1
The following information is confidential and may be subject to professional secrecy. It is intended 
solely for the use of those who are authorized to receive or disclose it. If you are not authorized to 
evaluate this information, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or 
taking action based on the content of this document is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
COMMUNITY ROOTS PROJECT
Mid-term evaluation
Study implemented by:
DEC // 2021
This document is produced for the Project: Community Roots Cooperation Agreement No. AID-520-A-17-00001; for review by the United States Agency for 
International Development
Prepared by:
CID-Gallup
Georgina Pelaez; Josué Jiménez; Bryan Ureña; Ana Isabel Enriquez
2
3
The views expressed in this report on the results of the Community Roots Project Mid-Term 
Evaluation study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of USAID, World 
Vision, or RTI international.
The names used in this report and the way in which they are presented and the data contained 
therein, do not imply, on the part of the Community Roots Project, any judgment or on the legal 
status of any of the territories, cities, or areas mentioned or their authorities, or on the delimitation 
of their borders or limits.
EDITORIAL
Consultoría Interdisciplinaria en Desarrollo (CID-Gallup)
Avenida Reforma 9-55 zona 10, Edificio Reforma 10. Office 901. Guatemala City, Guatemala
Tel. (+502) 2310-6800 info@cidgallup.com
HTTPS:// www.cidgallup.com/index.html
©2021 Consultoría Interdisciplinaria en Desarrollo (CID-Gallup)
All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, archived or 
transmitted by any means (whether electronic, mechanical, photocopied, recorded, or otherwise), 
without the prior authorization of the publisher.
CREDITS
Prepared by:
Georgina Pelaez, Josué Jiménez, Bryan Ureña, Thanalí Isabel Patruyo, Dania De León.
This report (Mid-Term Evaluation of the Community Roots Project) has been made possible thanks 
to the support of the people of the United States of America. The views/opinions in this report are 
the responsibility of Interdisciplinary Consulting in Development (CID-Gallup) and the Community 
Roots Project and do not necessarily reflect those of USAID or the United States Government.
4
Table of Contents
Presentation........................................................................................................................................ 9
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................... 10
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Background and description of the Project ...................................................................................... 12
Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 13
Specific objectives of the Project.............................................................................................. 13
The general objective of the evaluation ................................................................................... 13
Specific objectives of the evaluation......................................................................................... 14
Methodology..................................................................................................................................... 15
Target populations........................................................................................................................ 15
Quantitative stage......................................................................................................................... 15
Sample design ........................................................................................................................... 15
Sample size................................................................................................................................ 15
Margin of error.......................................................................................................................... 16
Collection of quantitative information...................................................................................... 16
Collection dates and times........................................................................................................ 16
Information monitoring ............................................................................................................ 16
Data processing......................................................................................................................... 16
Qualitative stage ........................................................................................................................... 16
Collection of qualitative information ........................................................................................ 16
Qualitative data processing....................................................................................................... 17
Overall results ................................................................................................................................... 18
Population ..................................................................................................................................... 18
Quantitative approximation: the distribution of the sample........................................................ 22
Target populations (departments and municipalities) ......................................................... 22
Gender................................................................................................................................... 24
Marital status........................................................................................................................ 24
People.................................................................................................................................... 25
Level of education ................................................................................................................. 25
Age groups............................................................................................................................. 26
Language ............................................................................................................................... 28
Education............................................................................................................................... 28
5
Analysis.............................................................................................................................................. 29
Perceptions and Projections on different social issues................................................................. 29
Education, employment, and opportunities............................................................................. 29
Country and agents for social change....................................................................................... 34
Life and Health .......................................................................................................................... 37
Violence..................................................................................................................................... 39
Safety, victimization, and trust in the police force ....................................................................... 39
Migration....................................................................................................................................... 51
Knowledge about the project........................................................................................................ 54
Community attitudes .................................................................................................................... 56
Protection of children ................................................................................................................... 66
External variables and municipal infrastructure........................................................................... 69
Arrival points..................................................................................................................................... 73
Lessons learned and recommendations ........................................................................................... 76
Acronyms........................................................................................................................................... 77
Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................... 78
Annexes............................................................................................................................................. 80
1. Methodology Annex:............................................................................................................. 80
2. Focus Groups Details:............................................................................................................ 87
3. Municipal Sketch of Departments......................................................................................... 88
6
Table Index
Table 1. Distribution of departments by age group 17
Table 2. School, National and Department Attendance Rates 18
Table 3. Distribution of the sample by marital status, according to department 21
Table 4. Ethnic distribution of the sample, by department 22
Table 5. Distribution of the sample by language, by department 24
Table 6. Perception of employment stability, according to groups 27
Table 7. Perception of young people at risk towards employment opportunities, according to 
department and zone 28
Table 8. Main problems facing communities 37
Table 9. Low-quality utilities you have problems with 38
Table 10. Percentage of people in target areas who report avoiding parts of the neighborhood 
for fear of violence/crime, by sex and department 39
Table 11. Percentage of people who consider their communities to be peaceful and safe, by sex 
and department 41
Table 12. Men and women must have equal access to social, economic, and political 
opportunities, according to sex and department 59
Table 13. Number of NGOs, NGOs or other organizations 70
Figure Index 
Figure 1. Distribution of departments by educational level ........................................................... 20
Figure 2.Distribution of the sample by departments...................................................................... 22
Figure 3. Distribution of the sample by municipalities (colors by department) ............................ 23
Figure 4. Distribution of the sample by sex, by department .......................................................... 24
Figure 5. Distribution of the sample by educational level, by departments.................................. 25
Figure 6. Distribution of the sample by age groups, by sex............................................................ 26
Figure 7. Distribution of the sample by age groups, Chiquimula.................................................... 26
Figure 8. Distribution of the sample by age groups, San Marcos................................................... 27
Figure 9. Distribution of the sample by age groups, Quetzaltenango............................................ 27
Figure 10. Distribution of the sample by age groups, Huehuetenango.......................................... 27
Figure 11. Distribution of the sample by educational level, by departments................................ 28
Figure 12. Perception of education, according to department....................................................... 29
Figure 13. Perception of job stability, according to department.................................................... 30
Figure 14. Indicator 24: Percentage of young people at risk in the target communities, indicating 
their optimistic perception of future job opportunities in Guatemala or its municipalities.......... 31
Figure 15. Perception of youth participation, according to department ....................................... 34
Figure 16. Perception of poverty, by department........................................................................... 35
Figure 17. Perception of the corruption of society, according to department .............................. 35
Figure 18 . Perception of inequality in the country, according to the department....................... 36
Figure 19. Indicator 05: Percentage change in citizen perception of civil society's ability to 
influence government decision-making .......................................................................................... 36
Figure 20. Perception of one's own life, according to department................................................ 37
Figure 21. Perception of health, according to department............................................................. 38
7
Figure 22. Perception about the quality of life in the city in which you live, according to the 
department....................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 23. Perception of climate change, according to department .............................................. 39
Figure 24. Perception of violence..................................................................................................... 39
Figure 25. Indicator 07: Percentage of people in target areas who report avoiding parts of the 
neighborhood due to violence/crime.............................................................................................. 41
Figure 26. Indicator 08: Percentage of people who consider their communities to be peaceful 
and safe............................................................................................................................................. 43
Figure 27. Indicator 06: Percentage of people in target areas who report being victims of 
violence in the past year. ................................................................................................................. 45
Figure 28. Crimes reported by victims of violence, last 12 months................................................ 46
Figure 29. People who report their community has a violence prevention commission with the 
police (COCOPRE) ............................................................................................................................. 48
Figure 30. Institution or organization to which you would report a crime .................................... 49
Figure 31. Indicator 21: Trust in the police...................................................................................... 50
Figure 32. Indicator 13: Percentage of households reporting knowing about minors and youth in 
the community who migrated to the United States during the previous six months................... 51
Figure 33. Reasons why people believe migrate outside the community...................................... 52
Figure 34. Consider that people who migrated and returned from abroad, contribute by opening 
businesses......................................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 35. Perception of the rights of migrants............................................................................... 54
Figure 36. You've heard something about Community Roots........................................................ 54
Figure 37. Indicator 02: Percentages of the community who are aware of the Violence and 
Migration Reduction Plan ................................................................................................................ 55
Figure 38. Citizenship on equal opportunities for men and women .............................................. 56
Figure 39. Perception of equal opportunities with regard to participation in local organizations57
Figure 40. Perception of equal participation in politics.................................................................. 57
Figure 41. Reproduction of gender inequality against women ...................................................... 58
Figure 42. Perception of acts of domestic violence......................................................................... 59
Figure 43. Indicator 28: Percentage of community members in target areas indicating that 
Gender-Based Violence (GBV) is less accepted after participating in or being exposed to U.S. 
