Violence Against Women and Central American Migration

Abstract

Executive Summary

Over the past decade, there has been a sharp increase in the number of women and girls arriving at the U.S. Southwest border from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. In order to design and implement effective strategies to address female immigrants’ needs, it is imperative to fully understand the drivers of girls’ and women’s migration. Prior research has found that the migration calculus of Northern Central American women is often driven by fear of crime and crime victimization. We delve more deeply into the effect of personal safety concerns on women’s decision to migrate by focusing on the role that gender-based violence (GBV) plays in the migration calculus among women from Northern Central America, where GBV is particularly pervasive. GBV is distinct from other types of victimization as it frequently occurs in both public and private spheres, and is often dismissed as a private affair by state agents who either refuse to investigate it or, worse, are actively complicit in its perpetuation. Relying upon statistical analysis of survey data from the Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP Lab), we find that women who report that violence against women is a serious problem in their neighborhoods are significantly more likely to plan to migrate, independent of their experiences and perceptions of other types of crime. When women perceive that violence against women in their neighborhoods is very serious, they become just as likely as men to plan to migrate. In contrast, perceptions of GBV do not shape men’s migration calculus, even though men and women share similar views on the severity of the problem of violence against women in their neighborhoods. Our findings indicate that there is a distinct set of factors driving women to migrate from Northern Central America. Thus, policies designed to address the “root causes” of forced migration must take into account these gendered differences in the migration decision.

From our research, we derive policy implications for domestic and foreign governments to protect women from GBV and turn migration into a choice rather than the only perceived way out of violence. First, given the persistently high rates of GBV, a larger budget allocation to address GBV should be part of governments’ citizen security plans. Second, such funds should be directed to strengthen the capacity of specialized institutions (i.e., women’s shelters, specialized police stations, and tribunals), as well as to evidence-based media and education campaigns focused on generating attitudinal change. Funds should be dedicated to raise public awareness about the problem of GBV, and socialize citizens to recognize it as a crime, not a private family matter. Third, since women and sexually diverse populations are more at risk of sexual violence at the hands of armed state actors in the context of militarized responses to organized crime, a shift in security policy rooted in human rights rather than excessive use of force is imperative. Finally, as the second Trump administration focuses on indiscriminate deportation, risking individuals’ safety in general and women’s exposure to GBV in particular, we urge international organizations and human rights advocates to engage in coordinated efforts to demand U.S. adherence to core tenets of international law such as non-refoulement and uphold the fundamental rights to migration and asylum. We conclude with a call to foreign governments to collaborate with civil society actors to protect women from GBV in the region.