem

0 Male Female

Gender

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

208 Differences in Perceptions of Insecurity across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Perception of Insecurity in Siuna

60 54.9

47.7 50

40

30

20 Perception of InsecurityPerception of

10

0 Younger adults Older adults

Age 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Perception of Insecurity in Mulukukú 59.7

60 48.2

50

40

30

20 PerceptionInsecurity of

10

0 Mixed Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

209 Perception of Insecurity in Prinzapolka 53.9 60

50 41.7

40

30

20 Perception of InsecurityPerception of

10

0 Younger adults Older adults

Age 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Perception of Insecurity in Rosita

80 80 63.7

53.1 60 60 47.7 46.1 45.3

40 40

20 20 PerceptionInsecurity of PerceptionInsecurity of

0 0 Younger adults Older adults Low Medium High

Age Ownership of Goods

80 62.9 80

60 50.8 49.5 60 51.0 47.1 41.7 37.6 40 40

20 20 Perception of Insecurity Perception of Insecurity

0 0 None Primary Secondary Higher Mixed Miskitu Other

Level of Education Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

210 Perception of Insecurity in Bonanza

80 80

61.9 63.0 61.4

58.1 57.7 52.3 60 60 47.7

40 40 Perception of Insecurity of Perception Insecurity of Perception

20 20

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Perception of Insecurity in Managua

100

76.1

80

55.8 56.4 60 53.2

40 PerceptionInsecurity of

20

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

211 Differences in Avoidance of Dangerous Areas across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood in Pto. Cabezas

80 80 63.8%

57.1% 52.5%

48.9% 49.5% 60 60

39.1%

40 40

16.7%

20 20 Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood in Siuna 71.4%

100 100

65.2% 80 80

60 60

40.0% 34.6% 36.3% 40 40 24.6%

20 20 Avoided Walkingin Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood Avoided Walkingin Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood

0 0 None Primary Secondary Higher Mixed Other

Level of Education Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

212 Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood in Prinzapolka 87.5% 100 100 63.3% 80 80

60 48.0% 60 34.5% 37.3% 40 40

20 20

Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood in Areas Dangerous in Walking Avoided 0 Neighborhood in Areas Dangerous in Walking Avoided 0 Male Female Low Medium High

Gender Ownership of Goods

100 100 63.2% 80 80 60.6% 35.7% 45.7% 60 60 40.9% 32.5% 40 40 31.3%

20 20 Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood in Areas Dangerous in Walking Avoided Neighborhood in Areas Dangerous in Walking Avoided 0 0 None Primary Secondary Higher Mixed Miskitu Other

Level of Education Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood in Bonanza

80 80 59.3%

39.5% 60 60 43.3% 34.2% 31.1% 40 40 20.0% 20.0% 20 20

Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood in Areas Dangerous in Walking Avoided 0 Neighborhood in Areas Dangerous in Walking Avoided 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

80 55.9%

60 37.9% 40 20.6%

20 Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood in Areas Dangerous in Walking Avoided 0 Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

213 Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood in Managua

80 80

64.3% 64.2% 61.7%

36.0% 60 51.4% 60 46.7%

40 40

20 20 Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood

0 0 Younger adults Older adults None Primary Secondary Higher

Age Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood in Northern Border 56.8%

60

50 40.0%

40 26.1%

30

20

10

Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood Areas Dangerousin Walking Avoided 0 Low Medium High

Ownership of Goods

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

214 Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood in Southern Border 48.6% 60 60

50 42.9% 50 36.0% 38.3% 36.4% 30.7% 33.6% 40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10 Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

215 Differences in Evaluation of Police across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime in Pto. Cabezas

60 47.7 44.8 45.8 50

34.9 40

30

20

10 Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime Controlling in Police of Evaluation

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime in Mulukukú 50.0 60 54.4 49.7 45.3 50

40

30

20

10 Evaluation Evaluation of in Crime Police Controlling

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

216 Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime in Prinzapolka 56.8 60 60 55.1 49.2 50.8

50 50 28.1

40 40

30 30

20 20 Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime Controlling in Police of Evaluation Crime Controlling in Police of Evaluation

10 10

0 0 Younger adults Older adults Low Medium High

Age Ownership of Goods

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime in Rosita

60 52.0

50 43.1 43.6

40

30

20

10 Evaluation Evaluation of in Crime Police Controlling

0 Low Medium High

Ownership of Goods 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

217 Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime in Bonanza

80 80 61.2 60.9 54.3 60 53.4 60

40 40

20 20

Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime Controlling in Police of Evaluation 0 Crime Controlling in Police of Evaluation 0 Male Female Younger adults Older adults

Gender Age 80 80 67.1 62.4 57.7 59.3 53.1 56.8 60 50.3 60

40 40

20 20

Evaluation of Police inEvaluationof Controlling Crime 0 Police inEvaluationof Controlling Crime 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

80 65.3 58.1 54.5 60

40

20

Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime Controlling in Police of Evaluation 0 Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime in Managua 56.3

60 47.9 45.4 45.3 50

40

30

20

Evaluation Evaluation of in Crime Police Controlling 10

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

218 Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime in Northern Border

58.9 54.2 60 52.5 60 51.2 49.6 45.7 50 50 42.4

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime 0 Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

54.8 60 48.4 50

40

30

20

10

Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime Controlling in Police of Evaluation 0 Mixed Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

219 Differences in Perceptions of Police Harassment across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Police Harassment as a Problem in Pto. Cabezas

60 46.7 60 40.9 50 50 34.6 40 28.3 40 24.7 30 22.3 30 13.7 20 20

10 10

Police Harassment as a Problem a as Harassment Police 0 Problem a as Harassment Police 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

60 42.9 50 33.2 40

30 20.2

20

10

Police Harassment Police Harassment as Problem a 0 Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Police Harassment as a Problem in Siuna 16.7

25 25

20 20

11.0 15 15 9.5

7.6

10 10

5.2 4.1 Police Harassment as a Problem a as Harassment Police Problem a as Harassment Police

5 5

0 0 Younger adults Older adults None Primary Secondary Higher

Age Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

220 Police Harassment as a Problem in Waslala 8.3

15

8.4

10

5 1.8 1.9 Police Harassment as a Problem

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Police Harassment as a Problem in Mulukukú

25

17.5

20

12.2 15

10

Police Harassmentas Problem a 5

0 Younger adults Older adults

Age 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

221 Police Harassment as a Problem in Prinzapolka 34.2 50

40

30 20.1

20 13.9 15.6

Police Harassment as a Problem 10

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Police Harassment as a Problem in Bonanza

40 40

30 21.8 30 20.9

20 12.2 20 12.4

10 10

0 0 Police Harassment as a Problem a as Harassment Police Problem a as Harassment Police Male Female Younger adults Older adults

Gender Age 40 40 26.5 23.3 30 30 23.0

20 13.1 13.7 20 8.1 9.3 10 10

0 0 Police Harassment as a Problem Police Harassment as a Problem Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

27.9 40

30 21.3

20 13.6

10

0 Police Harassment as a Problem Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

222 Police Harassment as a Problem in Managua

16.9 16.6 20 20

15 15 8.7 9.1 10 10

5 5

Police Harassment as a Problem a as Harassment Police 0 Problem a as Harassment Police 0 Male Female Younger adults Older adults

Gender Age

20 14.7 13.8

15 9.2 5.2

10

5

Police Harassment as a Problem a as Harassment Police 0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Police Harassment as a Problem in Northern Border

10 10 7.0 6.8

8 8

6 6

3.0 3.3

4 4 Police Harassment as a Problem a as Harassment Police Problem a as Harassment Police

2 2

0 0 Male Female Younger adults Older adults

Gender Age

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  AmericasBarometer, LAPOP

223 Police Harassment as a Problem in Southern Border

15

10.2

10

4.8

5 Police Harassment as a Problem

0 Younger adults Older adults

Age 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

224 Differences in Trust in the Police across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Trust in the Police in Pto. Cabezas

80 80

49.4 57.4

60 52.0 60 54.9

42.7 44.2

40 40 Trust in the Police the in Trust Police the in Trust

20 20

0 0 Low Medium High Mixed Miskitu Other

Ownership of Goods Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Trust in the Police in Siuna

80

60.5 58.1

60 50.8 44.2

40 Trust in thePolice

20

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

225 Trust in the Police in Mulukukú

80 80

59.8

61.4

50.9 60 60 52.0

39.9

40 40 Trust in the Police the in Trust Police the in Trust

20 20

0 0 Low Medium High Mixed Other

Ownership of Goods Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Trust in the Police in Prinzapolka

80 80

66.7 61.5 62.4 56.3 60 60

25.0 40 40 Trust in the Police the in Trust Police the in Trust

20 20

0 0 Younger adults Older adults Low Medium High

Age Ownership of Goods

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

226 Trust in the Police in Rosita

80

58.8

60 52.5 46.6

40 Trust in Police the

20

0 Low Medium High

Ownership of Goods 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Trust in the Police in Bonanza

80 80 64.6

61.2

58.7 54.2 52.6 60 49.8 60 49.8

40 40 Trust in the Police the in Trust Police the in Trust

20 20

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

227 Trust in the Police in Managua

80 80

60.7

60 60 48.1 49.2 48.6 45.7 45.2

25.9 40 40 Trust in the Police the in Trust Police the in Trust

20 20

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Trust in the Police in Northern Border

80

62.1 56.8 60 52.8

40 Trust in thePolice

20

0 Low Medium High

Ownership of Goods 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

228 Trust in the Police in Southern Border

80

60.9 55.8 60 52.4

40 Trust in Police the

20

0 Low Medium High

Ownership of Goods 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

229 Differences in Confidence in the Judicial System Punishing the Guilty across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty in Pto. Cabezas

80 62.9

60 51.3 45.3

40

20

0

Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty in Siuna 56.6 60

50 42.8

40

30

20

10

0

Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty Younger adults Older adults

Age 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

230 Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty in Waslala 48.6

50 40.4

40

30

20

10

0

Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty Male Female

Gender 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty in Mulukukú

80 80

60.3 58.2 58.1 57.6

60 60 49.8 42.4

42.1

40 40

20 20 Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty the Punish Would Justice System that the Confidence Guilty the Punish Would Justice System that the Confidence

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

231 Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty in Prinzapolka

57.8 49.8

60 60 54.8

49.5

50 50

28.9

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10 Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty the Punish Would Justice System that the Confidence Guilty the Punish Would Justice System that the Confidence

0 0 Younger adults Older adults Low Medium High

Age Ownership of Goods

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty in Rosita

80

58.4 54.3 60 46.7

40

20

0

Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty Low Medium High

Ownership of Goods 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

232 Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty in Managua

60 50.6

50 41.5

40

30

20

10

0

Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty Younger adults Older adults

Age 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty in Northern Border

54.8 52.8 60 60 52.8 51.7

45.4 50 50 41.0 40.7

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10 Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty the Punish Would Justice System that the Confidence Guilty the Punish Would Justice System that the Confidence

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

233 Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty in Southern Border

80 80

58.8

60 60 52.0 51.2 47.1 39.8

40 40

20 20 Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty the Punish Would Justice System that the Confidence Guilty the Punish Would Justice System that the Confidence

0 0 Low Medium High Mixed Other

Ownership of Goods Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

234 Differences in Trust in the Judicial System across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Trust in the Judicial System in Pto. Cabezas 55.3 60

48.4 50

40

30

20 Trust in the Judicial System Judicial in the Trust

10

0 Male Female

Gender 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Trust in the Judicial System in Siuna

80

59.5

60 52.2 53.6 44.7

40

Trust in the Judicial System Judicial in the Trust 20

0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

235 Trust in the Judicial System in Mulukukú

80 80 63.7 60.7 59.1 59.2 54.2 60 60 48.1

40 40

20 20 Trust in the Judicial System Judicialthe in Trust System Judicialthe in Trust 0 0 Younger adults Older adults None Primary Secondary Higher

Age Level of Education

70.4 80

56.4 60

40

20 Trust in the Judicial System Judicialthe in Trust 0 Mixed Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Trust in the Judicial System in Prinzapolka

100 100

80 58.9 80 64.9 58.2 54.3 55.0 51.9 60 37.5 60

40 40

20 20 Trust the System Trust in Judicial the System Trust in Judicial 0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education

100 73.8

80 58.5 60 50.5

40

20 Trust in the Judicial System Judicial the in Trust 0 Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

236 Trust in the Judicial System in Rosita

80 80

57.5 56.7

60 60 47.0 46.0 47.5 48.5

40 40 Trust in the Judicial System Judicialthe in Trust System Judicialthe in Trust

20 20

0 0 Low Medium High Mixed Miskitu Other

Ownership of Goods Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Trust in the Judicial System in Bonanza

80

61.3 59.7 60 50.7

40

Trust in the Judicial System Judicial in the Trust 20

0 Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

237 Trust in the Judicial System in Managua

80 80

50.7

53.3 60 60 53.0 52.0

44.4 44.1

40 40 25.0 Trust in the Judicial System Judicialthe in Trust System Judicialthe in Trust