government programs...................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 44. Indicator 29: Agreement that men and women should have equal access to social, 
economic, and political opportunities............................................................................................. 62
Figure 45. Perception of gender roles in household decision-making ........................................... 63
Figure 46. Perception of gender roles in household chores ........................................................... 64
Figure 47. Perception of gender-based violence against women................................................... 64
Figure 48. Perception of gender-based violence against LGBTIQ+ people..................................... 65
Figure 49. Households with children (0 to 17 years old), by department and area....................... 66
Figure 50. Know where to report suspected physical or sexual abuse of children........................ 67
Figure 51. You would feel safe reporting cases of suspected physical or sexual abuse of children 
in your community. .......................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 52. Reasons why you don't feel safe reporting physical or sexual abuse of children in your 
community........................................................................................................................................ 68
8
Figure 53. Organization to which you would report physical or sexual abuse of children in your 
community........................................................................................................................................ 68
9
Presentation
The Interdisciplinary Development Consulting CID Gallup, at the request of World Vision 
Guatemala, carried out this study in the country of Guatemala, with the aim of carrying out the 
Mid-Term Evaluation community roots project, which measures the indicators contemplated in 
the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan of the USAID-Community Roots Project. 
To meet the goals, a total of 3,300 surveys, 12 focus groups, and 24 in-depth interviews 
were conducted between August 13 and September 24, 2021. In the qualitative stage, we worked 
with the local government, families, leaders in governmental organizations (OG), and non￾governmental organizations (ONG). For its part, the questionnaire was applied face-to-face, in the 
respondent's home, using a representative sample of the adult population throughout the 
country. The results, with a confidence level equal to 95%, have a margin of error equal to ±1.71 
points at the total level and were processed to obtain the graphic information presented in this 
report.
CID-Gallup appreciates the trust in their services. At the same time, it is put at the orders 
for any query in the mail info@cidgallup.com.
10
Executive Summary
The situations of violence and migration in the departments of Chiquimula, San Marcos, 
Huehuetenango, and Quetzaltenango mark other dynamics of social and political life within their
communities. The Project deals with intervening in these dynamics, for community cohesion 
against violence and strengthening the links between people and organizations, in the 
construction of livable lives and the promotion of values such as equality and respect. Thus, the 
interest of this report is to point out the indicators of the Project to the medium-term in its 
processes.
Communities work on the situations of education, youth participation, political 
interference by organized groups, quality of life, the safety of their neighborhoods, police capacity 
for action, respect and non-violence towards people in the LGBTQI+ community and between men 
and women, as well as their access to opportunities throughout their lives.
However, there is a lack of employment opportunities and in consequence, the urgency 
of migrating to survive and support families; there are many reports of young people who have 
left their villages with the purpose of searching for a job. There are also conflicts over the quality 
of public services, gang violence, and alcoholism. The latter is related to situations of gender 
violence and other situations risky to physical integrity such as robberies and aggressions. People 
do not consider going to the police to report the events, since that will not always end in proper 
justice manner. Also, many will not do it out of fear of reprisals, or even do not know where to 
formalize the complaint in cases of violence against children.
A considerable part of people restricts their transit in places and time, in order to avoid
danger, while they are unaware of the efforts of the plans to reduce violence and migration. In 
general, there is pessimism towards job stability, poverty, corruption, inequality, environmental
sustainability, and the fulfillment of the rights of migrants.
The structural challenges and efforts from different fronts are in constant contradiction, 
so the scope of the Project today must be considered from a unique moment, where inequalities
are defined and shown by the pandemic and the effects of climate change. The mid-term provides
a look at the state of things and at the same time offers new ground for work.
11
Introduction
This study seeks to establish the current situation of the indicators that apply to evaluate 
the context of the area of intervention of the Project, therefore, the variables and dimensions 
analyzed in this document seek to support and show the scenario on which the indicators are 
manifested. This study considered quantitative and qualitative approaches, through which the 
detection of the population where the Project has intervention, analysis of the topics of interest, 
and the set of results was constructed.
We will first observe the general results section containing an overview of the country’s 
situation in Guatemala, its demographics and structural issues related to violence, flows of people, 
youth, environment, politics, and culture. Then we have the composition of the sample, where the 
distributions of the sample are exposed with respect to the departments, municipalities, sex, marital 
status, educational level, languages, and towns.
The analysis section shows the perceptions and projections of the population on education, 
employment, opportunities, the country’s situation, and the capacity for change of social agents, 
life, health, and violence. You will also see the variables related to security, victimization, and trust 
in the police, a presentation on the situation of migration, the knowledge that people have about 
the Project, certain community attitudes towards violence, gender, and coexistence, and finally on 
the protection of children.
In the last part, we have the external variables and the municipal infrastructure, where the 
institutional and organizational framework of the communities with which we worked is denoted.
12
Background and description of the Project
It is known that Guatemalan international migration is mostly rural, young, and male, 
however, increase in the number of migrant women have been observed, as well as unaccompanied 
children. In addition, there are more and more known cases of sexual violence against women, 
violent detentions, and non-guarantee of fundamental rights. (IOM, 2021, p. 8) Efforts to gather 
information and understand these dynamics are no stranger to these notions.
In this way, Reyes quotes (2009, p. 42) the Guatemalan Human Rights Ombudsman, when 
the latter referred to human mobility as a phenomenon that "must be explained as an expression 
of structural problems", where "the socio-economic structure is deeply marked by inequality, and
reinforced by State policies promoting the systematic and permanent exclusion of minorities".
