Community-based crime prevention programs are emerging as a crucial alternative for addressing violence in Central America, a significant driver of migration from the region to the United States. Comprehensive analyses of the impact of the adoption of programs on migration intentions, especially among individuals who have been victims of crime, are lacking. Using a distinctive survey dataset derived from randomized-controlled experiments conducted in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, this study shows that community-based crime prevention programs are associated with an increase in migration intentions in Guatemala but are not linked to migration intentions in El Salvador and Honduras. This finding holds even when considering whether these programs address neighborhood factors and perceived risk of future victimization. Further examination of these programs is warranted.
Alexandre BergL.CarranzaM. (2015). Crime, violence, and community-based prevention in Honduras (Justice, Security and Development Series). International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.
2.
ArmitageR.EkblomP. (Eds.). (2019). Rebuilding crime prevention through environmental design: Strengthening the links with crime science (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315687773
3.
BambergerM. M.TarsillaM.Hesse-BiberS. (2016). Why so many “rigorous” evaluations fail to identify unintended consequences of development programs: How mixed methods can contribute. Evaluation and Program Planning, 55, 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.01.001.
4.
BartusT. (2005). Estimation of marginal effects using Margeff. The Stata Journal: Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata, 5(3), 309–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0500500303
5.
Berk-SeligsonS.OrcésD.PizzolittoG.SeligsonM. A.WilsonC. J. (2014a). Impact evaluation: Guatemala country report. Vanderbilt University: Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP).
6.
Berk-SeligsonS.OrcésD.PizzolittoG.SeligsonM. A.WilsonC. J. (2014b). Impact evaluation: Honduras country report. Vanderbilt University: Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP).
7.
Berk-SeligsonS.OrcésD.PizzolittoG.SeligsonM. A.WilsonC. J. (2014c). Impact evaluation of USAID’s community-based crime and violence prevention approach in central America: El Salvador Country Report. Vanderbilt University: Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP).
8.
Berk-SeligsonS.OrcésD.PizzolittoG.SeligsonM.WilsonC. (2014d). Impact evaluation of USAID’s community-based crime and violence prevention approach in central America: Regional report for El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama. Vanderbilt University: Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP). https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/carsi/Regional_Report_v12d_final_W_120814.pdf
9.
BernhardB. J.PrestonF. W. (2004). On the shoulders of Merton. Potentially sobering consequences of problem gambling policy. American Behavioral Scientist, 4(11), 1395–1405.
10.
CameronA. C.TrivediP. K. (2010). Microeconometrics using Stata. Stata Press.
11.
Chabé-FerretS. (2015). Analysis of the bias of Matching and Difference-in-Difference under alternative earnings and selection processes. Journal of Econometrics, 185(1), 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2014.09.013
12.
ClarkeR. V. (2009). Situational crime prevention: Theoretical background and current practice. In KrohnM. D.LizotteA. J.HallG. P. (Eds.), Handbook on crime and deviance (pp. 259–276). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0245-0_14
13.
DahlbergL. L.KrugE. G. (2002). Violence- A global public health problem. In KrugE.DahlbergL.MercyJ.ZwiA. B.LozanoR. (Eds.), World report on violence and health (pp. 1–56). World Health Organization.
14.
DavisR.HendersonN.MerrickC. (2004). Community policing: Variations on the western model in the developing world. Police Practice and Research, 4(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/1561426032000113870
15.
DawsonM. K.IveyA.BuggsS. (2023). Relationships, resources, and political empowerment: Community violence intervention strategies that contest the logics of policing and incarceration. Frontiers in Public Health, 11, 1143516. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1143516
DolowitzD. (2000). Policy transfer: A new framework for policy analysis’. In DolowitzD.HulmeR.NellisM.O’NeillF. (Eds.), Policy transfer and British social policy: Learning from the USA? (pp. 9–37). Open University Press.
18.
DolowitzD.MarshD. (1996). Who learns what from whom: A review of the policy transfer literature. Political Studies, 44, 343–357.
Fay-RamirezS. (2015). The comparative context of collective efficacy: Understanding neighbourhood disorganisation and willingness to intervene in Seattle and Brisbane. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48(4), 513–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865814536707
21.
FredrikssonA.de OliveiraG. M. (2019). Impact evaluation using difference-in-differences. RAUSP Management Journal, 54(4), 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-05-2019-0112
22.
GartnerR. (1990). The victims of homicide: A temporal and cross-national comparison. American Sociological Review, 55(1), 92–106.
23.
GauJ. M. (2014). Unpacking collective efficacy: The relationship between social cohesion and informal social control. Criminal Justice Studies, 27(2), 210–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2014.885903
24.
GearhartM. C. (2022). Social cohesion, mutual efficacy and informal social control: Collective efficacy and community-based crime prevention. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 71, 100548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2022.100548
25.
GrafovaI. B.FreedmanV.LurieN.KumarR.RogowskiJ. (2014). The difference-in-difference method: Assessing the selection bias in the effects of neighborhood environment on health. Economics & Human Biology, 13, 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehb.2013.03.007
HeckmanJ. J.IchimuraH.ToddP. E. (1997). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training programme. The Review of Economic Studies, 64(4), 605–654. https://doi.org/10.2307/2971733
28.
HernandezD. M. (2014). Unaccompanied child migrant in “crisis”: New surge or case of arrested development?Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy, 27, 11–17.
29.
HiskeyJ. T.CórdovaA.MaloneM. F.OrcésD. M. (2018). Leaving the devil you know: Crime victimization, US deterrence policy, and the emigration decision in central America. Latin American Research Review, 53(3), 429–447. https://doi.org/10.25222/larr.147
30.