20 20

0 0 None Primary Secondary Higher Mixed Miskitu Other

Level of Education Ethnic Autoidentification

95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Trust in the Judicial System in Northern Border 59.2 61.1 60 53.5 60 51.6

40 40

20 20 Trust the System Trust in Judicial the System Trust in Judicial 0 0 Male Female Younger adults Older adults

Gender Age

55.5 61.0 60 53.6 52.6

40

20 Trust in the Judicial System Judicial the in Trust 0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

238 Trust in the Judicial System in Southern Border 57.0 60 52.2

50

40

30

20 Trust in the Judicial System Judicial in the Trust

10

0 Younger adults Older adults

Age 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

239 Differences in Attendance of Municipal Meetings across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Attended Municipal Meeting in Waslala 18.7% 25 25 17.5%

20 20

15 15

8.2%

7.3%

10 10 Attended Municipal Meeting Attended Municipal Meeting

5 5

0 0 Male Female Younger adults Older adults

Gender Age 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Attended Municipal Meeting in Mulukukú 20.8%

25

20

15 9.3%

10 Attended Municipal Meeting

5

0 Male Female

Gender 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

240 Attended Municipal Meeting in Prinzapolka

30 22.0% 30

21.0%

25 25

7.1%

20 20

15 15

8.1% 6.1%

Attended Municipal Meeting 10 Attended Municipal Meeting 10

5 5

0 0 Male Female Mixed Miskitu Other

Gender Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Attended Municipal Meeting in Rosita 14.8% 20

15

7.4%

10

Attended Municipal Meeting 5

0 Male Female

Gender 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

241 Attended Municipal Meeting in Bonanza

40 27.9%

30

11.8%

20 12.6%

Attended Municipal Meeting 10

0 Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Attended Municipal Meeting in Managua

15 10.7%

10 4.4%

5 Attended Municipal Meeting

0 Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

242 Attended Municipal Meeting in Southern Border 35.5%

50

40

30

20 15.3% Attended Municipal Meeting

10

0 Mixed Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

243 Differences in Attendance of Municipal Meetings across Sociodemographic Factors in RACCN Municipalities and other Targeted Municipalities, 2015

Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem in Pto. Cabezas

50 50 34.9 40 40 32.9

30 30 21.1 19.4 20 20

10 10

Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem 0 Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem 0 Male Female Younger adults Older adults

Gender Age 50 50 35.5 33.1 40 40 28.2 29.6 26.0 30 30 16.0 18.8 20 20

10 10

Tried Help to Solve a Community Problem 0 Tried Help to Solve a Community Problem 0 None Primary Secondary Higher Mixed Miskitu Other

Level of Education Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem in Waslala

40 32.2

30 21.2

20

10 Tried Tried a Solve to Community Help Problem

0 Male Female

Gender 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

244 Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem in Mulukukú

50 50 31.3

40 40

22.5 30 30

16.5

20 20 13.2 13.8 12.3 11.0 Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem Community a Solve Help to Tried Problem Community a Solve Help to Tried 10 10

0 0 Low Medium High None Primary Secondary Higher

Ownership of Goods Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem in Prinzapolka

60 60 41.7

50 50

40 40

30.2 26.5

30 30 24.1

19.1 18.7

20 20 Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem Community a Solve Help to Tried Problem Community a Solve Help to Tried

10 10

0 0 Male Female None Primary Secondary Higher

Gender Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

245 Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem in Rosita

40 40 29.1

30 30 21.9

17.0

15.1 20 14.4 20

10 10 Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem

0 0 Male Female Low Medium High

Gender Ownership of Goods 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem in Bonanza

50 50

33.4 40 31.4 40

30 23.9 30 22.6

20 20

10 10

Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem 0 Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem 0 Male Female Younger adults Older adults

Gender Age

50 35.6 40 22.5 25.8 30

20

10

Tried Helpto Solve a Community Problem 0 Mixed Miskitu Other

Ethnic Autoidentification 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

246 Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem in Northern Border

40 40

26.5 27.0 30 30 23.2 21.5 18.7

20 20

10 10

Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem 0 Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem 0 Male Female Low Medium High

Gender Ownership of Goods

40 30.7

30 23.5 23.5 16.5 20

10

Tried Help to Solve a Community Problem 0 None Primary Secondary Higher

Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem in Southern Border 40 40 30.7

26.5 30 30 23.5 23.5

21.5

16.5

20 20

10 10 Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem Community a Solve Help to Tried Problem Community a Solve Help to Tried

0 0 Male Female None Primary Secondary Higher

Gender Level of Education 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source:  RACCN Study by LAPOP, 2015; v.RACCN2015Basic11316

247 Appendix 3: Questionnaires Appendix 3a. Focus Group Questionnaire

Guía para los grupos focales: RACCN, Nicaragua

Hola a todos,

Me llamo [name] y seré la moderadora de nuestro grupo de discusión el día de hoy. Primero, quiero agradecerles a todos por tomarse un tiempo de su ocupado día para venir. El estudio está siendo realizado por la Universidad de Vanderbilt y por Borge y Asociados por pedido de USAID, la Agencia de los Estados Unidos para el Desarrollo Internacional. El propósito de este grupo de discusión es conocer la visión de los ciudadanos sobre algunos de los asuntos más importantes que enfrenta este país y, en particular, esta región. Además, queremos aprender algo más sobre cómo la gente se identifica en esta región. La discusión en grupo tendrá una duración de alrededor de una hora y media (máximo dos horas). Debido a que queremos capturar los puntos de vista de todos los que están aquí presentes, se grabará esta discusión de grupo. Sin embargo, NO se les pedirá ni el nombre ni la dirección de la casa o el barrio en el que viven. Con el fin de garantizar el anonimato de todos los participantes, por favor les pido que eviten el uso de nombres durante nuestra conversación. Por último, esta discusión no les beneficiará directamente a ustedes, pero los patrocinadores del estudio, y yo personalmente, esperamos que los resultados de este estudio beneficien a los nicaragüenses en general.

1. Quisiera comenzar pidiéndole a cada uno de ustedes que me diga ¿cuál creen que es el problema más importante que enfrenta esta región? [Seguir con la discusión de los problemas, especialmente los problemas relacionados con la delincuencia y la violencia] 2. ¿Este problema es peor ahora que en el pasado? ¿Qué tan grave es este? ¿Se puede comparar la gravedad del problema A mencionado por uno de ustedes con el problema B mencionado por alguien más?

PREGUNTAS SOBRE PERCEPCIONES DE LA DELINCUENCIA Y LA VIOLENCIA

3. Algunos de ustedes mencionaron problemas relacionados con la seguridad, cuando piensan sobre la delincuencia en esta región durante los últimos doce meses, ustedes dirían que ¿ha aumentado, ha permanecido igual o ha disminuido? Seguir con: Y ¿por qué creen eso?

248  [Si participantes NO mencionan problemas relacionados con la seguridad] Quisiera hacerles algunas preguntas sobre la seguridad ciudadana. Cuando piensan sobre la delincuencia en esta región en los últimos doce meses, ustedes dirían que ¿ha aumentado, ha permanecido igual o ha disminuido? Y ¿por qué creen eso? 4. ¿Qué tipo de delitos son los más comunes en esta región? ¿En su comunidad? 5. ¿Qué tipo de delitos son aquellos a los cuales ustedes más les temen personalmente? 6. ¿Me podrían decir acerca de los tipos de delitos que ustedes o sus familias han experimentado personalmente? 7. [Preguntar a todos los participantes] Y ¿usted?

Expertos en el campo del estudio de la delincuencia y la violencia intentan comprender las diferencias en cada región que estudian. Me gustaría saber qué tan relevantes son algunos de los siguientes asuntos en esta región. Por ejemplo, 8. Primero quisiera pedirles que me digan ¿qué tan preocupados están por los robos y saqueos en esta región? Pueden decirme si ¿es común o poco común que les roben a las personas o en sus casas, pertenencias personales? ¿Han sido ustedes robados o sus casas han sido saqueadas en el último año? ¿Están muy preocupados por esto? 9. ¿Qué me dicen del robo de carros – es un problema en esta área? ¿Les han robado sus carros o los de algún miembro de sus familias? ¿Pueden describir qué es lo que pasó? 10. Ahora, pasando a otro tipo de delito: ¿Qué tan preocupados están por los asuntos relacionados con la venta y tráfico de drogas ilegales en esta área? ¿Pueden decirme de qué manera las drogas son un problema en sus comunidades? 11. Otro tipo de delito que algunas comunidades enfrentan es la extorsión. ¿La extorsión afecta a las personas o a los negocios en esta comunidad? 12. Ahora quisiera preguntarles sobre la violencia intrafamiliar. Basado en lo que ustedes saben, ¿es este un problema en su comunidad? 13. Qué entienden por la trata de personas? ¿Es un problema en esta área? 14. Y el tráfico de personas, como el tráfico ilegal de migrantes? ¿Es un problema en esta área? 15. ¿Y qué pasa con los problemas de corrupción, como alguien que les pida un soborno? 16. ¿Y qué pasa con los problemas de transporte en esta región? ¿En general están satisfechos con las carreteras? 17. ¿Y qué piensan de la policía en esta región? ¿En general están satisfechos con la policía? Y el sistema judicial, como los tribunales locales? 18. ¿Qué pasa con los centros de salud? ¿En general están satisfechos con la disponibilidad de médicos, clínicas y hospitales? 19. ¿Qué pasa con las escuelas públicas? ¿En general están satisfechos con la disponibilidad y la calidad de las escuelas? 20. Hablando de las escuelas, ¿Están preocupados por la seguridad de los niños en las escuelas? ¿Por qué?

249 21. Hemos hablado sobre algunos tipos de delitos. ¿Hay algún otro delito que ustedes crean importante para esta región sobre el cual no les he preguntado?

PREGUNTAS SOBRE LA PERCEPCIÓN DE SEGURIDAD

22. Ahora hablando del barrio donde ustedes viven y pensando en la posibilidad de ser asaltados o robados, se sienten ¿muy seguros, algo seguros, algo inseguros o muy inseguros en esta área? ¿Por qué piensan eso? [Si queda tiempo]  Y en general, ¿qué tan preocupados están de que alguien en su familia vaya a ser asaltado en el transporte público? Ustedes dirían que ¿mucho, algo, poco, o nada? ¿Por qué? Pensando en situaciones específicas, ¿qué tan seguros? se sienten en las siguientes situaciones: 23. Cuando caminan solos en su vecindario, ¿hay algún momento en particular en el que se sienten inseguros? 24. ¿En qué medida creen ustedes que su barrio está afectado por las pandillas? ¿Por qué piensan eso?

PREGUNTAS SOBRE ETNICIDAD

25. Quisiera terminar haciéndoles un par de preguntas sobre otro tema. Cuál es su identificación partidaria? 26. La gente se identifica de diferentes formas, ¿cómo se identifica la gente por acá? Sondear solo si no entienden. Por ejemplo, ¿ustedes se consideran blancos, mestizos, indígenas, negros, mulatos, o de otra raza? 27. ¿Cuál es su lengua madre, esto es, el lenguaje que habló primero en su casa cuando usted era un niño? 28. ¿Cuántos idiomas habla?

Estas son todas las preguntas que tengo. Muchísimas gracias por su colaboración participando en este grupo de discusión. Sus opiniones son muy importantes para nosotros.

250 Número de cuestionario

Appendix 3b. Survey Questionnaire

RACCN Región Nicaragua 2015, Versión # 15.2.10.1 IRB Approval: 110627

LAPOP: RACCN Región Nicaragua, 2015 © Vanderbilt University 2015. Derechos reservados, All rights reserved.