The part of Mexico and the part of Guatemala in the border region are similar, mostly from 
the needs and precarious conditions of life; Guatemalan and Mexican people from these areas have 
more in common with each other than with the populations of their respective (Canales, Montiel, 
Rojas, & Vargas, 2013) countries. In addition, "inequality, poverty, lack of opportunities, the blow of 
natural disasters, among others" frame irregular migration in these territories. (IOM, 2021, p. 8)
The Community Roots project is a project to prevent violence, crime, and irregular 
migration, with the aim of supporting the efforts of the Government of Guatemala, civil society, and 
community actors, to address the causes and consequences of violence and forced migration, 
through comprehensive prevention approaches. Designating as a target group to work with 
community-based, democratically elected organizations, civil organizations, families, local 
government, private sector, GMO, and NGOs in certain municipalities of the departments of 
Chiquimula, Huehuetenango, San Marcos, and Quetzaltenango. In return, this evaluation seeks to 
establish the current situation of the indicators that apply to evaluate the context of intervention of 
the project.
13
Project Objectives
According to the terms of reference of the study, the Community Roots Project contributes 
to the development objective of USAID/Guatemala country development cooperation strategy 
(CDCS,2012-2016) I, "Greater security and justice for citizens" and number two of intermediate 
result (IR 2), "Reduces levels of violence and conflict in areas and populations". 
Specific objectives of the Project
To this end, the Project has established within its design four strategic objectives that 
complement and reinforce each other:
● Objective 1: Explore the community violence prevention commissions to promote 
integrated violence and migration prevention initiatives in specific areas of aid.
● Objective 2: Strengthen and mobilize municipal and national actors and resources 
to develop and implement municipal-level violence and migration prevention plans 
through a multisectoral, inter-institutional process. 
● Objective 3: Promote the participation of the private sector (local, national or 
international) in the prevention of violence and migration in the communities and 
municipalities of destination.
● Objective 4: Support secondary violence prevention projects in close coordination 
with municipal and local authorities. 
The general objective of the evaluation
Establish the current situation of the indicators applying evaluation in the context of the 
area of intervention of the project.
14
Specific objectives of the evaluation
● Establish the intermediate value of the result indicators of the Community Roots 
Project.
● Corroborate the data obtained from the previous feasibility studies and 
assumptions that gave rise to the formulation of the Project.
● Characterize the medium term of the intervention of the Project, the target 
population of the Project.
● Establish benchmarks to compare with the results of the initial evaluation study, so 
that the project implementers can determine the level of performance of the 
indicators, in relation to the established goals; in particular to study the scope in 
indirect beneficiaries of the project and the changes of local contextual factors 
during the life of the project.
15
Methodology
For the study, different levels of social actors involved or affected are considered according 
to the indicators raised in the design of the Project. 
The project had two stages, (1) quantitative and (2) qualitative, which are the basis for 
responding to the objectives of this research.
For the collection of information, CID Gallup technical staff was in contact with the local 
government, families, leaders, and governmental and non-governmental institutions of the country.
Target populations
Men and women of legal age, residents of the 80 communities of the Community Roots 
Project, in the departments of Huehuetenango, San Marcos, Quetzaltenango, and Chiquimula.
Quantitative stage
Sample design
For the quantitative stage, a sample survey was developed with a phased design. The sample 
was obtained by successive extraction of sampling units of different orders within each strata of 
interest:
● Selection of segments in the populations of interest, including a selection of apples.
● Selection of homes and finally selection of individuals within the house through the 
last birthday boy. 
The inclusion criteria were:
● People of legal age
● Willing to participate in the survey voluntarily
● Verbal informed consent
● Availability of at least 30 minutes to answer the survey
Sample size
The sample size was 3,300 informants permanently residing in the 80 intervention 
communities of the Community Roots Project.
The covered communities where the study had intervention were: In the department of 
Chiquimula, the municipalities of San José La Arada, San Jacinto, Olopa, Jocotán, San Juan Ermita, 
Quezaltepeque, Esquipulas, Chiquimula; in San Marcos, Tacaná, San Marcos, San Pedro 
Sacatepéquez, San Pablo, Malacatán; in Quetzaltenango: Coatepeque, Colomba; in Huehuetenango: 
La Libertad,Chiantla, Aguacatán, La Democracia, Cuilco.
16
Margin of error
As usual in this type of research, we work with a maximum permissible error (general 
confidence level) of 95% for the total estimates. On the other hand, the margins of error are defined 
based on the sample size with which we are working. At a general level, in cases where the entire 
sample is used, the sampling error would be ± 1.71 points maximum. This reflects that, for the 
results, of the entire sample, exposed in this research, and assuming as an example that 60% of the 
answers, to a certain question, is "yes" and 40% "no" you have 95% confidence that, if all adult 
citizens of the country had been interviewed, the final result of "yes" answers would have been 
between 58.29% and 61.71%. At the same time, those who answer "no" would be between 38.29%
and 41.21%.
Collection of quantitative information
For the questionnaire used, CID Gallup uses tablets programmed to collect data from 
surveys like these. A pre-structured questionnaire with "closed" questions (possible answers are 
already established) and "open" questions (the interviewee can provide any answer) was used, 
where the opinion was recorded.
The people in charge of collecting the information, in addition to having ease of speech, 
good presentation, and ease of learning, must have completed secondary education and have 
received the respective training for the study in which they will be working. Added to this, in many 
of the cases, those who carried out the surveys also had university studies and even diplomas from 
higher education institutions. 
Collection dates and times
The application of the surveys was on several days (Monday to Sunday) from August 13th
to August 30th, 2021, from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 
Information monitoring
The people who oversaw the implementation of the survey have experience in market 
research studies and university education. Those who supervised the work have national and 
international experience in the management and collection of information.
Data processing
When using the tablets, the collected information automatically passes to the computer. 
The tablets used by CID Gallup record all interviews and those who supervise listen to at least one￾third party to ensure there are no errors or falsehoods.
Qualitative stage
Collection of qualitative information
17
It was held from September 3 to 24, just when the president of Guatemala sent to the 
Congress of the Republic the health provisions in force in relation to COVID-19, in which, among 
others, a curfew was applied at night and attendance at social or any other type of meetings was 
limited (these provisions were not finally approved). 
Despite the impasse, the communities agreed to hold the group sessions that took place 
from September 6 to 10, in different locations selected by World Vision. The call for participants 
was made by community leaders, with the support of the staff of the Community Roots Project. 
Details of each meeting are attached in Annex 1.
 12 sessions were held; four per each department. These were formed in the following 
profiles:
● Men and women aged 13 to 17
● Men and women aged 18 to 29
● Men and women aged 30 and over
In addition to 24 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders from Friday, September 3 to 
Friday, September 24, 2021. 
Qualitative data processing
The qualitative information was processed through the MAXqda software, and 
subsequently, the content analysis was carried out by thematic fields, with the aim of giving 
meaning to the concepts from the social construction of the agents.
18
Overall results
This section presents statistical and general information on the target populations in 
Guatemala, taking into account the distribution of the sample according to variables of interest. This 
is in order to characterize the population studied and the area of intervention of the Project. In the 
first part, entitled "The population" shows the population statistics and certain variables of interest, 
while, in the section of “Quantitative approximation: the distribution of the sample", shows the 
distributions of the set of people and households surveyed according to the department, sex, 
marital status, age, level of formal education, among others. 
