ODHAG

VIOLENCE IN GUATEMALA
RESEARCH IN FIVE DEPARTMENTS:
Chiquimula, Guatemala, Petén,
Quetzaltenango y San Marcos
 Methodology
Specifications
Number of interviews 1300

Departments Chiquimula, Guatemala, Petén,

Quetzaltenango y San Marcos

Sampling Method Two stage cluster Sampling

Sampling Unit Households

 DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE.
Proportion of
Number of households
Department interviews interviewed
Petén
Guatemala 700 0.2
(7.92%) San Marcos 228 0.2
Quetzaltenango 178 0.2
Petén 105 0.2
Chiquimula 89 0.2
Total General 1300 100%

San Marcos
(17.16%)

Quetzaltenango Chiquimula
(13.49%) Guatemala
(54.88% (6.53%)

We obtain information about 6,335 persons in 1300 households. The average

household size is 5.
 SECTIONS OF THE SURVEY

A. Demographic
B. Social capital (measured with SASCAT)
C. Questions about functioning
D.Perception of violence
E. Specific questions about the violence event
I. Event features
II. Damage
III. Support
IV. Justice
SUMMARY OF THE DEMOGRAPHIC
INFORMATION
ITEM RESULTS
GENDER Male= 49.8%
Female= 50.2%
AGE 35 five years or less= 43.3%
More than 35 years= 56.7%
INCOME Extreme poverty(less than 200 Q. per week)= 20%
Poverty (less than 500 Q. per week)= 40%
No poverty (more than 500 Q. per week)= 40%
ETHNICITY Indigenous= 34.9%
No indigenous= 65.1%
AREA Guatemala city= 53.9%
Other departments= 49.1%

Urban= 68.5%
Rural= 31.5%
 SUMMARY OF PERCEPTION
INFORMATION
ITEM RESULTS
PERCEPTION OF MAIN Violence = 58.6%
PROBLEM Poverty = 21.3%
Health = 11.9%
Education = 8.2%
FACTS OF VIOLENCE Robbery (without physical violence)= 63.5%
Assault (with physical violence)= 49.2%
Extortion= 29.6%
REASONS TO COMMIT Poverty = 52.7%
VIOLENCE Common Crime= 46.7%
Drugs= 42.1%
Drug Trafficking= 38.6%
Family problems= 33.3%
RATING OF THE GOVERNMENT Bad= 47%
TO COMBAT THE VIOLENCE Regular= 42%
Good= 11%
 INFORMATION ABOUT THE
VIOLENT EVENTS
ITEM RESULTS
Prevalence in six months Individual = 2.7% of 6335 individuals
Household= 11.6% of 1300 households
Informants= 5.4% of 1300 informants
Time and day of the event Everyday
Morning, afternoon and evening
Place of the event Street= 40%
House= 26%
Bus= 15%
Aggressor Common criminals = 40%
Gangs (mara) = 32%
Neighbourg =6%
Family = 2%
Public security= 2%
Drugs= 1.3%
Kidnapper= 1.3%
Don’t know =11%
 REPORTING RATE
ITEM RESULTS
Reporting 33%

Reasons for not reporting Fear = 24.9%

Distrust (police or authorities)=29%
Difficulties to report= 7%

Institutions who can help Don´t Know= 25.5%

victims Government (more security)=13.8%
Community organization= 9.6%
 FACTS OF VIOLENCE

HOUSEHOLD RATE OF VIOLENCE

Yes No
88.40%

11.60%

More than one household per ten had an event of violence

in the last six months
HOUSEHOLD RATE OF VIOLENCE –DIVIDED BY AREA-

HOUSEHOLDS RATE OF VIOLENCE

Guatemala Other Departments

15.40%

7.30%

Living in Guatemala increase the risk with 129%

MOST RELEVANT RISK FACTORS AT INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

AGE OF THE VICTIM

35 years old or less More than 35 years old

2.7%

2.6%
MOST RELEVANT RISK FACTORS AT INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

GENDER
MAN WOMEN
3.3%

2.0%

Men increase the risk 67%

MOST RELEVANT RISK FACTORS AT INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

PERCEPTION OF WEAPONS POSSESSION IN THE COMMUNITY

YES NO

19.30%
17.60%
14.80%

10.30%
7.10%
3.70%

TOTAL GUATEMALA OTHER DEPARTMENTS

Guatemala: Perception weapons possession increase the risk 109%

Other Departments: Perception weapons possession increase the risk 347%
MOST RELEVANT RISK FACTORS AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL

GROUPS MEMBERSHIP
YES NO

16.1%
14.5%
12.8%
11.1%

8.0%
7.2%

TOTAL GUATEMALA OTHER DEPARTMENTS

MOST RELEVANT RISK FACTORS AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL

COGNITIVE SOCIAL CAPITAL

Low cogntive social capital High cognitive social capital

19.70%

14.70%
12.40%
10.20%
8.30%

4.30%

TOTAL GUATEMALA OTROS DEPARTAMENTOS

Guatemala: Low social capital increased risk of event with 72%

Other departments: Low social capital decreased risk of 50 %
MOST RELEVANT RISK FACTORS AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL
INCOME
More than 500 Q. per week Less than 500 Q. per week

17.40%
15.80%

12.30% 11.90%
9.00%
6.80%

TOTAL GUATEMALA OTHER DEPARTMENTS

Guatemala: More income increase the risk 50%

Other Departments: More income increase the risk 87%
MOST RELEVANT RISK FACTORS AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL

ETHNICITY
INDIGENOUS NOT INDIGENOUS
17%
14.90%

12.30%
10.30%

7.20% 6.90%

TOTAL GUATEMALA OTHER DEPARTMENTS

MOST RELEVANT FACTORS OF THE VIOLENT EVENT

GENDER OF AGGRESSOR
MAN WOMAN

11.60% 6.30%
26.50%

88.40% 93.70%
73.50%

TOTAL GUATEMALA OTHER DEPARTMENTS

MOST RELEVANT FACTORS OF THE VIOLENT EVENT

AGE OF AGGRESSOR
Young Adult

62.50% 63.30% 60.50%

37.50% 36.70% 39.50%

TOTAL GUATEMALA OTHER DEPARTMENTS

MOST RELEVANT FACTORS OF THE VIOLENT EVENT

AREA OF THE EVENT

INSIDE THE COMMUNITY OUT OF THE COMMUNITY

32.6%
44.10% 49%

67.4%
55.90% 51%

TOTAL GUATEMALA OTHER DEPARTMENTS

MOST RELEVANT FACTORS OF THE VIOLENT EVENT

POLICE PRESENCE
YES NO

81% 83.30% 75.60%

19% 16.70% 24.40%

TOTAL GUATEMALA OTHER DEPARTMENTS

 CONCLUSIONS
• People living in Guatemala department are more
exposed to violence than people living in other
departments
• Although poverty rates are high, people are more
concerned about violence.
• The structure of the violence seems to differ
between Guatemala and other departments
– Cognitive social capital
– Perceptions of weapons in the community
• The prevention strategies will have to be different
for Guatemala and another departments
 RECOMMENDATIONS
• It´s necessary to cerate policies of weapons
control
• The social capital must to be strength even in
Guatemala like in other Departments.
• Although the results seem to indicate the
necessity to increase the security, is
prioritarie to work on improve the current
institution to make it more reliable and
effective.