PAIS. País: 01. México 02. Guatemala 03. El Salvador 04. Honduras 05. Nicaragua 06. Costa Rica 07. Panamá 08. Colombia 09. Ecuador 10. Bolivia 11. Perú 12. Paraguay 13. Chile 14. Uruguay 15. Brasil 16. Venezuela 17. Argentina 21. Rep. Dom. 22. Haití 23. Jamaica 05 24. Guyana 25. Trinidad & Tobago 26. Belice 40. Estados Unidos 41. Canadá 27. Surinam 28. Bahamas 29. Barbados

IDNUM. Número de cuestionario [asignado en la oficina] |__|__|__|__| ESTRATOPRI: (501) Managua (5062) RACCN |__|__| (5031) Frontera Norte (5051) Frontera Sur ESTRATOSEC. Tamaño de la municipalidad (1) Grande (más de 75,000) |__| (2) Mediana (Entre 25,000 y 75,000) (3) Pequeña (menos de 25,000) UPM. [Unidad Primaria de Muestreo, normalmente idéntico a “MUNICIPIO”] ______|__|__|__| PROV. Departamento::______5|__|__| MUNICIPIO. Municipio: ______5|__|__| NICDISTRITO. Distrito: ______|__|__| NICSEGMENTO. Segmento censal [código oficial del censo] ______|__|__|__|__| NICSEC. Sector [optativo]______|__|__|__| CLUSTER. [Unidad Final de Muestreo o Punto Muestral]:______|__|__|__| [Cada cluster debe tener 6 entrevistas; código asignada(o) por el supervisor de campo] UR. (1) Urbano (2) Rural [Usar definición censal del país] |__| TAMANO. Tamaño del lugar: (1) Capital Nacional (área metropolitana) (2) Ciudad grande (3) Ciudad |__| mediana (4) Ciudad pequeña (5) Área rural IDIOMAQ. Idioma del cuestionario: (1) Español (3) Miskito |__| Hora de inicio: _____:_____ |__|__|__|__| FECHA. Fecha Día: ____ Mes:______Año: 2015 |__|__|__|__|

251 ¿Vive usted en esta casa? Sícontinúe No Agradezca al entrevistado y termine la entrevista ¿Es usted ciudadano nicaragüense o residente permanente de Nicaragua? Sícontinúe No Agradezca al entrevistado y termine la entrevista ¿Cuántos años tiene? [Seguir solo si tiene por lo menos 16 años] Sícontinúe No Agradezca al entrevistado y termine la entrevista ATENCION: ES UN REQUISITO LEER SIEMPRE LA HOJA DE CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO Y OBTENER EL ASENTIMIENTO DEL ENTREVISTADO ANTES DE COMENZAR LA ENTREVISTA.

Q1. Género [ANOTAR, NO PREGUNTE]: (1) Hombre (2) Mujer |__| Q2Y. ¿En qué año nació?______año (8888) NS (9888) NR |__|__|__|__| LS3. Para comenzar, ¿en general, qué tan satisfecho(a) está con su vida? ¿Usted diría que se encuentra: [LEER ALTERNATIVAS] |__|__| (1) Muy satisfecho(a) (2) Algo satisfecho(a) (3) Algo insatisfecho(a) (4) Muy insatisfecho(a)? (88) NS (98) NR

A4. En su opinión ¿cuál es el problema más grave que está enfrentando el país? [NO |___|___| LEER ALTERNATIVAS; SÓLO UNA OPCIÓN] Agua, falta de 1 (19) Huracanes/inundaciones/desastres 21 (71) naturales Caminos/vías en mal estado 2 (18) Impunidad 22 (61) Conflicto armado 3 (30) Inflación, altos precios 23 (02) Conflicto en territorio Miskitu/colonos 4 (72) Los políticos 24 (59) Corrupción 5 (13) Mal gobierno 25 (15) Crédito, falta de 6 (09) Medio ambiente 26 (10) Delincuencia, crimen 7 (05) Migración 27 (16) Derechos humanos, violaciones de 8 (56) Narcotráfico 28 (12) Desempleo/falta de empleo 9 (03) Pandillas 29 (14)

Desigualdad 10 (58) Pobreza 30 (04) Desnutrición 11 (23) Protestas populares (huelgas, cierre 31 (06) de carreteras, paros, etc.) Desplazamiento forzado 12 (32) Salud, falta de servicio 32 (22) Deuda externa 13 (26) Secuestro 33 (31) Discriminación 14 (25) Seguridad (falta de) 34 (27) Drogas, consumo de; drogadicción 15 (11) Terrorismo 35 (33) Economía, problemas con, crisis de 16 (01) Tierra para cultivar, falta de 36 (07) Educación, falta de, mala calidad 17 (21) Transporte, problemas con el 37 (60) Electricidad, falta de 18 (24) Violencia 38 (57) Explosión demográfica 19 (20) Vivienda 39 (55) Guerra contra el terrorismo 20 (17) Otro 40 (70) NS 88 NR 98

A4L. [NO SE PREGUNTA, SOLO MARCAR] ¿En qué idioma se marcó la respuesta a la pregunta anterior (A4)? |__| (1) Español (3) Miskitu

252

SOCT2. ¿Considera usted que la situación económica del país es mejor, igual o peor que hace doce meses? |__|__| (1) Mejor (2) Igual (3) Peor (88) NS (98) NR

IDIO2. ¿Considera usted que su situación económica actual es mejor, igual o peor que la de hace doce meses? |__|__| (1) Mejor (2) Igual (3) Peor (88) No sabe (98) No responde

Ahora vamos a hablar de su municipio... NP1. ¿Ha asistido a un cabildo abierto o una sesión municipal durante los últimos 12 meses? |__|__| (1) Sí (2) No (88) No Sabe (98) No Responde NP2. ¿Ha solicitado ayuda o ha presentado una petición a alguna oficina, funcionario, concejal o síndico de la municipalidad durante los últimos 12 meses? |__|__| (1) Sí (2) No (88) NS (98) No responde SGL1. ¿Diría usted que los servicios que la municipalidad está dando a la gente son: [Leer alternativas] |__|__| (1) Muy buenos (2) Buenos (3) Ni buenos ni malos (regulares) (4) Malos (5) Muy malos (pésimos) (88) NS (98) NR

CP5. Ahora, para cambiar el tema, ¿en los últimos doce meses usted ha contribuido para ayudar a solucionar algún problema de su comunidad o de los vecinos de su barrio o comunidad? Por favor, dígame si lo hizo por lo menos una vez a la semana, una o dos veces al mes, una o dos veces al año, o nunca en los últimos 12 meses? (1) Una vez a la semana |__|__| (2) Una o dos veces al mes (3) Una o dos veces al año (4) Nunca (88) NS (98) NR

Voy a leerle una lista de grupos y organizaciones. Por favor, dígame si usted asiste a las reuniones de estas organizaciones: por lo menos una vez a la semana, una o dos veces al mes, una o dos veces al año, o nunca. [Repetir “una vez a la semana,” “una o dos veces al mes,” “una o dos veces al año,” o “nunca” para ayudar al entrevistado] Una o Una o Una dos dos INA vez a la Nunca NS NR veces veces al P semana al mes año CP6. ¿Reuniones de alguna 1 2 3 4 88 98 99 |__|__| organización religiosa? Asiste… CP7. ¿Reuniones de una asociación de padres de familia 1 2 3 4 88 98 99 |__|__| de la escuela o colegio? Asiste… CP8. ¿Reuniones de un comité o junta de mejoras para la 1 2 3 4 88 98 99 |__|__| comunidad? Asiste… CP13. ¿Reuniones de un partido 1 2 3 4 88 98 99 |__|__| o movimiento político? Asiste… CP20r. [SOLO A MUJERES] ¿Reuniones de asociaciones o 1 2 3 4 88 98 99 |__|__| grupos de mujeres? Asiste…

253

IT1. Ahora, hablando de la gente de por aquí, ¿diría que la gente de su comunidad es muy confiable, algo confiable, poco confiable o nada confiable? |__|__| (1) Muy confiable (2) Algo confiable (3) Poco confiable (4) Nada confiable (88) NS (98) NR

IVOL20r. ¿Cuánta basura, vidrios rotos, o desperdicios hay en las veredas y calles en su barrio? [Leer alternativas] |__|__| (1) Nada (2) Algo (3) Mucho (88) NS (98) NR IVOL22r. ¿Cuántas casas desocupadas o abandonadas o almacenes/tiendas hay en su barrio? [Leer alternativas] |__|__| (1) Nada (2) Algo (3) Mucho (88) NS (98) NR IVOL23. ¿Aproximadamente cuánta gente en su barrio usted diría que gana una parte o todo su ingreso vendiendo drogas? Denos su mejor estimación. [Leer alternativas] |__|__| (1) Casi todos (2) Más de la mitad (3) Aproximadamente la mitad (4) Menos de la mitad (5) Casi nadie (88) NS (98) NR CSMP. Y pensando en el uso de las drogas, alrededor de cuánta gente en este barrio usted diría que usan drogas normalmente? Denos su mejor estimación. [Leer alternativas] [“Aceptar todos = casi todos”; “Aceptar nadie = casi nadie”] (1) Casi todos (2) Más de la mitad (3) Aproximadamente la mitad (4) Menos de la mitad (5) Casi nadie (88) NS (98) NR

PROT3. ¿En los últimos 12 meses ha participado en una manifestación o protesta pública? |__|__| (1) Sí ha participado (2) No ha participado (88) NS (98) NR

Ahora hablemos de otro tema. Alguna gente dice que en ciertas circunstancias se justificaría que los militares de este país tomen el poder por un golpe de Estado. En su opinión se justificaría que hubiera un golpe de estado por los militares frente a las siguientes circunstancias…? [Lea las alternativas después de cada pregunta]: JC10. Frente a mucha (1) Se justificaría que los (2) No se NS NR delincuencia. militares tomen el poder justificaría que (88) (98) por un golpe de Estado los militares |__|__| tomen el poder por un golpe de Estado

JC15A. ¿Cree usted que cuando el país enfrenta momentos muy difíciles, se justifica (2) No se (88) (98) que el presidente del país cierre la (1) Sí se justifica |__|__| justifica NS NR Asamblea Nacional y gobierne sin Asamblea Nacional?

VIC1EXT. Ahora, cambiando el tema, ¿ha sido usted víctima de algún acto de delincuencia en los últimos 12 meses? Es decir, ¿ha sido usted víctima de un robo, hurto, agresión, fraude, chantaje, extorsión, amenazas o algún otro tipo de acto delincuencial en los últimos 12 |__|__| meses? (1) Sí [Siga] (2) No [Pasar a VIC1HOGARr] (88) NS [Pasar a VIC1HOGARr] (98) NR [Pasar a VIC1HOGARr] VIC1EXTA. ¿Cuántas veces ha sido usted víctima de un acto delincuencial en los últimos 12 meses? |__|__| [Marcar el número]______(88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP

254 VIC2. Pensando en el último acto delincuencial del cual usted fue víctima, de la lista que le voy a leer, ¿qué tipo de acto delincuencial sufrió? [Leer alternativas] (01) Robo sin arma sin agresión o amenaza física (02) Robo sin arma con agresión o amenaza física (03) Robo con arma (04) Agresión física sin robo (05) Violación o asalto sexual (06) Secuestro |__|__| (07) Daño a la propiedad (08) Robo de la casa, ladrones se metieron a la casa mientras no había nadie (10) Extorsión o chantaje (11) [No leer] Otro (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP (no fue víctima) VIC2AA. ¿Podría decirme en qué lugar ocurrió el último acto delincuencial del cual usted fue víctima? [Leer alternativas] (1) En su hogar (2) En este barrio o comunidad |__|__| (3) En este municipio (4) En otro municipio (5) En otro país (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP VIC1HOGARr. ¿Alguna otra persona que vive en su hogar ha sido víctima de algún acto de delincuencia en los últimos 12 meses? Es decir, ¿alguna otra persona que vive en su hogar ha sido víctima de un robo, hurto, agresión, fraude, chantaje, extorsión, amenazas, |__|__| homicidio, femicidio o algún otro tipo de acto delincuencial en los últimos 12 meses? (1) Sí (2) No (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP (Vive solo)

Ahora le preguntaré acerca de algunos incidentes que usted o algún miembro de su hogar podría haber experimentado en los últimos cinco años, es decir, desde el 2010. [Nota para el entrevistador: si el encuestado ha indicado ser víctima de un crimen en los últimos doce meses, deberá indicar de nuevo si el tipo de crimen aparece en la lista de preguntas que siguen]

IVOL2r. ¿En los últimos cinco años (es decir, desde el 2010), alguien entró sin permiso en su casa o robó o intentó robar algo? No se incluye aquí robos en el jardín, garaje, depósitos, lancha o bote pesquero, incluyendo redes y lubricantes. [INCLUIR LANCHAS, BOTES PESQUEROS, SOTANOS QUE SON PARTE DE LA CASA; |__|__| INCLUIR CARAVANAS O AUTOS CASA ESTACIONADOS; NO INCLUIR SEGUNDAS CASAS] (1) Sí (2) No (88) NS (no recuerda) (98) NR

A continuación quiero hacerle algunas preguntas sobre lo que podría haberle pasado a usted personalmente. Una vez más, queremos preguntarle acerca de los últimos cinco años, esto es, desde el 2010, y los robos en su casa que usted podría haber mencionado que le ha pasado a usted o a otros miembros de la familia no deben ser mencionados aquí. IVOL3. En los últimos cinco años, ¿alguien lo robó o intentó robarle usando la fuerza o amenazándolo con usar la fuerza? |__|__| (1) Sí (2) No (88) NS (no recuerda) (98) NR IVOL4r. Excluyendo los robos usando la fuerza o amenazas, hay muchos otros tipos de robos de la propiedad personal, como hurto o robo de una cartera, billetera, ropa, joyas, teléfono celular, computadoras, reproductor de mp3, equipamiento deportivo o ganado. En |__|__| los últimos cinco años, es decir, desde el 2010, ¿usted ha sido víctima personalmente de alguno de estos incidentes? (1) Sí (2) No (88) NS (no recuerda) (98) NR

255 Ahora le voy a preguntar acerca de otros incidentes cuando alguien ha usado la fuerza en contra de usted, o lo ha amenazado con hacer eso. Una vez más, quiero preguntarle acerca de los últimos cinco años, esto es, desde el 2010. Esto podría incluir a alguien que usted conocía o a alguien que usted no conocía en ese momento. Recuerde que sus respuestas, por supuesto, serán tratadas confidencialmente y anónimas. Los robos en su casa, atracos o asaltos que usted podría haber mencionado no deben ser mencionados ahora.