Population
According to the National Institute of Statistics of Guatemala, the Guatemalan population 
(2019) is 14,901,286 inhabitants: with 49% men and 51% women. Of these, 3% reside in Chiquimula, 
7% in San Marcos, 5% in Quetzaltenango and 8% in Huehuetenango.
The department of Chiquimula, inhabited by 415,063 people, has a distribution of 48% men 
and 52% women. Its population is mostly Ladino (73%) and Mayan (27%). The average number of 
approved years of study in people over the age of 15 is 5 (primary), and 74% of the population can 
read and write. In Chiquimula 95% learned to speak in Spanish and 4% in Ch’orti'.
The department of San Marcos has 1,032,277 inhabitants, with 49% men and 51% women, 
equally with a population mostly Ladino (69%) and Mayan (31%). Literacy is 79% and the average 
years of study in over 15 years are 5 (primary). 80% learned to speak in Spanish and 19% in May.
For its part, Quetzaltenango with 799,101 inhabitants of which 47% are men and 53% are 
women, the distribution by people is mostly between Mayans (51%) and Ladinos (47%). Literacy is 
84% and the average number of years of study is 7 in people over 15 (secondary). In addition, 74% 
learned to speak in Spanish, 17% in Mamand 9% in K’iche'.
Finally, Huehuetenango has a population of 1,170,669 inhabitants: 48% men and 52% 
women. With a majority of Mayan people (65%), followed by the Ladino population (35%). On 
average, people over 15 years of age study 5 years (primary), and 71% of its inhabitants can read 
and write. In this department, the distribution by language is more dispersed than the others: 40% 
Spanish, 26% Mam, 16% Q’anjob’al, and 6% Cuj.
The population is mostly young; as shown in the table below, the age groups are less dense 
according to their longevity in each department.
19
Table 1. Distribution of departments by age group, by sex
- Percentages--
Age Sex
Department
Chiquimula San 
Marcos Quetzaltenango Huehuetenango
From 18 to 
24 years old
Male 7 7 7 6
Female 7 7 8 8
Total 14 14 15 14
From 18 to 
24 years old
Male 7 6 7 6
Female 8 7 8 8
Total 15 13 15 14
From 18 to 
24 years old
Male 5 5 5 4
Female 6 6 6 6
Total 11 11 11 11
From 18 to 
24 years old
Male 3 3 4 3
Female 4 4 5 4
Total 7 7 9 7
From 18 to 
24 years old
Male 3 3 3 2
Female 3 3 3 2
Total 6 6 6 4
From 18 to 
24 years old
Male 2 2 2 2
Female 2 2 2 2
Total 4 4 4 4
From 18 to 
24 years old
Male 1 1 1 1
Female 1 1 1 1
Total 2 2 2 2
Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Data from the National Institute of Statistics of Guatemala (2019).
All four departments have mostly a population with primary education. It is followed by a 
population without formal education, secondary education, and finally with higher education. 
20
Figure 1. Distribution of departments by educational level
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Data from the National Institute of Statistics of Guatemala (2019).
The educational situation of the young population has some important highlights to point 
out, according to (2020, p. 34) CONJUVE AND UNFPA "for each illiterate person in the group of 13 
to 15 years there are almost three in the group of 25 to 30 years”, in addition, there is more 
affectation between women (8%), indigenous peoples (10%) and among people from rural areas 
(10%). Below are the rates of young people between the ages of 7 and 24 who do not attend school, 
by the department and at the national level. In Huehuetenango, the rate is higher than the national 
rate and the other departments of interest, where 51 out of every 100 young people do not attend 
school.
Table 2. School Attendance Rates, National and by Department
-For every 100 young people between 7 and 24 years old￾Place
Population 
aged 7 to 
24
Population aged 7 to 
24 years not attending 
school
School 
Absence 
Rate
Huehuetenango 243,964 476,470 51
Quetzaltenango 149,394 303,325 49
Chiquimula 77,485 164,156 47
San Marcos 177,059 413,543 43
Guatemala (national) 2,439,893 5,776,837 42
Source: CIDGallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
28
45
20
3
22
49
22
3
18
42
28
7
29
51
14
2
No education
Elementary
Highschool
Superior
education
Chiquimula San Marcos Quetzaltenango Huehuetenango
21
Data from the National Institute of Statistics of Guatemala (2019).
By 2020, the country's poverty reached 47% (World Bank, 2021) however, these figures 
increase when segregating by department, by 2014 poverty in Quetzaltenango reached 56%, in San 
Marcos 60%, Chiquimula 61%, and in Huehuetenango 74%. (ENCOVI, 2014) In contrast to 
multidimensional poverty, which affects 62 out of every 100 inhabitants in the country. (ECLAC, 
2021)
International (external) migration has been addressed by IOM from three variables available 
in the (2021) 2018 Census, where there are distributions by households that reported receiving 
remittances (9%), households that reported some of their members as emigrants (6%) and a variable 
that groups both conditions: households that reported remittances and emigrants (4%). From this, 
it is clear that 83% of international migrants are between 15 and 39 years old and 19% are from 
Huehuetenango, 10% from San Marcos, 9% from Quetzaltenango, and 3% from Chiquimula.
On the other hand, the Survey on International Migration of Guatemalans and Remittances 
(IOM, 2017) identified that 97% of Guatemalan emigrants have a definitive destination in the United 
States, and 73% of these are in an irregular situation. In addition, 71% of children and adolescents, 
under 18 years of age and Guatemalan migrants who were returned, were destined for the United 
States (the main states: California, Florida, and New York). The other 29% headed to Mexico: 
Chiapas, Quintana Roo, and Mexico City. (IOM & ILO, 2019, p. 8)
For 2019, 30,329 Guatemalan children were found in the United States, unaccompanied. 
(Heidbrink, 2020) In “Children on the Run," a UNHCR paper collected 100 stories of (2014)
Guatemalan children, ages 12 to 17, who entered the United States on their own and were 
subsequently held by U.S. federal authorities, in which exclusion (29%), domestic abuse (23%) and 
violence in society (20%) were identified as triggers to migrate. These stories denote the conditions 
of poverty, exposure to gangs, abuse, and violence of the victims. It is known that police, military, 
and elected representatives have been under investigation for facilitating the sex trafficking of 
children, paying for sexual acts with children, and for protecting establishments where these acts 
occurred. (U.S. Department of State, 2020, p. 231)
According to Roldán (2020, p. 37), structural factors have always been present in migration", 
where violence is present from different manifestations. Interdepartmental (internal) migration in 
Guatemala has a lot to do with violence. (p. 47) Between 2010 and 2020, 56,045 people have died 
in situations of violence. Also, in 2016 there were 36,913 forced pregnancies, of which 2,500 were 
the result of rapes of girls aged 10 to 14 and 33,800 victims of human trafficking in the (Hernandez, 
2018) country. For Hernández then, the forced movements at the internal level in Guatemala are 
related to three main reasons: 1) the violence of organized crime, 2) business projects such as 
mining, livestock, and hydroelectric plants, and 3) caused by natural events. Roldán, from qualitative 
work, delves into internal migration for the departments of Huehuetenango, Quetzaltenango, and 
San Marcos and identifies other reasons chained to the previous ones: 1) lack of rains and 
disappearance of water springs, 2) lack of nutrients in the land and 3) lack of land for cultivation. (p. 