HollandA. (2013). Right on crime? Conservative party politics and Mano Dura policies in El Salvador. Latin American Research Review, 48(1), 44–67. https://doi.org/doi:10.1353/lar.2013.0009
IesueL. (2022). Victimization and mobility intentions: Accounting for neighborhood perceptions in Central American contexts. Victims & Offenders. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2022.2140728
InkpenC.PittsW. J.LattimoreP. K. (2021). Crime, victimization, and intentions to migrate in the Northern Triangle. In KuryH.RedoS. (Eds.), Crime prevention and justice in 2030 (pp. 419–445). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56227-4_20
LindenA.AdamsJ. L. (2011). Applying a propensity-score based weighting model to interrupted time series data: Improving causal inference in program evaluation. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17, 1231–1238.
45.
LorenzenM. (2017). The mixed motives of unaccompanied child migrants from Central America’s Northern triangle. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 5(4), 744–767. https://doi.org/10.1177/233150241700500402
46.
MarcyW. (2014). The End of Civil War, the Rise of Narcotrafficking and the Implementation of the Merida Initiative in Central America. International Social Science Review, 89(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/www.jstor.org/stable/intesociscierevi.89.1.01
47.
MartinezJ. N. (2014). Beyond networks: Health, crime, and migration in Mexico. International Journal of Population Research, 2014, 1–12.
48.
MasseyD. S.ArangoJ.HugoG.KouaouciA.PellegrinoA.TaylorJ. E. (1993). Theories of international migration: A review and appraisal. Population and Development Review, 19(3), 431–466.
49.
McAulayL. (2007). Unintended consequences of computer mediated communications. Behaviour and Information Technology, 26(5), 385–398.
MeyerP. (2022). Central American migration: Root causes and U.S. policy (IF11151). Congressional Research Service (CRS). https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/IF11151.pdf
53.
MeyerP. J.MargessonR.SeelkeC. R.Taft-MoralesM. (2016). Unaccompanied children from Central America: Foreign policy consideration (7–5700). Congressional Research Service. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/homesec/R43702.pdf
54.
MeyerP.SeelkeC. R. (2015). Central America regional security initiative: Background and policy issues for congress. Congressional Research Service. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41731.pdf
55.
MuggahR.SzabodeCarvalhoI. (2014). Changes in the neighborhood: Reviewing citizen security cooperation in Latin America. Igarape Institute. https://igarape.org.br/en/
56.
MusaloK.LeeE. (2017). Seeking a rational approach to a regional refugee crisis: Lessons from the summer 2014 “surge” of central American women and children at the US-Mexico border. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 5(1), 137–179. https://doi.org/10.14240/jmhs.v5i1.78
OhJ.-H. (2003). Social bonds and the migration intentions of elderly urban residents: The mediating effect of residential satisfaction. Population Research and Policy Review, 22, 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025067623305
60.
OliverK.LorencT.TinklerJ. (2020). Evaluating unintended consequences: New insights into solving practical, ethical and political challenges of evaluation. Evaluation, 26(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389019850847
61.
PrattT. C.GodseyT. W. (2003). Social support, inequality, and homicide: A cross-national test of an integrated theoretical model. Criminology, 41(3), 611–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb00999.x
QuisumbingA.McNivenS. (2010). Moving forward, looking back: The impact of migration and remittances on assets, consumption, and credit constraints in the rural Philippines. Journal of Development Studies, 46(1), 91–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380903197960
64.
RamosM. A.AshbyN. J. (2017). The halo effect: Violent crime and foreign direct investment. Multinational Business Review, 25(4), 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBR-04-2017-0020
65.
RiosmenaF. (2009). Socioeconomic context and the association between marriage and Mexico–U.S. migration. Social Science Research, 38(2), 324–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.12.001
RosenJ. D.CutronaS. A. (Eds.). (2023). Mano dura policies in Latin America. Routledge.
68.
RothB.HartnettC. S. (2018). Creating reasons to stay? Unaccompanied youth migration, community-based programs, and the power of “push” factors in El Salvador. Children and Youth Services Review, 92, 48–55.
69.
RothB.HuffmanA.BrameR. (2022). Too afraid to stay: Measuring the relationship between criminal victimization in Central America and the intent to migrate. Crime and Delinquency, 68(4), 684–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128720978737
70.
SchachterJ. P. (2004). Geographical mobility: 2002 to 2003. Current population reports no. P20-549 (p. 16). U.S. Census Bureau.
SteinbergJ. (2011). Crime prevention goes abroad: Policy transfer and policing in post-apartheid South Africa. Theoretical Criminology, 15(4), 349–364.
74.
TieboutC. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416–424.
UNESCAP. (2007). Perspectives of gender and migration. (Proceedings of the Regional Seminar on Strengthening the Capacity of National Machineries for Gender Equality to Shape Migration Policies and Protect Migrant Women.). Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/SDD_PUB_Perspectives_on_Gender_and_Migration.pdf
Van der LindenM. (2010). Unanticipated consequences of “humanitarian intervention”: The British campaign to abolish the slave trade. Theory and Society, 39(3/4), 281–298.
81.
VillaJ. M. (2016). Diff: Simplifying the estimation of difference-in-differences treatment effects. The STATA Journal, 16(1), 52–71.
82.
WalshC. (2020). The utility of a psycho-social approach for understanding and addressing male youth violence: The interface between traumatic experiences and masculinity. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 29(2), 186–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2018.1561572