IVOL5r. En los últimos cinco años, ¿alguien lo ha cacheteado, pegado o dado un puñetazo, pateado, le ha tirado algo, o atacado con un arma en una manera que realmente le molestó o le enfadó? NO incluya lucha libre, juegos bruscos, y no incluya incidentes de naturaleza |__|__| sexual o incidentes de violencia doméstica. (1) Sí (2) No (88) NS (no recuerda) (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) IVOL6. Aparte de cualquier incidente que usted ya ha mencionado, ¿en los últimos cinco años, es decir desde el 2010, alguien lo ha amenazado seriamente con cachetearlo, pegarle, darle un puñetazo, o patearlo, amenazado con tirarle algo a usted o con herirlo de otra manera, o amenazado con un arma en una manera que realmente le molestó o le enfadó? |__|__| NO incluya amenazas hechas como bromas y no incluya incidentes de naturaleza sexual o incidentes de violencia doméstica. (1) Sí (2) No (88) NS (no recuerda) (98) NR (Rehusó contestar)

[Preguntas de seguimiento] [HACER LAS SIGUIENTES PREGUNTAS SI LA RESPUESTA A ALGUNA DE LAS PREGUNTAS IVOL2r-IVOL6 FUE “(1) SI”. SI LA RESPUESTA A TODAS LAS PREGUNTAS IVOL2r-IVOL6 FUE “(2) NO” IR A POLE2N]

[INTRODUCCION A ALGUNA DE LAS SIGUIENTES SERIES] Usted me ha dicho que ha sido víctima de uno o más delitos en los últimos cinco años. Le voy a preguntar ahora por algunos detalles acerca de estos incidentes.

[HAGA LAS SIGUIENTES PREGUNTAS SI LA RESPUESTA A IVOL2r FUE “(1) SI”] IVOL2A. Usted mencionó un robo en su casa. ¿Cuándo ocurrió esto? ¿Fue en los últimos 12 meses, esto es desde [agosto 2014], o fue antes, o ambas? [PROBAR TANTO COMO SE PUEDA SI EL CODIGO 1 O 2 APLICA SI NO ESTA CLARO] (1) Últimos 12 meses [Continúe] (2) Antes [Ir al siguiente delito] |__|__| (3) Ambos [Continúe] (88) NS (no recuerda) [Ir al siguiente delito] (98) NR [Ir al siguiente delito] (99) NA [Ir al siguiente delito]

IVOL2B. [Si ocurrió durante los últimos 12 meses] ¿Qué tan frecuentemente ocurrió esto durante los últimos 12 meses? [Leer alternativas] (1) Una vez (2) Dos veces (3) Tres veces (4) Cuatro veces |__|__| (5) Cinco o más veces (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA

IVOL2C. La ÚLTIMA VEZ que ocurrió esto, ¿Le robaron algo? (1) Sí (2) No (88) NS (no recuerda) (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA |__|__|

IVOL2D. La ÚLTIMA VEZ que esto ocurrió, ¿estaba algún miembro de su familia en casa? (1) Sí [Continúe] (2) No [Ir a IVOL2F] (88) NS [Ir a IVOL2F] |__|__| (98) NR [Ir a IVOL2F] (99) NA [Ir a IVOL2F] IVOL2E. ¿Algún miembro de su familia fue intimidado, amenazado o asaltado durante este incidente? |__|__| (1) Sí (2) No (88) NS (no recuerda) (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA IVOL2F. La última vez que ocurrió esto, ¿usted o alguien más reportó el incidente a la policía? |__|__| (1) Sí [Continúe] (2) No [Ir al siguiente delito]

256 (88) NS (no recuerda) [Ir al siguiente delito] (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) [Ir al siguiente delito] (99) NA [Ir al siguiente delito]

IVOL2G. En general, ¿usted (o los que reportaron el incidente) estuvieron satisfechos con la forma cómo la policía manejó su reporte o el reporte de quienes denunciaron el incidente? [Leer alternativas] (1) Sí (satisfecho) (2) Ni satisfecho ni insatisfecho (3) No (insatisfecho) |__|__| (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA [IR AL SIGUIENTE DELITO]

[HACER LAS SIGUIENTES PREGUNTAS SI LA RESPUESTA A IVOL3 FUE “(1) SI”] IVOL3A. Usted mencionó que alguien le había robado, o había intentado robarle algo usando la fuerza o amenazándolo con usar la fuerza. ¿Cuándo ocurrió esto? ¿Fue durante los últimos 12 meses, esto es desde [agosto del 2014], o fue antes, o ambas? [PROBAR TANTO COMO SE PUEDA SI EL CODIGO 1 O 2 APLICA SI NO ESTA CLARO] |__|__| (1) Últimos 12 meses [Continúe] (2) Antes [Ir al siguiente delito] (3) Ambos [Continúe] (88) NS (no recuerda) [Ir al siguiente delito] (98) NR [Ir al siguiente delito] (99) NA [Ir al siguiente delito] IVOL3B. [Si ocurrió durante los últimos 12 meses] ¿Con qué frecuencia ocurrió esto durante los últimos 12 meses? [Leer alternativas] |__|__| (1) Una vez (2) Dos veces (3) Tres veces (4) Cuatro veces (5) Cinco o más veces (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA IVOL3C. La última vez que esto ocurrió, ¿fue en su casa, cerca de su casa, en su lugar de trabajo, en otro lugar en su ciudad, en otro lugar en el país, o en el extranjero? (1) En su casa (2) En su barrio (3) En su lugar de trabajo (4) En otro lugar en su ciudad |__|__| (5) En otro lugar en su país (6) En el extranjero (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA IVOL3D. La última vez∫ que esto ocurrió, ¿cuántas personas estuvieron involucradas cometiendo este delito? [Leer alternativas] (1) Una persona (2) Dos personas (3) Tres (4) Cuatro |__|__| (5) Cinco (6) Seis o más personas (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA

[AJUSTAR LAS SIGUIENTES PREGUNTAS DE ACUERDO A SI HUBO MÚLTIPLES DELINCUENTES O SÓLO UNO] IVOL3E. ¿Cuál de las siguientes frases describe con más exactitud a [EL/AL MENOS UNO DE LOS] delincuente(s)? [Leer alternativas] (1) No conocía a el/los delincuente(s) por su nombre o de vista (2) Conocía a el/los delincuente(s) solo de vista |__|__| (3) Conocía a el/los delincuente(s) por su nombre (88) [No leer] NS (no vi a el/los delincuente(s) (98) [No leer] NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA IVOL3F. ¿El delincuente le robó algo? |__|__| (1) Sí (2) No (88) NS (no recuerda) (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA IVOL3G. ¿El/Alguno de los delincuente(s) tenía un arma? (1) Sí (2) No (88) NS (98) NR (99) NA |__|__|

257 IVOL3H. ¿Usted vio al doctor o a algún profesional de la salud como resultado de este incidente? |__|__| (1) Sí (2) No (88) NS (no recuerda) (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA IVOL3I. La última vez que ocurrió esto, ¿usted o alguien más reportó el incidente a la policía? (1) Sí [Continúe] (2) No [Ir al siguiente delito] |__|__| (88) NS (no recuerda) [Ir al siguiente delito] (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) [Ir al siguiente delito] (99) NA [Ir al siguiente delito] IVOL3J. En general, ¿usted (o los que reportaron el incidente) estuvieron satisfechos con la forma cómo la policía manejó su reporte o el reporte de quienes denunciaron el incidente? (1) Sí (satisfecho) (2) Ni satisfecho ni insatisfecho (3) No (insatisfecho) |__|__| (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA [IR AL SIGUIENTE DELITO]

[HAGA LAS SIGUIENTES PREGUNTAS SI LA RESPUESTA A IVOL4r FUE “(1) SI”] IVOL4A. Usted mencionó un robo de propiedad personal en el que no hubo fuerza o amenaza de fuerza. ¿Cuándo ocurrió esto? ¿Fue durante los últimos 12 meses, esto es desde [agosto del 2014], o fue antes, o ambas? [PROBAR TANTO COMO SE PUEDA SI EL CODIGO 1 O 2 APLICA SI NO ESTA CLARO] |__|__| (1) Últimos 12 meses [Continúe] (2) Antes [Ir al siguiente delito] (3) Ambos [Continúe] (88) NS (no recuerda) [Ir al siguiente delito] (98) NR [Ir al siguiente delito] (99) NA [Ir al siguiente delito] IVOL4B. [Si ocurrió durante los últimos 12 meses] ¿Con qué frecuencia ocurrió esto durante los últimos 12 meses? [Leer alternativas] |__|__| (1) Una vez (2) Dos veces (3) Tres veces (4) Cuatro veces (5) Cinco o más veces (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA IVOL4C. La última vez que ocurrió esto, ¿usted o alguien más reportó el incidente a la policía? (1) Sí (2) No |__|__| (88) NS (no recuerda) (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA [IR AL SIGUIENTE DELITO]

[HAGA LAS SIGUIENTES PREGUNTAS SI LA RESPUESTA A IVOL5r FUE “(1) SI”] IVOL5A. Usted mencionó que alguien lo asaltó. Recuerde que sus respuestas serán, por supuesto, anónimas y tratadas de manera confidencial. ¿Cuándo ocurrió esto? ¿Fue durante los últimos 12 meses, esto es desde [agosto del 2014], o fue antes, o ambas? [PROBAR TANTO COMO SE PUEDA SI EL CODIGO 1 O 2 APLICA SI NO ESTA CLARO] |__|__| (1) Últimos 12 meses [Continúe] (2) Antes [Ir al siguiente delito] (3) Ambos [Continúe] (88) NS (no recuerda) [Ir al siguiente delito] (98) NR [Ir al siguiente delito] (99) NA [Ir al siguiente delito] IVOL5B. [Si ocurrió durante los últimos 12 meses] ¿Con qué frecuencia ocurrió esto durante los últimos 12 meses? [Leer alternativas] |__|__| (1) Una vez (2) Dos veces (3) Tres veces (4) Cuatro veces (5) Cinco o más veces (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA IVOL5C. La última vez que esto ocurrió, ¿fue en su casa, cerca de su casa, en su lugar de trabajo, en otro lugar en su ciudad, en otro lugar en el país, o en el extranjero? (1) En su casa (2) En su barrio (3) En su lugar de trabajo |__|__| (4) En otro lugar en su ciudad (5) En otro lugar en su país (6) En el extranjero (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar)

258 (99) NA

IVOL5D. ¿Cuántas personas estuvieron involucradas cometiendo este delito? [Leer alternativas] (1) Una persona (2) Dos personas (3) Tres (4) Cuatro |__|__| (5) Cinco (6) Seis o más personas (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA

[AJUSTAR LAS SIGUIENTES PREGUNTAS DE ACUERDO A SI HUBO VARIOS DELINCUENTES O SOLO UNO] IVOL5E. ¿Cuál de las siguientes frases describe con más exactitud a [EL/AL MENOS UNO DE LOS] delincuente(s)? [Leer alternativas] (1) No conocía a el/los delincuente(s) por su nombre o de vista (2) Conocía a el/los delincuente(s) solo de vista (3) Conocía a el/los delincuente(s) por su nombre |__|__| (88) [No leer] NS (no vi a el/los delincuente(s) (98) [No leer] NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA (99) INAP IVOL5F. ¿El/Alguno de los delincuente(s) tenía un arma? |__|__| (1) Sí (2) No (88) NS (98) NR (99) NA IVOL5G. ¿Usted vio al doctor o a algún profesional de la salud como resultado de este incidente? |__|__| (1) Sí (2) No (88) NS (no recuerda) (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA IVOL5H. La última vez que ocurrió esto, ¿usted o alguien más reportó el incidente a la policía? (1) Sí [Continúe] (2) No [Ir al siguiente delito] |__|__| (88) NS (no recuerda) [Ir al siguiente delito] (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) [Ir al siguiente delito] (99) NA [Ir al siguiente delito] IVOL5I. En general, ¿usted (o los que reportaron el incidente) estuvieron satisfechos con la forma cómo la policía manejó su reporte o el reporte de los que denunciaron el incidente? (1) Sí (satisfecho) (2) Ni satisfecho ni insatisfecho (3) No (insatisfecho) |__|__| (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA [IR AL SIGUIENTE DELITO] [HAGA LAS SIGUIENTES PREGUNTAS SI LA RESPUESTA A IVOL6 FUE “(1) SI”] IVOL6A. Usted mencionó haber sido amenazado por alguien. Recuerde que sus respuestas serán, por supuesto, anónimas y tratadas de manera confidencial. ¿Cuándo ocurrió esto? ¿Fue durante los últimos 12 meses, esto es desde [agosto del 2014], o fue antes, o ambas? [PROBAR TANTO COMO SE PUEDA SI EL CODIGO 1 O 2 APLICA SI NO ESTA CLARO] |__|__| (1) Últimos 12 meses [Continúe] (2) Antes [Ir a POLE2N] (3) Ambos [Continúe] (88) NS (no recuerda) [Ir a POL2N] (98) NR [Ir a POLE2N] (99) NA [Ir a POLE2N]