44)
The territory between Guatemala and Mexico has historically been highly mobile. THE 
COLEF categorizes the "migratory flow from Mexico to Guatemala" as the flow of people who 
completed a stay in Mexico (temporary or seasonal), which for 2019, was mostly male workers in 
22
the agricultural, construction, and trade sectors. (EL COLEF, 2020, p. 13) Of the total number of 
Guatemalan workers, 53% returned to Huehuetenango, another 30% returned to San Marcos, and 
11% to Quetzaltenango, with an average stay of 20 days. Of these, 27% worked in the Comalapa 
Border, 18% in Tapachula, another 18% in Suchiate, and 12% in La Trinidad. (Pages 19-22) 
Quantitative approximation: the distribution of the sample
Target populations (departments and municipalities)
Graph 2 shows that the sample consists of 30% Marquense households, 29% Huehuetec 
households, 28% Chiquimultecos, and 13% Quetzaltecos. Figure 3 details the distribution of the 
sample by municipalities is detailed below:
Figure 2.Distribution of the sample by departments
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
30
29
28
13
San Marcos
Huehuetenango
Chiquimula
Quetzaltenango
23
Figure 3. Distribution of the sample by municipalities (colors by department)
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
10
10
9
8
8
7
7
6
5
5
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
La Libertad
Chiquimula
Coatepeque
Malacatán
Chiantla
San Pedro Sacatepéquez
Tacaná
Jocotán
Cuilco
Esquipulas
San Pablo
Aguacatán
San Marcos
Colomba
Olopa
Quezaltepeque
La Democracia
San Juan Ermita
San Jacinto
San José La Arada
24
Gender
It can be seen that the sample is distributed in a total way with 50% women and 50% men. 
In addition, the segregated distributions by department find below:
Figure 4. Distribution of the sample by sex, by department
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Marital status
Married people make up 44% of respondents. They are followed by single people with 32% 
of the total and 18% are united.
Table 3. Distribution of the sample by marital status, according to department
-Percentages￾Marital 
status
Total Department
Chiquimula San Marcos Quetzaltenango Huehuetenango
Married 44 41 43 48 45
Bachelor 32 35 35 27 28
United 18 18 17 15 22
Widower 4 4 3 6 3
Separate 2 2 2 2 2
Divorced 1 - 1 3 1
Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November
2021.
48
50
57
48
50
52
50
43
52
50
Chiquimula
San Marcos
Quetzaltenango
Huehuetenango
Total
Male Female
25
People
It is shown that 66% of the people surveyed recognize themselves as Ladinos, 20% Mayan, 
and 1% Garifuna. 
Table 4. Ethnic distribution of the sample, by department
-Percentages￾Ethnic group Total Department
Chiquimula San Marcos Quetzaltenango Huehuetenango
Ladin 66 67 56 72 73
Maya 20 17 24 12 20
Doesn't know/doesn't 
respond 12 13 16 13 5
Garifuna 1 - 1 1 -
Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Level of education
40% of the total population has a primary education, 30% secondary, 17% higher education, 
and 14% have no education.
Figure 5. Distribution of the sample by educational level, by departments
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
39
30
13
19
36
31
24
10
40
36
12
12
45
23
23
12
40
30
17
14
Elementary
Highschool
Superior
education
No education
Chiquimula San Marcos Quetzaltenango Huehuetenango Total
26
Age groups
The people interviewed are mostly under the age of 44. From 18 to 24 years: 23%, from 25 
to 34 years: 26%, from 35 to 44 years: 19%, from 45 to 54 years: 15%, from 55 to 64 years: 10%, 
from 65 to 74 years: 5% and those over 75 years represent 2%. Next, this distribution and the 
departmental ones.
Figure 6. Distribution of the sample by age groups, by sex
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Figure 7. Distribution of the sample by age groups, Chiquimula
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
11
12
9
8
6
3
1
12
14
10
7
4
2
1
23
26
19
15
10
5
2
18 – 24 years old
25 – 34 years old
35 – 44 años
45 – 54 years old
55 – 64 years old
65 – 74 years old
75 years old or more
Male Female Total
23
22
20
15
12
5
2
18 – 24 years old
25 – 34 years old
35 – 44 years old
45 – 54 years old
55 – 64 years old
65 – 74 years old
75 years old or more
27
Figure 8. Distribution of the sample by age groups, San Marcos
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Figure 9. Distribution of the sample by age groups, Quetzaltenango
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Figure 10. Distribution of the sample by age groups, Huehuetenango
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
25
27
17
14
10
5
2
18 – 24 years old
25 – 34 years old
35 – 44 years old
45 – 54 years old
55 – 64 years old
65 – 74 years old
75 years old or more
18
26
23
16
10
6
3
18 – 24 years old
25 – 34 years old
35 – 44 years old
45 – 54 years old
55 – 64 years old
65 – 74 years old
75 years old or more
24
27
19
13
8
6
2
18 – 24 years old
25 – 34 years old
35 – 44 years old
45 – 54 years old
55 – 64 years old
65 – 74 years old
75 years old or more
28
Language 
In the sample, the people surveyed from Chiquimula speak mainly Spanish (96%) and Ch'orti' 
(4%). In San Marcos, 99% speak Spanish and 1% Mam. In Quetzaltenango, 99% speak Spanish and 
1% K'iche'. And in Huehuetenango, 85% speak mainly Spanish at home, 7% speak Awakateko and 
4% speak Mam.
Table 5. Distribution of the sample by language and department
-Percentages￾Total Department
Chiquimula San Marcos Quetzaltenango Huehuetenango
Spanish 94 96 99 99 85
Awakateko 2 - - - 6
Mam 1 - 1 - 3
Ch'orti' 1 4 - - -
Chalchiteko 1 - - - 4
Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Education
The majority of respondents in all departments have primary education only, 
Huehuetenango has a higher percentage of 45%. The department with the highest number of 
respondents who have secondary education is Quetzaltenango (36%), while San Marcos has (24%)
of respondents with higher education. Chiquimula, on the other hand, has the highest percentage 
of uneducated respondents (19%).
Figure 11. Distribution of the sample by educational level, by departments
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
39
30
13
19
36
31
24
10
40
36
12
12
45
23
23
12
40
30
17
14
Elementary
Highschool
Superior
education
No education
Chiquimula San Marcos Quetzaltenango Huehuetenango Total
29
Analysis
In this part, they develop and discuss the results and information collected, as well as the 
indicators of the project. The analysis is distributed in the following sections:
● perceptions and projections on different social issues from the households 
consulted (education, employment, and opportunities; country and agents for 
social change; life and health; and violence),
● neighborhood safety, victimization, and trust in the police,
● migration, 
● knowledge about the Projector, 
● community attitudes towards violence, gender, and inclusion, 
● the situation of children in the home and their protection from situations of violence 
and finally, 
● external variables such as the existence of other entities that are dealing with issues 
related to those that fall within the competence of the Project.
Perceptions and Projections on different social issues
This section will see perceptions about the present and projections on different topics: life 
and health, country and agents for social change, violence, education, and employment and 
opportunities. These at the same time try to account for the vision of the world in general that the 
surveyed households have.
Education, employment, and opportunities
Just over half of the households consulted (52%) perceive favorably the current and future 
state of education, 27% have a neutral assessment and 21% perceive it unfavorably. Therefore, 
there is a majority of persons that think favorably about the opportunities that education offers and 
will offer. This trend is also found in distributions by department, where Quetzaltenango is the most 
optimistic (61%) and San Marcos is the least optimistic (48%). On unfavorable perceptions; these 
increase as the educational level increases: primary (18%), secondary (22%), and higher (30%). In 
addition, men (24%) are more pessimistic than women (18%).
Figure 12. Perception of education, according to department
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
18
21
20
23
21
23
31
29
61
56
49
48
Quetzaltenango
Huehuetenango
Chiquimula
San Marcos
Unfavorable Neutral Favorable
30
However, communities do not show that optimism when it comes to employment. Only 31% 
believe that the employment situation is and will be stable; 41% do not believe so and on the 
contrary, perceive instability in jobs. 27% think about the stability of employment in a neutral way. 
Quetzaltenango is also the most optimistic department (40%), while in Chiquimula only 24% 
perceive it favorably. Unfavorable perceptions are more frequent among men (43%), people over 
34 years of age (45%), and with higher education (47%). While the most optimistic people are 
women (34%) and those who only have primary education (36%).
Figure 13. Perception of job stability, according to department
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Table 6. Perception of employment stability, according to groups
age, education, and sex
-Percentages￾Perception
Age groups Education Sex
34 years 
or 
younger
More 
than 34 
years
Primary High school Superior Men Women
Unfavorable 38 45 40 40 47 43 39
Neutral 30 25 24 30 34 28 27
Favorable 32 31 36 30 19 29 34
Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
In San Marcos and Chiquimula, where the projections of stable employment are unfavorable 
(Graph 13), there are reports that place employment and opportunities "elsewhere". The appraisals 
insist on a better "there":
No jobs, you have to look elsewhere
Young Adult Focus Group with Young Adults, Municipality of Chiantla, 
Huehuetenango
Those who leave have more opportunities.
Young adult. Focus group with young adults, Municipality of Chiquimula, 
Chiquimula
37
39
40
47
23
23
32
29
40
38
28
24
Quetzaltenango
Huehuetenango
San Marcos
Chiquimula
Unfavorable Neutral Favorable
31
The youngest informants (from 13 to 17 years old) express pessimism; as age increases, 
people are more optimistic about it, and perceptions about employment opportunities are linked 
to other issues, such as unmet basic needs, 1
for example, in the case of the municipality of 
Chiquimula it is observed that young people would make the decision to stay in their communities 
if they had access to health services, access to safe places, and a stable economy:
A hospital, security, money. 
Young. Focus group with young people, Municipality of Chiquimula, 
Chiquimula
That there would be options for work and employment, economy and many 
more houses.
Young. Focus group with young people, Municipality of Chiquimula, Chiquimula
Likewise, he consulted the communities about their perception of employment 
opportunities in Guatemala or its municipalities. Young people, aged 18 to 24, are mostly optimists 
or very optimistic (78%) about the future of work. 20% are not very optimistic and 2%are not optimal
(Graph 14).
Figure 14. Indicator 24: Percentage of young people at risk in the target communities, indicating
their optimistic perception of future job opportunities in Guatemala or its municipalities.
-Percentages, n=261-
Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
 1 Some young people clearly recognize a set of unmet basic needs (which adds to gender inequality), such as 
access to water. Facing the question "How would you like the community to be 5 years from now when you 
are already grown up?", one of the young women who participated in the Chiquimula focus group responded 
"That we did not have to pull water"
Nothing 
optimistic
2
Little optimistic
20 Optimistic
41
Very optimistic
37
32
Table 7. Perception of young people at risk towards employment opportunities, according to department and 
area
-Percentages, n=261-
Perception
Sex Zone Department
Male Female Urban Rural Chiquimula
San 
Marcos Quetzaltenango Huehuetenango
Nothing 
optimistic 2 2 2 2 4 3 - -
Not very 
optimistic 20 19 17 21 18 21 15 20
Optimistic 41 41 39 42 39 37 46 51
Very 
optimistic 37 37 42 35 40 39 38 30
Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
It is denoted from the table above, that the areas consulted in Quetzaltenango (84%) and 
urban areas (81%) are the populations with optimistic or very optimistic responses regarding the 
risk of employment opportunities. There are no significant differences on regards of the variable 
sex. Qualitatively it was also observed that the optimistic appraisals are in the department of 
Quetzaltenango since it is mentioned that there is a positive perception due to the available 
infrastructure in terms of schools and education that focus on adolescence. Following is San Marcos, 
where it is pointed out that opportunities are available, however, young people do not take 
advantage of them.
They have more opportunities because right now there are many affiliations that focus on 
adolescence.
Cocopre Representative In-depth interviews with key actors in Quetzaltenango. 
(Municipalitynot included by the principle of confidentiality)
You have more opportunities, but most young people don’t take advantage of them.
Young adult. Focus group with young adults, Municipality of San Pablo, San Marcos
On the other hand, for young adults, the most mentioned barriers and difficulties are related 
to access to the labor market itself, and the issue of education is also mentioned. This group 
perceives education as an incentive benefit or, but also as a difficulty since most mention that the 
person with the advanced level of studies do not ensure a stable job, nor does it take them forward:
The opportunities are low... If you don't have a basic third party, 
you don't work... And if you're a graduate, you need years of 
experience... And how is he going to gain the experience?
Young adult. Focus group with young adults, Municipality of Esquipulas, 
Chiquimula
In my community, there is more opportunity for education than for work.
Young. Focus group with young people, Municipality of La Libertad, Huehuetenango
33
Adults over the age of 30 mention that they face other difficulties that go beyond 
opportunities in the labor market, such as the rigors of climate vulnerability. These vulnerabilities 
affect more in rural areas when there are droughts or continuous rainfall. Some interviewees 
indicated that it is not a safe employment opportunity and that it is subject to variables that cannot 
be controlled:
Farmer’s sow and if there is no harvest it is because of a lot of rain and if it 
does not rain it is also lost, then if agriculture is lost from where we are going to 
get food for the family. And I’m talking about work, that here in the community 
there is no work, people have to go to another department to get an income.
Adult. Focus group with adults, Municipality of Jocotán, Chiquimula
It is also observed that as the age increases, traditional gender roles are perceived to be 
more established. Among the youngest population of study (11 to 17 years old) most of the 
participants in the focus groups maintain expectations of the future associated with being wives and 
mothers, and those who perceive themselves in the future developing some profession limit their 
expectations mostly to being teachers, thus demonstrating the strength of traditional gender roles 
in these communities.2 Among young adults, traditional roles have a strong burden of stigma that 
blames women and a narrative that attributes a false choice to young women. Sometimes it is 
mentioned that everyone has the same opportunities, without taking into account that sometimes 
women have double burdens as they are responsible for the home and the domestic tasks:
Today a lot of the girls leave with the boy nothing more, there is no 
opportunity for them to say that they also want to study, that they want to have a 
career in something other than the family (...) Fíjate that there are study 
opportunities there, only they do not look for it, they are villages that have the 
study. De the classmates who left sixth grade with me, most and some younger are 
already with husband or husband nothing else and with their children and parents 
had them studying.