IVOL6B. [Si ocurrió durante los últimos 12 meses] ¿Con qué frecuencia ocurrió esto durante los últimos 12 meses? [Leer alternativas] |__|__| (1) Una vez (2) Dos veces (3) Tres veces (4) Cuatro veces (5) Cinco o más veces (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA

IVOL6C. La última vez que esto ocurrió, ¿fue en su casa, cerca de su casa, en su lugar de trabajo, en otro lugar en su ciudad, en otro lugar en el país, o en el extranjero? (1) En su casa |__|__| (2) En su barrio (3) En su lugar de trabajo (4) En otro lugar en su ciudad

259 (5) En otro lugar en su país (6) En el extranjero (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA IVOL6D. La última vez que esto ocurrió, ¿cuántas personas estuvieron involucradas cometiendo este delito? [Leer alternativas] (1) Una persona (2) Dos personas (3) Tres (4) Cuatro |__|__| (5) Cinco (6) Seis o más personas (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA

[AJUSTAR LAS SIGUIENTES PREGUNTAS DE ACUERDO A SI HUBO MÚLTIPLES DELINCUENTES O SÓLO UNO] IVOL6E. ¿Cuál de las siguientes frases describe con más exactitud a [EL/AL MENOS UNO DE LOS] delincuente(s)? [Leer alternativas] (1) No conocía a el/los delincuente(s) por su nombre o de vista (2) Conocía a el/los delincuente(s) solo de vista (3) Conocía a el/los delincuente(s) por su nombre |__|__| (88) [No leer] NS (no vi a el/los delincuente(s) (98) [No leer] NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA

IVOL6F. ¿El/Alguno de los delincuente(s) tenía un arma? (1) Sí (2) No (88) NS (98) NR (99) NA |__|__| IVOL6G. La última vez que ocurrió esto, ¿usted o alguien más reportó el incidente a la policía? (1) Sí (2) No |__|__| (88) NS (no recuerda) (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA [IR A LA SIGUIENTE SECCION – POLE2N]

POLE2N. En general, usted está muy satisfecho(a), satisfecho(a), insatisfecho(a) o muy insatisfecho(a) con el desempeño de la policía en su barrio o comunidad? [Si responde que no hay policía en el barrio marcar “(4) Muy insatisfecho”] |__|__| (1) Muy satisfecho(a) (2) Satisfecho(a) (3) Insatisfecho(a) (4) Muy insatisfecho(a) (88) NS (98) NR IVOL14. Tomando todo en cuenta, ¿qué tan buena cree que es la policía de su barrio para controlar la delincuencia? ¿Usted cree que hacen un muy buen trabajo, un buen trabajo, ni un buen trabajo ni un mal trabajo, un mal trabajo o un muy mal trabajo? |__|__| (1) Un muy buen trabajo (2) Un buen trabajo (3) Ni un buen ni un mal trabajo (4) Un mal trabajo (5) Un muy mal trabajo (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) IVOL15. ¿En qué medida el acoso policial es un problema en su barrio? ¿Es: [Leer alternativas] (1) Un gran problema (2) Un problema (3) Ni un gran problema ni un problema menor |__|__| (4) Un problema menor (5) Ningún problema (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar)

AOJ11. Hablando del lugar o el barrio/la comunidad donde usted vive y pensando en la posibilidad de ser víctima de un asalto o robo, ¿usted se siente muy seguro(a), algo seguro(a), algo inseguro(a) o muy inseguro(a)? |__|__| (1) Muy seguro(a) (2) Algo seguro(a) (3) Algo inseguro(a) (4) Muy inseguro(a) (88) NS (98) NR

Ahora pensando acerca de situaciones específicas, ¿qué tan seguro usted se siente en las

260 siguientes situaciones? Ni seguro NR Muy Muy Seguro ni Inseguro NS (Rehusó NA seguro inseguro inseguro contestar) IVOL10. Caminando sólo en su barrio durante el día [Leer: muy seguro, 1 2 3 4 5 88 98 99|__|__| seguro, ni seguro ni inseguro, inseguro, muy inseguro] IVOL11. Caminando sólo en su barrio en la noche [Leer: muy seguro, 1 2 3 4 5 88 98 99|__|__| seguro, ni seguro ni inseguro, inseguro, muy inseguro] IVOL12. Caminando fuera de su barrio durante el día [Leer: muy seguro, 1 2 3 4 5 88 98 99|__|__| seguro, ni seguro ni inseguro, inseguro, muy inseguro] IVOL13. Caminando fuera de su barrio en la noche [Leer: muy seguro, 1 2 3 4 5 88 98 99|__|__| seguro, ni seguro ni inseguro, inseguro, muy inseguro]

PESE1. ¿Considera usted que el nivel de violencia actual en su barrio o comunidad es mayor, igual, o menor que el de otras comunidades o barrios en este municipio? |__|__| (1) Mayor (2) Igual (3) Menor (88) NS (98) NR PESE2. ¿Considera usted que el nivel de violencia actual en su barrio o comunidad es mayor, igual, o menor que el de hace 12 meses? |__|__| (1) Mayor (2) Igual (3) Menor (88) NS (98) NR

AOJ17. ¿Hasta qué punto diría que su barrio está afectado por las pandillas o maras/bandas? ¿Diría mucho, algo, poco o nada? |__|__| (1) Mucho (2) Algo (3) Poco (4) Nada (88) NS (98) NR IVOL24. ¿En su vecindario hay pandillas o bandas criminales? (0) No [Ir a AOJ12] (1) Sí [Continúe] (88) NS [Ir a AOJ12] |__|__| (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) [Ir a AOJ12] IVOL25. En comparación con un año atrás, ¿Usted cree que las pandillas o bandas en su vecindario son un problema: [Leer alternativas] |__|__| (1) Mayor (2) Menor (3) Igual (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA IVOL26. ¿En qué medida las pandillas o bandas en su vecindario le dificultan a usted hacer sus actividades diarias, como ir a la tienda o salir de noche? [Leer alternativas] |__|__| (1) Mucho (2) Algo (3) Poco (4) Nada (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) (99) NA

261 AOJ12. Si usted fuera víctima de un robo o asalto, ¿qué tanto cree que el sistema judicial castigaría al culpable? [Leer opciones] |__|__| (1) Mucho (2) Algo (3) Poco (4) Nada (88) NS (98) NR (99) NA AOJ22. ¿En su opinión, qué hay que hacer para reducir la delincuencia en un país como el nuestro: implementar medidas de prevención o aumentar los castigos a los delincuentes? (1) Implementar medidas de prevención (2) Aumentar los castigos en contra de los delincuentes |__|__| (3) [No leer] Ambas (88) NS (98) NR

[ENTRÉGUELE AL ENTREVISTADO LA TARJETA “B”] En esta tarjeta hay una escalera con gradas numeradas del uno al siete, en la cual 1 es la grada más baja y significa NADA y el 7 es la grada más alta y significa MUCHO. Por ejemplo, si yo le preguntara hasta qué punto le gusta ver televisión, si a usted no le gusta ver nada, elegiría un puntaje de 1. Si por el contrario le gusta mucho ver televisión me diría el número 7. Si su opinión está entre nada y mucho elegiría un puntaje intermedio. Entonces, ¿hasta qué punto le gusta a usted ver televisión? Léame el número. [Asegúrese que el entrevistado entienda correctamente]. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 88 98

Nada Mucho No sabe No responde Anotar el número 1-7, 88 para los que NS y 98 para los NR Voy a hacerle una serie de preguntas, y le voy a pedir que para darme su respuesta utilice los números de esta escalera. Recuerde que puede usar cualquier número. B1. ¿Hasta qué punto cree usted que los tribunales de justicia de Nicaragua garantizan un |__|__| juicio justo? (Sondee: Si usted cree que los tribunales no garantizan para nada la justicia, escoja el número 1; si cree que los tribunales garantizan mucho la justicia, escoja el número 7 o escoja un puntaje intermedio) B2. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene usted respeto por las instituciones políticas de Nicaragua? |__|__| B3. ¿Hasta qué punto cree usted que los derechos básicos del ciudadano están bien protegidos por el sistema político nicaragüense? |__|__| B4. ¿Hasta qué punto se siente usted orgulloso de vivir bajo el sistema político |__|__| nicaragüense? B6. ¿Hasta qué punto piensa usted que se debe apoyar al sistema político nicaragüense? |__|__| B10A. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene confianza en el sistema de justicia? |__|__| B12. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene confianza usted en el Ejército? |__|__| B13. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene confianza usted en la Asamblea Nacional? |__|__| B18. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene confianza usted en la Policía? |__|__| B32. ¿Hasta qué punto tiene usted confianza en su municipalidad? |__|__|

Ahora, usando la misma escalera [continúe con la tarjeta B: escala 1-7 Anotar 1- NADA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MUCHO] 7, 88 = NS, 98 = NR N11. ¿Hasta qué punto diría que el gobierno actual mejora la seguridad |__|__| ciudadana?

[RECOGER TARJETA “B”]

262 M1. Hablando en general acerca del gobierno actual, ¿diría usted que el trabajo que está realizando el Presidente Daniel Ortega es...?: [Leer alternativas] |__|__| (1) Muy bueno (2) Bueno (3) Ni bueno, ni malo (regular) (4) Malo (5) Muy malo (pésimo) (88) NS (98) NR

SD2NEW2.Y pensando en esta ciudad/área donde usted vive, ¿está muy satisfecho(a), satisfecho(a), insatisfecho(a), o muy insatisfecho(a) con el estado de las vías, carreteras y autopistas? |__|__| (1) Muy satisfecho(a) (2) Satisfecho(a) (3) Insatisfecho(a) (4) Muy insatisfecho(a) (99) INAP (No utiliza) (88) NS (98) NR SD3NEW2. ¿Y la calidad de las escuelas públicas? ¿Está usted…[LEER ALTERNATIVAS] |__|__| (1) Muy satisfecho(a) (2) Satisfecho(a) (3) Insatisfecho(a) (4) Muy insatisfecho(a)? (99) INAP (No utiliza) (88) NS (98) NR SD6NEW2. ¿Y la calidad de los servicios médicos y de salud públicos? ¿Está usted…[LEER ALTERNATIVAS] |__|__| (1) Muy satisfecho(a) (2) Satisfecho(a) (3) Insatisfecho(a) (4) Muy insatisfecho(a) (99) INAP (No utiliza) (88) NS (98) NR INFRAX. Suponga que alguien se mete a robar a su casa y usted llama a la policía. ¿Cuánto tiempo cree que la Policía se demoraría en llegar a su casa un día cualquiera, a mediodía? [LEER ALTERNATIVAS] (1) Menos de 10 minutos (2) Entre 10 y hasta 30 minutos (3) Más de 30 minutos y hasta una hora |__|__| (4) Más de 1 hora y hasta 3 horas (5) Más de 3 horas (6) [NO LEER] No hay Policía/ No llegaría nunca (88) NS (98) NR

[ENTRÉGUELE AL ENTREVISTADO LA TARJETA “C”]

Ahora, vamos a usar una escalera similar, pero el número 1 representa “muy en desacuerdo” y el número 7 representa “muy de acuerdo”. Un número entre el 1 y el 7, representa un puntaje intermedio.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 88 98

Muy en desacuerdo Muy de NS NR acuerdo

Anotar un número 1-7, 88 para los que NS y 98 para los NR ING4. Cambiando de nuevo el tema, puede que la democracia tenga problemas, pero es |__|__| mejor que cualquier otra forma de gobierno. ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con esta frase? MIL7. El Ejército debe participar en el combate del crimen y de la violencia en Nicaragua. ¿Hasta qué punto está de acuerdo o en desacuerdo? |__|__|

[RECOGER TARJETA “C”]

NICFT1. En una escala del 1 al 10, donde 1 es nada y 10 es mucho, ¿Hasta qué punto |__|__| diría Ud. que el gobierno actual informa a los ciudadanos sobre el Presupuesto General de la República?