Young adult. Focus group with young adults, Municipality of Esquipulas, 
Chiquimula
A gender gap is mentioned on the part of some young women, as they have had experiences 
in which they are denied jobs because they are pregnant or because of the perception that they 
cannot bear the same workload as a man; this topic is extended in the section of community 
attitudes in which perceptions about differentiated access to opportunities of this type are analyzed. 
However, this gap is not the only one that is perceived, there is also a gap between the institutional 
gaze and the perception of the population. The former is more optimistic than the latter. The 
representatives of the municipal institutions indicate that there are opportunities focused on young 
people, but they are unknown so they are not used properly:
 2 The perception that women's fields of work are restricted to "female" professions constitutes a reproductive 
axis of traditional gender roles against which initiatives such as those of girls STEM are proposed is the 
acronym that groups the disciplines of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, for its acronym in 
English (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics)
34
Yes, there are opportunities, but our young people do not know it, then if 
we lack to send that information to them and to help them to focus on the 
institutions, organizations that give that support.
Representative of the Municipal Planning Directorate. In-depth 
interviews with key players in Chiquimula3
While local actors and the population indicate the existence of entrepreneurship programs 
and local initiatives due to the absence of opportunities on the part of the municipality, all efforts 
are attributed to the same population:
Efforts are being made to train or train women and men in the subject of 
entrepreneurship or to acquire new skills in new technical trades from which 
people have been trained.
Representative of the education sector. In-depth interviews with key 
players in Chiquimula
Country and agents for social change
55% have a favorable position on the state of youth participation (Question: We would like 
to ask your opinion about the current and future situation -approximately in 5 years- of youth 
participation?), 17% expressed that it is or will be bad to some extent and 28% think neutrally. In 
this case, unfavorable opinions are more frequent among people with primary education (19%) and 
over 35 years (20%). Quetzaltenango continues to be the optimistic department on these issues, 
where 62% think favorably, followed by Huehuetenango with 58%, San Marcos (54%), and then 
Chiquimula with 53%.
Figure 15. Perception of youth participation, according to department
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
With regard to the current and future state of poverty (Question: We would like to ask your 
opinion about the current and future situation -approximately in 5 years- of poverty?), opinions are 
mostly unfavorable (62%), a fifth of respondents perceive it neutrally (20%) and the remaining 18% 
perceive that the situation is and will be good. In Chiquimula (69%) and Quetzaltenango (67%), 
 3 However, it should be noted that this position could be considered more rhetorical than based on specific 
programs and policies, because when he was rebuked about how, the interviewee indicated "by studying they 
can learn new trades and work in them, or to help them to undertake, that they can overcome"
16
15
15
18
22
27
31
29
62
58
54
53
Quetzaltenango
Huehuetenango
San Marcos
Chiquimula
Unfavorable Neutral Favorable
35
unfavorable perceptions are even higher, while San Marcos is the department with the most 
favorable opinions (21%). Rural areas (61%) show fewer unfavorable appreciations than urban areas 
(65%).
Figure 16. Perception of poverty, by department
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Another topic related to national reality and the state of the country is corruption (Question: 
We would like to ask your opinion about the current and future situation -approximately in 5 years￾of the corruption of society?). Respondents are not confident that the situation will improve with 
regard to corruption. The total data are even more pessimistic than with respect to poverty: 64% 
believe that the situation is and will be bad to some extent, 16% think neutrally on the subject and 
another 16% think that the situation is or will be going to be better. Regarding the departments, San 
Marcos is the most optimistic, with 22% of favorable observations and 60% of unfavorable opinions. 
Quetzaltenango is the most pessimistic, with 74% of unfavorable perceptions and 13% of favorable 
perceptions. Men (67%) and urban areas (71%) are more optimistic compared to women (64%) and 
rural areas (63%).
Figure 17. Perception of the corruption of society, according to department
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
72% of respondents are not optimistic about inequality in the country, while 25% believe 
that the situation is or will be good. In the departments, the distribution is similar to the total. Where 
Quetzaltenango has fewer favorable opinions (21%). San Marcos and Huehuetenango have the 
same percentage of favorable opinions (28%); however, Huehuetenango shows more unfavorable 
opinions (44%). In comparison by sex, age groups, education, and area, negative assessments are 
higher among men (46%), people over 35 (47%), with higher education (47%), and urban (47%). 
55
62
69
67
24
20
15
20
21
18
16
13
San Marcos
Huehuetenango
Chiquimula
Quetzaltenango
Unfavorable Neutral Favorable
60
68
65
74
18
14
17
14
22
18
18
13
San Marcos
Chiquimula
Huehuetenango
Quetzaltenango
Unfavorable Neutral Favorable
36
Qualitatively, it is observed that non-optimistic views on inequality are mostly derived from 
traditional gender roles.
Figure 18 . Perception of inequality in the country, according to the department
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Taken together, these assessments reflect communities discouraged from the possibilities 
for improvement. The favorable assessments are stronger when talking about the participation of 
youth, with which it is projected that civil society could have political interference from groups of 
young people. 27% of those who know organized groups (political, religious, youth, etc.) believe that 
they have enough capacity to change the state of things, while 53% consider that they have some
power (Graph 19).
Figure 19. Indicator 05: Percentage change in citizen perception of civil society's ability to 
influence government decision-making
-Percentages, n=1395-
Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Qualitatively, it was observed that there are occasions in which neighbors organized through 
COCODE press for the creation of municipal entities that respond to their interests. It is also 
highlighted that religious leaders play an important role in creating dialogues and communication 
with government organizations and with the municipality itself.
44
37
47
47
28
35
30
31
28
28
23
21
Huehuetenango
San Marcos
Chiquimula
Quetzaltenango
Unfavorable Neutral Favorable
None
10
Some
53
A lot
27
NK/NR
9
37
She has integrated the leaders of COCODE, some religious leaders ... and it has been possible to 
activate from the field of health, health commissions, which have come to strengthen both health 
issues, such as migration and crime.
Representative of COCODE. In-depth interviews with COCOPRE of Huehuetenango.
Life and Health
70% of the people interviewed have a favorable perception and projection of their own life
(Question: We would like to ask your opinion about the current and future situation -approximately 
in 5 years- of one´s own life?). When analyzing by department, the perceptions have a similar 
behavior: in Huehuetenango, it is 75%, in Quetzaltenango, it is 73%, San Marcos with 71%, and 
Chiquimula with 65%. Those who are most optimistic about their own lives are people under 35 
(76%), who have secondary education (77%) and higher education (76%), in addition to the urban 
area (75%). 
Figure 20. Perception of one's own life, according to department
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
On the other hand, the projections are polarized when talking about health (Question: We 
would like to ask your opinion about the current and future situation -approximately in 5 years- of 
health?); where 30% have unfavorable ideas of the current and future state of health and 25% 
neutral positions. 43% expressed favorable projections. By segregating the data, it shows that 
optimistic perception about health increases as the level of education decreases. In addition, they
have more weight among children under 35 (48%), women (47%), and rural areas (44%).