263 NICFT2. En una escala del 1 al 10, donde 1 es para nada transparente y 10 es totalmente transparente, ¿Hasta qué punto considera Ud. que el gobierno actual es transparente en la |__|__| administración del Presupuesto General de la República?

PN4. En general, ¿usted diría que está muy satisfecho(a), satisfecho(a), insatisfecho(a) o muy insatisfecho(a) con la forma en que la democracia funciona en Nicaragua? |__|__| (1) Muy satisfecho(a) (2) Satisfecho(a) (3) Insatisfecho(a) (4) Muy insatisfecho(a) (88) NS (98) NR

[ENTRÉGUELE AL ENTREVISTADO LA TARJETA “D”] Ahora vamos a cambiar a otra tarjeta. Esta nueva tarjeta tiene una escalera del 1 a 10, el 1 indica que usted desaprueba firmemente y el 10 indica que usted aprueba firmemente. Voy a leerle una lista de algunas acciones o cosas que las personas pueden hacer para alcanzar sus metas y objetivos políticos. Quisiera que me dijera con qué firmeza usted aprobaría o desaprobaría que las personas hagan las siguientes acciones. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 88 98 NS NR Desaprueba firmemente Aprueba firmemente

1-10, 88=NS, 98=NR E16. Que las personas hagan justicia por su propia cuenta cuando el Estado no castiga a los criminales. ¿Hasta qué punto aprueba o desaprueba? |__|__|

Las preguntas que siguen son para saber su opinión sobre las diferentes ideas que tienen 1-10, las personas que viven en Nicaragua. Por favor continúe usando la escalera de 10 puntos 88=NS, 98=NR D1. Hay personas que siempre hablan mal de la forma de gobierno de Nicaragua, no sólo del gobierno de turno, sino del sistema de gobierno, ¿con qué firmeza aprueba o |__|__| desaprueba usted el derecho de votar de esas personas? Por favor léame el número de la escala: [Sondee: ¿Hasta qué punto?] D2. Con qué firmeza aprueba o desaprueba usted que estas personas puedan llevar a cabo manifestaciones pacíficas con el propósito de expresar sus puntos de vista? Por favor |__|__| léame el número. D3. Siempre pensando en los que hablan mal de la forma de gobierno de Nicaragua. ¿Con qué firmeza aprueba o desaprueba usted que estas personas puedan postularse para |__|__| cargos públicos? D4. ¿Con qué firmeza aprueba o desaprueba usted que estas personas salgan en la |__|__| televisión para dar un discurso?

[Recoger tarjeta “D”]

INAP No Sí NS NR No trató o tuvo contacto Ahora queremos hablar de su experiencia personal con cosas que pasan en la vida diaria... EXC2. ¿Algún agente de policía le pidió una -- 0 1 88 98 |__|__| mordida (coima) en los últimos 12 meses?

264 INAP No Sí NS NR No trató o tuvo contacto EXC6. ¿En los últimos 12 meses, algún -- empleado público le ha solicitado una mordida 0 1 88 98 |__|__| (coima)? EXC20. ¿En los últimos doce meses, algún soldado u oficial militar le ha solicitado una -- 0 1 88 98 |__|__| mordida (coima)? EXC11. ¿Ha tramitado algo en el municipio en los últimos 12 meses? Si la respuesta es No  Marcar 99 Si la respuesta es Sí Preguntar: 99 |__|__| Para tramitar algo en el municipio, como un permiso, por ejemplo, durante el último año, ¿ha tenido que pagar alguna suma además de 0 1 88 98 lo exigido por la ley? EXC13. ¿Usted trabaja? 99 Si la respuesta es No  Marcar 99 Sí la respuesta es Sí Preguntar: |__|__| En su trabajo, ¿le han solicitado alguna 0 1 88 98 mordida (coima) en los últimos 12 meses?

Ahora voy a leerle una lista de situaciones que pueden o no ser problema en algunos barrios. Por favor dígame si las siguientes situaciones son un problema muy serio, algo serio, poco serio, nada serio o no son un problema en su barrio o comunidad. [Repita después de cada pregunta “es esto un problema muy serio, algo serio, poco serio, nada serio o no es un problema” para ayudar al entrevistado]

Muy Algo Poco Nada No es un NS NR serio serio Serio serio problema DISO10. Venta o tráfico de drogas ilegales aquí en su barrio 1 2 3 4 5 88 98 |__|__| o comunidad DISO14. Gente drogada en las calles de aquí de su barrio o 1 2 3 4 5 88 98 |__|__| comunidad DISO16. Asaltos a las personas cuando caminan por la calle de 1 2 3 4 5 88 98 |__|__| aquí, de su barrio o comunidad DISO16F. Ataques a mujeres aquí en su barrio o comunidad 1 2 3 4 5 88 98 |__|__| DISO16G. Violencia doméstica aquí en su barrio o comunidad DISO17. Balaceras aquí en su 1 2 3 4 5 88 98 |__|__| barrio o comunidad DISONIC2. Tráfico de personas 1 2 3 4 5 88 98 |__|__| en su barrio o comunidad

265 Teniendo en cuenta su experiencia o lo que ha Una o Una o Una vez oído mencionar, ¿cuáles dos dos a la de los siguientes actos de Sí No veces veces NS NR INAP semana delincuencia han ocurrido al al año en los últimos 12 meses en mes su barrio/comunidad? VICBAR1. Han ocurrido 1 2 88 98 |__|__| robos en los últimos 12 [Cont [Pasar a meses en su inúe] VICBAR3] [Pasar a barrio/comunidad? VICBAR3] VICBAR1F ¿Cuántas veces ocurrió eso: una vez a la semana, una o dos 1 2 3 88 98 99 |__|__| veces al mes, una o dos veces al año? VICBAR3. ¿Han ocurrido ventas de drogas ilegales 88 98 en los últimos 12 meses en 1 2 |__|__| su barrio/comunidad? VICBAR4. ¿Han ocurrido extorsiones o cobro de 88 98 impuesto de guerra en los 1 2 |__|__| últimos 12 meses en su barrio/comunidad? VICBARF. ¿Han ocurrido ataques a mujeres en los últimos 12 meses en su 1 2 88 98 |__|__| barrio/comunidad? VICBAR7. ¿Han ocurrido 1 2 asesinatos en los últimos [Conti [Pasar a 88 98 12 meses en su núe] FEAR10] |__|__| barrio/comunidad? [Pasar a FEAR10]

VICBAR7B. [PREGUNTAR SOLO SI LA RESPUESTA A VICBAR7 FUE “Sí”] Pensando en el asesinato más reciente, ¿la víctima fue un hombre o una mujer? |__|__| (1) Hombre (2) Mujer (3) [NO LEER] Ambos (88) No sabe (98) No responde (99) INAP

Sí No NS NR

FEAR10. Para protegerse de la delincuencia, en los últimos 12 meses ha tomado alguna medida como evitar caminar por algunas 1 0 88 98 |__|__| zonas de su barrio porque puedan ser peligrosas? VIC44. En los últimos 12 meses, por temor a la delincuencia, ¿se ha organizado con los 1 0 88 98 |__|__| vecinos de la comunidad?

266

Algo Poco Muy preo preo Nada preoc NR INAP cupa cupa preoc NS upad do do upado o FEAR6f. ¿Y qué tan preocupado está usted acerca de la seguridad de los niños en la escuela? ¿Diría 99 [No tiene que está muy preocupado, algo 1 2 3 4 88 98 |__|__| preocupado, poco preocupado o hijos/as o niños nada preocupado? cercanos en escuela]

Cambiando de tema, quisiera saber su opinión sobre la prostitución… PROSTIT1. Contratar prostitutas debería ser un delito para el cliente. Esta usted: [Leer alternativas] |__|__| (1) Muy de acuerdo (2) De acuerdo (3) Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo (4) En desacuerdo (5) Muy en desacuerdo (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) PROSTIT2. La prostitución es un camino fácil para las mujeres que no tienen otro oficio para ganar dinero. Esta usted: [Leer alternativas] |__|__| (1) Muy de acuerdo (2) De acuerdo (3) Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo (4) En desacuerdo (5) Muy en desacuerdo (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) PROSTIT3. ¿Pensando sobre su barrio, cuántos hombres usted cree que visitan prostitutas una o dos veces al año? [Leer alternativas] (1) Todos (2) La mayoría de ellos |__|__| (3) Alguno de ellos (4) Solo una minoría (5) Ninguno (88) NS (98) NR PROSTIT4. ¿Cuál es su opinión sobre los hombres que visitan prostitutas? [Leer alternativas] (1) Se trata de una salida normal para las necesidades de los hombres (2) Usted no lo aprueba pero lo acepta como parte de la cultura |__|__| (3) Usted no lo aprueba y piensa que el gobierno debería hacerlo ilegal (4) Usted no lo aprueba y huiría de aquella persona que lo haga (88) NS (98) NR PROSTIT5. ¿Recientemente se ha escuchado sobre padres que dejan a sus hijos vivir o trabajar con otra persona a cambio de dinero? ¿Ha escuchado algo sobre esto? |__|__| (0) No (1) Sí (88) NS (98) NR PROSTIT7. ¿Usted conoce de algún niño o niños que hayan sido enviados para vivir o trabajar con otra persona a cambio de dinero? |__|__| (0) No [Pasar a PROSTIT10] (1) Sí [Continuar] (88) NS [Pasar a PROSTIT10] (98) NR [Pasar a PROSTIT10]

PROSTIT8. ¿Qué tipo de relación tiene con este niño o niños? (1) Miembro de familia (2) Amigo (3) Vecino |__|__| (4) Colega del trabajo (5) Conocido (7) [No leer] Otra (88) NS (98) NR (99) NA PROSTIT9. ¿Este niño o niños viven en su comunidad? |__|__| (0) No (1) Sí (88) NS (98) NR (99) NA

267 PROSTIT10. ¿Recientemente se ha escuchado sobre lo que algunos llaman tráfico humano o trata de personas? ¿Ha escuchado algo sobre esto? |__|__| (0) No (1) Sí (88) NS (98) NR

A continuación, le daré la definición de «trata» y luego le pediré que me dé su opinión sobre este tema. [ASIGNAR ALEATORIAMENTE DEFINICIONES A/B/C/D A LOS ENCUESTADOS]

A. La trata es el reclutamiento, el transporte, la retención por amenazas o uso de la fuerza, el secuestro o el engaño de una persona, así como el abuso de poder, con fines de explotación. Las personas traficadas son tratadas como posesiones y se les obliga a hacer trabajos no deseados mediante el uso de la fuerza física o amenazas contra ellas o sus familiares. A las personas víctimas de trata se les suele mentir sobre el tipo de trabajo que realizarán o la cantidad de dinero y beneficios que obtendrán. La trata puede tener lugar en el hogar, en cualquier parte de Nicaragua o en otro país. Esto es lo que llamamos TRATA.[PASAR A PROSTIT10EXTAA]

B. La trata es captura el reclutamiento, el transporte, la retención por amenazas o uso de la fuerza, el secuestro o el engaño de una persona, así como el abuso de poder, con fines de explotación, incluyendo la prostitución forzada y la explotación sexual. Las personas traficadas son tratadas como posesiones y se les obliga a hacer trabajos no deseados mediante el uso de la fuerza física o amenazas contra ellas o sus familiares. A las personas víctimas de trata se les suele mentir sobre el tipo de trabajo que realizarán o la cantidad de dinero y beneficios que obtendrán. La trata puede tener lugar en el hogar, en cualquier parte de Nicaragua o en otro país. Esto es lo que llamamos TRATA. [PASAR A PROSTIT10EXTAB]

C. La trata es el reclutamiento, el transporte, la retención por amenazas o uso de la fuerza, el secuestro o el engaño de una persona, así como el abuso de poder, con fines de explotación, incluyendo trabajos forzados. Las personas traficadas son tratadas como posesiones y se les obliga a hacer trabajos no deseados mediante el uso de la fuerza física o amenazas contra ellas o sus familiares. A las personas víctimas de trata se les suele mentir sobre el tipo de trabajo que realizarán o la cantidad de dinero y beneficios que obtendrán. La trata puede tener lugar en el hogar, en cualquier parte de Nicaragua o en otro país. Esto es lo que llamamos TRATA. [PASAR A PROSTIT10EXTAC]

D. [NO ES NECESARIO LEER, PASAR DIRECTAMENTE A LA SIGUIENTE PREGUNTA PROSTIT10EXTAD]

[HAGA LAS SIGUIENTES PREGUTNAS SI SE LEYÓ LA DEFINICIÓN “A” ANTERIORMENTE] PROSTIT10EXTAA. ¿Qué tan grave es el problema de la trata de personas en Nicaragua? [Leer alternativas] (1) Un problema grave (2) Un problema moderado |__|__| (3) Un problema leve (4) No es un problema (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP PROSTIT10EXTBA. ¿Qué tan grave es el problema de la trata de personas en su barrio o comunidad? [Leer alternativas] (1) Un problema grave (2) Un problema moderado |__|__| (3) Un problema leve (4) No es un problema (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP

[HAGA LAS SIGUIENTES PREGUTNAS SI SE LEYÓ LA DEFINICIÓN “B” ANTERIORMENTE] PROSTIT10EXTAB. ¿Qué tan grave es el problema de la trata de personas en Nicaragua? [Leer |__|__| alternativas]

268 (1) Un problema grave (2) Un problema moderado (3) Un problema leve (4) No es un problema (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP PROSTIT10EXTBB. ¿Qué tan grave es el problema de la trata de personas en su barrio o comunidad? [Leer alternativas] (1) Un problema grave (2) Un problema moderado |__|__| (3) Un problema leve (4) No es un problema (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP

[HAGA LAS SIGUIENTES PREGUTNAS SI SE LEYÓ LA DEFINICIÓN “C” ANTERIORMENTE] PROSTIT10EXTAC. ¿Qué tan grave es el problema de la trata de personas en Nicaragua? [Leer alternativas] (1) Un problema grave (2) Un problema moderado |__|__| (3) Un problema leve (4) No es un problema (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP PROSTIT10EXTBC. ¿Qué tan grave es el problema de la trata de personas en su barrio o comunidad? [Leer alternativas] (1) Un problema grave (2) Un problema moderado |__|__| (3) Un problema leve (4) No es un problema (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP

[HAGA LAS SIGUIENTES PREGUTNAS SI SE LEYÓ LA DEFINICIÓN “D” ANTERIORMENTE] PROSTIT10EXTAD. ¿Qué tan grave es el problema de la trata de personas en Nicaragua? [Leer alternativas] (1) Un problema grave (2) Un problema moderado |__|__| (3) Un problema leve (4) No es un problema (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP PROSTIT10EXTBD. ¿Qué tan grave es el problema de la trata de personas en su barrio o comunidad? [Leer alternativas] (1) Un problema grave (2) Un problema moderado |__|__| (3) Un problema leve (4) No es un problema (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP

[ENTRÉGUELE AL ENTREVISTADO LA TARJETA “G”]

¿Cuánto riesgo cree que tienen las siguientes personas de convertirse en víctimas de la trata de personas en Nicaragua? Utilizando esta nueva tarjeta, evalúe el riesgo en una escala del 1 al 10, donde 1 significa que no hay ningún riesgo de que la persona se convierta en víctima de trata y 10 quiere decir que el riesgo es extremo:

269 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 88 98 NS NR No hay ningún riesgo El riesgo es extremo

1-10, 88=NS, 98=NR PROSTIT11A. ¿Cuánto riesgo cree que tienen las mujeres adultas? |__|__|

PROSTIT11B. ¿Cuánto riesgo cree que tienen las mujeres adolescentes? |__|__|

PROSTIT11C. ¿Cuánto riesgo cree que tienen las niñas? |__|__|

PROSTIT11D. ¿Cuánto riesgo cree que tienen los hombres adultos? |__|__|

PROSTIT11E. ¿Cuánto riesgo cree que tienen los hombres adolescentes? |__|__|

PROSTIT11F. ¿Cuánto riesgo cree que tienen los niños? |__|__|

[RECOGER TARJETA “G”]

PROSTIT12. Pensando en los últimos cinco años, usted sabe de algún niño o niña de su barrio o comunidad que haya desaparecido? (1) Sí [Continuar] |__|__| (2) No [Pasar a PROSTIT13] (88) NS [Pasar a PROSTIT13] (98) NR [Pasar a PROSTIT13] PROSTIT12A. Pensando en lo que usted sabe actualmente o ha escuchado, ¿El/la niño/a de su comunidad que desapareció… (1) Fue encontrado/a y devuelto/a a su familia? |__|__| (2) Sigue desaparecido/a? (3) [No leer] Fue encontrado/a sin vida. (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP

PROSTIT13. Pensando en los últimos cinco años, usted sabe de alguna mujer de su barrio o comunidad que haya desaparecido? (4) Sí [Continuar] |__|__| (5) No [Pasar a PROSTIT14] (88) NS [Pasar a PROSTIT14] (98) NR [Pasar a PROSTIT14] PROSTIT13A. Pensando en lo que usted sabe actualmente o ha escuchado, ¿La mujer de su barrio o comunidad que desapareció… (1) Fue encontrada y devuelta a su familia? |__|__| (2) Sigue desaparecida? (3) [No leer] Fue encontrada sin vida. (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP

PROSTIT14. Pensando en algún caso de trata de personas del que usted sepa o haya escuchado en su barrio o comunidad en los últimos cinco años, sabe si el incidente fue reportado a la policía? [LEER ALTERNATIVAS] |__|__| (6) Sí [Continuar] (7) No [Pasar a POL1]

270 (8) No ha escuchado de ningún caso [Pasar a POL1] (89) [NO LEER] No sabe [Pasar a POL1] (98) [NO LEER] NR [Pasar a POL1] PROSTIT15. Pensando en el incidente de trata de personas que me dijo fue reportado a la policía, sabe si: [LEER ALTERNATIVAS] (4) El caso fue reconocido por las autoridades como trata de personas (5) El caso fue procesado como otro tipo de incidente, como por ejemplo abandono de hogar |__|__| (6) O si la policía no hizo nada sobre este caso (88) No sabe (98) [NO LEER] NR (99) INAP

POL1. ¿Qué tanto interés tiene usted en la política: mucho, algo, poco o nada? |__|__| (1) Mucho (2) Algo (3) Poco (4) Nada (88) NS (98) NR

Ahora queremos preguntarle sobre un tema diferente VOL207n. ¿Usted cree que para corregir a un hijo que desobedece es necesario golpearlo o castigarlo físicamente? [Leer opciones] (1) Siempre (2) Muy frecuentemente (3) Algunas veces |__|__| (4) Casi nunca (5) Nunca (88) NS (98) NR

Ahora queremos hablar acerca de su experiencia. Recuerde que si usted se siente incómodo o por alguna razón prefiere no responder estas preguntas, solo dígamelo y pasaremos a la siguiente pregunta. VOL208n. ¿Cuándo usted era niño, sus padres o tutores lo golpeaban o lo castigaban físicamente de alguna manera para corregir su mal comportamiento? [Leer opciones] (1) Siempre (2) Muy frecuentemente (3) Algunas veces |__|__| (4) Casi nunca (5) Nunca (88) NS (98) NR Ahora le voy a leer algunas situaciones No lo en las que algunas personas piensan que No lo Lo aprobaría es justificado que el esposo golpee a su aprobaría ni NS NR aprobaría pero lo lo entendería esposa o compañera y le voy a preguntar entendería por su opinión… DVW1. La esposa descuida las labores del hogar. ¿Usted aprobaría que el esposo golpee a la mujer, o usted no lo 1 2 3 88 98 |__|__| aprobaría pero lo entendería, o usted ni lo aprobaría ni lo entendería? DVW2. La esposa es infiel. ¿Usted aprobaría que el esposo golpee a la mujer, o usted no lo aprobaría pero lo 1 2 3 88 98 |__|__| entendería, o usted ni lo aprobaría ni lo entendería? Las siguientes dos preguntas son acerca de la exposición a la violencia

271 IVOL7. En su vida, ¿ha sido usted testigo de un ataque serio, una balacera o una golpiza en la que la otra persona fue herida gravemente o murió? |__|__| (0) No (1) Sí (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) IVOL8. En su vida, ¿alguien a quien usted considere muy cercano ha muerto por la violencia? [No incluir a aquellos muertos en la guerra] |__|__| (0) No (1) Sí (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar)

IVOL27. La seguridad es un problema importante para mucha gente hoy en día y algunas personas tienen armas de fuego en sus hogares para protegerse a ellos mismos y a sus familias de un peligro potencial. De otro lado, algunas personas piensan que tener un arma de fuego en casa podría ser peligroso. En promedio, ¿usted cree que tener armas de fuego |__|__| en casa la hace más segura, menos segura o no hace ninguna diferencia en términos de seguridad? (1) Más segura (2) Menos segura (3) No hace diferencia (4) [NO LEER] Ambas (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar) IVOL28. ¿Usted o alguien más en su hogar tiene un arma de fuego, ya sea para protección personal o por alguna otra razón? |__|__| (1) Sí (2) No (88) NS (98) NR (Rehusó contestar)

DROG1. Algunas personas consumen o han probado marihuana. Por favor dígame, ¿alguna vez ha probado marihuana? [LEER ALTERNATIVAS] |__|__| (1) No, nunca [Continuar] (2) Sí, una vez [Pasar a DROG2] (3) Sí, dos o más veces [Pasar a DROG4] (88) NS [Continuar] (98) NR [Continuar]

DROG3. Si tuviera la oportunidad, ¿probaría marihuana? [LEER ALTERNATIVAS] (1) Sí (2) No (3) Puede ser /Tal vez/Capaz (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP [EN CUALQUIER CASO PASAR A DROG4] DROG2. Luego de esa vez en la que probó, ¿alguna vez volvió a consumir marihuana? [LEER ALTERNATIVAS] (1) No, nunca |__|__| (2) Sí, algunas veces (3) Sí, con frecuencia (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP DROG4. ¿Tiene amigos o familiares que consumen marihuana? [LEER ALTERNATIVAS] (0) Ninguno |__|__| (1) Uno (2) Dos o más (88) NS (98) NR

Ahora cambiando de tema

272 WF1. ¿Usted o alguien en su casa recibe ayuda regular/periódica en dinero, alimento o en productos de parte del gobierno, sin contar las pensiones? |__|__| (1) Sí (2) No (88) NS (98) NR CCT1B. Ahora, hablando específicamente sobre el Programa Hambre Cero, Usura Cero, Plan Techo, Vivienda Solidaria, ¿usted o alguien en su casa es beneficiario de ese programa? |__|__| (1) Sí (2) No (88) NS (98) NR

ED. ¿Cuál fue el último año de educación que usted completó o aprobó? _____ Año de ______(primaria, secundaria, universitaria, superior no universitaria) = ______años total [Usar tabla a continuación para el código] 10 20 30 40 50 60

Ninguno 0

Primaria 1 2 3 4 5 6 Secundaria 7 8 9 10 11 |__|__| Universitaria 12 13 14 15 16 17+ Superior no universitaria (tales 12 13 14 15 como educación técnica o vocacional) No sabe 88 No responde 98

ED2. ¿Y hasta qué nivel educativo llegó su mamá? [NO LEER OPCIONES] (00) Ninguno (01) Primaria incompleta (02) Primaria completa (03) Secundaria o bachillerato incompleto (04) Secundaria o bachillerato completo (05) Técnica/Tecnológica incompleta |__|__| (06) Técnica/Tecnológica completa (07) Universitaria incompleta (08) Universitaria completa (88) NS (98) NR

273 Q3C. Si usted es de alguna religión, ¿podría decirme cuál es su religión? [No leer opciones] [Si el entrevistado dice que no tiene ninguna religión, sondee más para ubicar si pertenece a la alternativa 4 u 11] (01) Católico (02) Protestante, Protestante Tradicional o Protestante no Evangélico (Cristiano, Calvinista; Luterano; Metodista; Presbiteriano; Discípulo de Cristo; Anglicano; Episcopaliano; Iglesia Morava). (03) Religiones Orientales no Cristianas (Islam; Budista; Hinduista; Taoísta; Confucianismo; Baha’i). (04) Ninguna (Cree en un Ser Superior pero no pertenece a ninguna religión) (05) Evangélica y Pentecostal (Evangélico, Pentecostal; Iglesia de Dios; Asambleas de |__|__| Dios; Iglesia Universal del Reino de Dios; Iglesia Cuadrangular; Iglesia de Cristo; Congregación Cristiana; Menonita; Hermanos de Cristo; Iglesia Cristiana Reformada; Carismático no Católico; Luz del Mundo; Bautista; Iglesia del Nazareno; Ejército de Salvación; Adventista; Adventista del Séptimo Día, Sara Nossa Terra). (06) Iglesia de los Santos de los Últimos Días (Mormones). (07) Religiones Tradicionales (Candomblé, Vudú, Rastafari, Religiones Mayas, Umbanda; María Lonza; Inti, Kardecista, Santo Daime, Esoterica). (10) Judío (Ortodoxo, Conservador o Reformado) (11) Agnóstico o ateo (no cree en Dios) (12) Testigos de Jehová. (88) NS (98) NR Q5B. Por favor, ¿podría decirme, qué tan importante es la religión en su vida? [Leer alternativas] (1) Muy importante (2) Algo importante (3) Poco importante o (4) Nada |__|__| importante (88) NS (98) NR

OCUP4A. ¿A qué se dedica usted principalmente? ¿Está usted actualmente: [Leer alternativas] (1) Trabajando? [Siga] (2) No está trabajando en este momento pero tiene trabajo? [Siga] (3) Está buscando trabajo activamente? [Pase a Q10NEW] (4) Es estudiante?[Pase a Q10NEW] |__|__| (5) Se dedica a los quehaceres de su hogar?[Pase a Q10NEW] (6) Está jubilado, pensionado o incapacitado permanentemente para trabajar? [Pase a Q10NEW] (7) No trabaja y no está buscando trabajo? [Pase a Q10NEW] (88) NS [Pase a Q10NEW] (98) NR [Pase a Q10NEW] OCUP1A. En su ocupación principal usted es: [Leer alternativas] (1) Asalariado del gobierno o empresa estatal? (2) Asalariado en el sector privado? (3) Patrono o socio de empresa? (4) Trabajador por cuenta propia? |__|__| (5) Trabajador no remunerado o sin pago? (88) NS (98) NR (99) INAP

[ENTRÉGUELE AL ENTREVISTADO LA TARJETA “F”]

274 Q10NEW. ¿En cuál de los siguientes rangos se encuentran los ingresos familiares mensuales de este hogar, incluyendo las remesas del exterior y el ingreso de todos los adultos e hijos que trabajan? [Si no entiende, pregunte: ¿Cuánto dinero entra en total a su casa al mes?] (00) Ningún ingreso (01) Menos de 1,100 córdobas (02) Entre 1,100 – 1,650 córdobas (03) Entre 1,651 – 1,950 córdobas (04) Entre 1,951– 2,550 córdobas (05) Entre 2,551 – 3,000 córdobas (06) Entre 3,001 – 3,200 córdobas (07) Entre 3,201 – 3,500 córdobas |__|__| (08) Entre 3,501 – 3,950 córdobas (09) Entre 3,951– 4,450 córdobas (10) Entre 4,451 – 5,100 córdobas (11) Entre 5,101 – 5,750 córdobas (12) Entre 5,751 – 6,350 córdobas (13) Entre 6,351 – 7,700 córdobas (14) Entre 7,701 – 9,800 córdobas (15) Entre 9,801– 13,500 córdobas (16) Más de 13,500 córdobas (88) NS (98) NR

[PREGUNTAR SOLO SI TRABAJA O ESTÁ JUBILADO/PENSIONADO/INCAPACITADO (VERIFICAR OCUP4A)] Q10G. ¿Y cuánto dinero usted personalmente gana al mes por su trabajo o pensión? [Si no entiende: ¿Cuánto gana usted solo, por concepto de salario o pensión, sin contar los ingresos de los demás miembros de su hogar ni las remesas u otros ingresos?]

(00) Ningún ingreso (01) Menos de 1,100 córdobas (02) Entre 1,100 – 1,650 córdobas (03) Entre 1,651 – 1,950 córdobas (04) Entre 1,951– 2,550 córdobas (05) Entre 2,551 – 3,000 córdobas (06) Entre 3,001 – 3,200 córdobas |__|__| (07) Entre 3,201 – 3,500 córdobas (08) Entre 3,501 – 3,950 córdobas (09) Entre 3,951– 4,450 córdobas (10) Entre 4,451 – 5,100 córdobas (11) Entre 5,101 – 5,750 córdobas (12) Entre 5,751 – 6,350 córdobas (13) Entre 6,351 – 7,700 córdobas (14) Entre 7,701 – 9,800 córdobas (15) Entre 9,801– 13,500 córdobas (16) Más de 13,500 córdobas (88) NS (98) NR (99) N/A (no trabaja y no está jubilado)

[RECOGER TARJETA “F”]

275 Q10A. ¿Usted o alguien que vive en su casa recibe remesas, es decir, ayuda económica del exterior? |__|__| (1) Sí (2) No (88) NS (98) NR Q14. ¿Tiene usted intenciones de irse a vivir o a trabajar a otro país en los próximos tres |__|__| años? (1) Sí (2) No (88) NS (98) NR Q10D. El salario o sueldo que usted recibe y el total del ingreso de su hogar: [Leer alternativas] (1) Les alcanza bien y pueden ahorrar (2) Les alcanza justo sin grandes dificultades |__|__| (3) No les alcanza y tienen dificultades (4) No les alcanza y tienen grandes dificultades (88) [No leer] NS (98) [No leer] NR Q10E. En los últimos dos años, el ingreso de su hogar: [Leer opciones] (1) ¿Aumentó? (2) ¿Permaneció igual? |__|__| (3) ¿Disminuyó? (88) NS (98) NR Q11n. ¿Cuál es su estado civil? [Leer alternativas] (1) Soltero (2) Casado (3) Unión libre/acompañado (4) Divorciado |__|__| (5) Separado (6) Viudo (7) Unión civil (88) NS (98) NR Q12C. ¿Cuántas personas en total viven en su hogar en este |__|__| momento?______(88) NS (98) NR Q12Bn. ¿Cuántos niños menores de 13 años viven en este hogar? ______|__|__| 00 = ninguno, (88) NS (98) NR

Q12. ¿Tiene hijos(as)? ¿Cuántos? [Contar todos los hijos del entrevistado, que vivan o no en el hogar] ______|__|__| (00 = ninguno) (88) NS (98) NR ETID. ¿Usted se considera una persona blanca, mestiza, negra (creole), misquita, ulwa, garífuna, rama, mayagna u otra? [Si la persona entrevistada dice Afro-nicaragüense o Creole, codificar como (4) Negra] |__|__| (1) Blanca (2) Mestiza (4) Negra (o Creole) (8) Misquito (9) Ulwa (10) Garífuna (11) Rama (12) Mayagna (7) Otro (88) NS (98) NR

LENG1. ¿Cuál es su lengua materna o el primer idioma que habló de pequeño en su casa? [acepte una alternativa, no más] [No leer alternativas] (501) Español/ castellano (502) Inglés (Creole) (503) Misquito (506) Sumo o Mayangna (Twahka, Panamahka o Ulwa) |__|__| (507) Rama (508) Garífuna (504) Otro (nativo) (505) Otro extranjero (88) NS (98) NR

276 GI0. ¿Con qué frecuencia sigue las noticias, ya sea en la televisión, la radio, los periódicos o el Internet? [Leer opciones] (1) Diariamente (2) Algunas veces a la semana (3) Algunas veces al mes |__|__| (4) Rara vez (5) Nunca (88) NS (98) NR RN1. ¿Es usted ciudadano nicaragüense o residente permanente de Nicaragua? |__|__| (1) Sí (2) No [Marque la respuesta, continúe sin importar la respuesta]

Para finalizar, podría decirme si en su casa tienen: [Leer todos] R3. Refrigerador (nevera) (0) No (1) Sí (88) NS (98) NR R4.Teléfono convencional/fijo/residencial (no (1) Sí celular) (0) No (88) NS (98) NR R4A. Teléfono celular (0) No (1) Sí (88) NS (98) NR R5. Vehículo. ¿Cuántos? [Si no dice (3) (0) (1) (2) cuántos, marcar “uno”.] Tres o (88) NS (98) NR No Uno Dos más R6. Lavadora de ropa (0) No (1) Sí (88) NS (98) NR R7. Horno microondas (0) No (1) Sí (88) NS (98) NR R8. Motocicleta (0) No (1) Sí (88) NS (98) NR R12. Agua potable dentro de la vivienda (0) No (1) Sí (88) NS (98) NR R14. Cuarto de baño dentro de la casa (0) No (1) Sí (88) NS (98) NR R15. Computadora (0) No (1) Sí (88) NS (98) NR R18.Servicio de Internet (0) No (1) Sí (88) NS (98) NR R1. Televisor (0) No (1) Sí (88) NS (98) NR R16.Televisor de pantalla plana (0) No (1) Sí (88) NS (98) NR R26. ¿Está conectada a la red de (0) No (1) Sí (88) NS (98) NR saneamiento/desagüe/drenaje/alcantarillado? R50. Lancha o canoa (0) No (1) Sí (88) NS (98) NR R51. Lancha de motor (0) No (1) Sí (88) NS (98) NR R52. Redes de pesca (0) No (1) Sí (88) NS (98) NR

Estas son todas las preguntas que tengo. Muchísimas gracias por su colaboración.

FORMATQ. Favor indicar el formato en que se completó ESTE cuestionario específico 1. Papel |___| 2. Android 3. Windows PDA

COLORR. [Una vez salga de la entrevista, SIN PREGUNTAR, por favor use la Paleta de Colores, e indique el número que más se acerca al color de piel de la cara del entrevistado] ______|___|___| (97) No se pudo clasificar [Marcar (97) únicamente, si por alguna razón, no se pudo ver la cara de la persona entrevistada] Hora en la cual terminó la entrevista ______: ______|__|__|__| TI. Duración de la entrevista [minutos, ver página # 1] ______|___|___|___|___| INTID.Número de identificación del entrevistador: ______|__|__|__| SEXI. Anotar el sexo suyo: (1) Hombre (2) Mujer |___| COLORI. Usando la Paleta de Colores, anote el color de piel suyo. |___|___|

Yo juro que esta entrevista fue llevada a cabo con la persona indicada.

277 Firma del entrevistador______Fecha ____ /_____ /_____

Firma del supervisor de campo ______Comentarios: ______[No usar para PDA/Android] Firma de la persona que digitó los datos ______[No usar para PDA/Android] Firma de la persona que verificó los datos ______

278 Tarjeta B

7 Mucho

6

5

4

3

2

Nada 1

279 Tarjeta C

Muy de 7 acuerdo

6

5

4

3

2 Muy en desacuerdo 1

280

Tarjeta D

Aprueba 10 firmemente 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Desaprueba firmemente 1

281

Tarjeta F

(00) Ningún ingreso (01) Menos de 1,100 (02) Entre 1,100 – 1,650 córdobas (03) Entre 1,651 – 1,950 córdobas (04) Entre 1,951– 2,550 córdobas (05) Entre 2,551 – 3,000 córdobas (06) Entre 3,001 – 3,200 córdobas (07) Entre 3,201 – 3,500 córdobas (08) Entre 3,501 – 3,950 córdobas (09) Entre 3,951– 4,450 córdobas (10) Entre 4,451 – 5,100 córdobas (11) Entre 5,101 – 5,750 córdobas (12) Entre 5,751 – 6,350 córdobas (13) Entre 6,351 – 7,700 córdobas (14) Entre 7,701 – 9,800 córdobas (15) Entre 9,801– 13,500 córdobas (16) Más de 13,500 córdobas

282 Tarjeta G

El riesgo es 10 extremo 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 No hay ningún riesgo 1

283 Paleta de Colores

284 [NO ENTREGAR A ENTREVISTADOS. ESTA TARJETA ES SOLO PARA ENTREVISTADORES]

ED. ¿Cuál fue el último año de educación que usted completó o aprobó? _____ Año de ______(primaria, secundaria, universitaria, superior no universitaria) = ______años total [Usar tabla a continuación para el código] 10 20 30 40 50 60

Ninguno 0

Primaria 1 2 3 4 5 6 Secundaria 7 8 9 10 11 Universitaria 12 13 14 15 16 17+ |__|__| Superior no universitaria 12 13 14 15 (tales como educación técnica o vocacional)

No sabe 88 No responde 98

285 [NO ENTREGAR A ENTREVISTADOS. ESTA TARJETA ES SOLO PARA ENTREVISTADORES] Q3C. Si usted es de alguna religión, ¿podría decirme cuál es su religión? [No leer opciones] [Si el entrevistado dice que no tiene ninguna religión, sondee más para ubicar si pertenece a la alternativa 4 u 11] (01) Católico (02) Protestante, Protestante Tradicional o Protestante no Evangélico (Cristiano, Calvinista; Luterano; Metodista; Presbiteriano; Discípulo de Cristo; Anglicano; Episcopaliano; Iglesia Morava). (03) Religiones Orientales no Cristianas (Islam; Budista; Hinduista; Taoísta; Confucianismo; Baha’i). (04) Ninguna (Cree en un Ser Superior pero no pertenece a ninguna religión) (05) Evangélica y Pentecostal (Evangélico, Pentecostal; Iglesia de Dios; Asambleas de Dios; Iglesia Universal del Reino de Dios; Iglesia Cuadrangular; Iglesia de Cristo; Congregación Cristiana; Menonita; Hermanos de Cristo; Iglesia Cristiana Reformada; Carismático no Católico; Luz del Mundo; Bautista; Iglesia del Nazareno; Ejército de Salvación; Adventista; Adventista del Séptimo Día, Sara Nossa Terra). (06) Iglesia de los Santos de los Últimos Días (Mormones). (07) Religiones Tradicionales (Candomblé, Vudú, Rastafari, Religiones Mayas, Umbanda; María Lonza; Inti, Kardecista, Santo Daime, Esoterica). (10) Judío (Ortodoxo, Conservador o Reformado) (11) Agnóstico o ateo (no cree en Dios) (12) Testigos de Jehová. (88) NS (98) NR

286