The qualitative approximations in the intervened municipalities of Huehuetenango and 
Chiquimula mention that there are deficiencies in the avalanche system due to the fact that taxes 
and the available budget are not invested efficiently. The little and bad infrastructure is also 
mentioned. 
8
7
8
10
17
20
21
25
75
73
71
65
Huehuetenango
Quetzaltenango
San Marcos
Chiquimula
Unfavorable Neutral Favorable
38
Figure 21. Perception of health, according to department
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
On the quality of life in the city in which the respondent lives (Question: We would like to 
ask your opinion about the current and future situation -approximately in 5 years- of life in the city 
in which you live), the majority of opinions are favorable (42%). This generates a polarization in 
which 67% of the rest do not project a favorable situation: 24% are unfavorable opinions and 32% 
neutral. San Marcos and Huehuetenango are the optimistic departments of the quality of life in their 
cities, Chiquimula and Quetzaltenango are not so much. There are more favorable perceptions 
among women (42 percent), urban areas (42 percent), people with primary education (49 percent), 
and those under 35 (48 percent). 
Figure 22. Perception about the quality of life in the city in which you live, according to the 
department
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Climate change is also an area for which perceptions do not project a good situation
(Question: We would like to ask your opinion about the current and future situation -approximately 
in 5 years- of climate change?). 51% have unfavorable opinions, another 23% of neutral opinions, 
and finally 26% perceive that the situation could be or is good. The most pessimistic department is 
Quetzaltenango, with 60% of unfavorable opinions, and San Marcos the most optimistic, with 27% 
of favorable opinions towards the climate situation. On this issue, the greatest differences in 
unfavorable opinions can be seen between urban areas (55%) and rural areas (50%), and between 
people under 35 (49%) and over 35 (54%).
27
32
31
33
24
24
27
27
49
44
42
41
Huehuetenango
Quetzaltenango
Chiquimula
San Marcos
Unfavorable Neutral Favorable
26
20
25
24
29
36
34
36
45
44
41
40
Huehuetenango
San Marcos
Chiquimula
Quetzaltenango
Unfavorable Neutral Favorable
39
As for the unfavorable opinions regarding climate change, qualitatively there is a concern in 
people who are engaged in working the land in rural areas, who mention that drastic climate 
changes, rains, or droughts affect their source of employment, and lose job opportunities.
Figure 23. Perception of climate change, according to department
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Violence
Violence is an aspect that generates doubts and reservations. 22% of those surveyed believe 
that the situation is and will be good, 20% have neutral positions and the remaining 58% think 
unfavorably about it. In Quetzaltenango, unfavorable perceptions about violence are considerably 
higher than the other departments, with 68% of respondents in that department. In San Marcos, 
there is a more polarized situation, with 50% of unfavorable positions and the rest are distributed 
almost equally between positive (26%) and neutral (24%) opinions. Women (59 percent) perceive 
more violence than men (56 percent).
Figure 24. Perception of violence
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Safety, victimization, and trust in the police force
This section exposes the fears and confidence in the safety of the neighborhoods, as well as 
the incidents reported by the people surveyed and social agents consulted. 
Of the reported communal problems, globally alcoholism ranks first (23%) and for 
Huehuetenango (25%). However, unemployment is the biggest problem for Chiquimula (31%), low￾47
53
51
60
25
22
25
18
27
24
24
22
San Marcos
Huehuetenango
Chiquimula
Quetzaltenango
Unfavorable Neutral Favorable
50
59
59
68
24
19
20
16
26
22
21
16
San Marcos
Chiquimula
Huehuetenango
Quetzaltenango
Unfavorable Neutral Favorable
40
quality public services for San Marcos (23%) and in the case of Quetzaltenango (42%) they are more 
concerned about gang violence.
Table 8. Main problems facing communities
-Percentages￾Total
Department
Chiquimula San 
Marcos Quetzaltenango Huehuetenango
Alcoholism 23 26 18 26 25
Unemployment 20 31 12 27 16
Low-quality utilities 18 19 23 13 14
Gang violence 14 11 6 42 12
Theft of house or vehicle, assault, 
theft, arson, extortion, vandalism 12 12 16 15 8
Drug addiction 8 10 6 13 6
None / nothing 7 6 9 1 7
Doesn't know 7 7 8 4 7
Vagrancy 6 8 2 9 6
Gender-based violence or domestic 
violence domestic violence 5 6 3 6 7
Immigration of people out of the 
community 4 5 3 3 4
Poverty/lack of food 3 5 4 2 2
Contamination 3 3 5 1 2
Bad roads/car accidents, etc. 2 1 4 1 2
Young people without 
leisure/recreation/organization 
spaces
2 2 1 5 2
Other, please indicate: 2 1 2 1 3
Homeless 2 2 1 5 1
Health and education 2 1 3 1 2
Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
The problem of low-quality public services has a greater impact on towns in areas such as:
access to water (67%), electricity (30%), and health (23%). It is mentioned that the low quality of 
services, the ineffectiveness of these is due to the misinvestment of taxes, and the little service 
coverage that exists, especially in rural areas. In both Chiquimula and Huehuetenango, it is observed 
that access of water is what most afflicts them, followed by health services. This leaves people 
vulnerable, which influences the decisions to migrate:
Here is what happens truth, our taxes are not well invested, in the question of health even 
being Huehuetenango a head that is 5 or 6 KM we have deficiencies, water, education (...) then 
they see migrating as a way to get rid of this, to escape
Adult. Focus group with adults, Municipality of Chiantla, Huehuetenango. 
41
Table 9. Low-quality utilities you have problems with
-Percentages, n=597-
Total
Department
Chiquimula
San 
Marcos Quetzaltenango Huehuetenango
Water 67 73 68 55 63
Electricity 30 29 28 31 37
Bless you 23 29 15 14 35
Primary School 15 16 10 12 23
Institute of Basic Education 14 18 9 14 19
Schools/pre-primary 12 12 8 14 20
Streets, roads 11 7 12 19 11
Police 8 10 3 5 16
Drainage 5 4 9 5 2
Garbage collection 2 1 2 7 2
Other: 1 1 1 2 2
Infrastructure 1 1 - 2 2
Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
How violence is perceived intervenes in the use of places; 49% avoids transiting through 
parts of their community because of the fear of violence, another 49% do not even use this action 
as an option. People in the studied areas such as: Quetzaltenango department -two municipalities 
in the coastal zone- (63%), in urban areas (51%), and women (52%) are the ones who report this 
behavior the most. 
Figure 25. Indicator 07: Percentage of people in target areas who report avoiding parts of the 
neighborhood due to violence/crime
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Yes
49
No
49
NK/NR
2
42
Table 10. Percentage of people in target areas who report avoiding parts of the 
neighborhood for fear of violence/crime, by sex, and department
-Percentages￾Sex Department
Male Female Chiquimula San Marcos Quetzaltenango Huehuetenango
Yes 46 52 49 45 63 46
No 52 46 48 53 35 52
NS/NR 2 2 3 1 2 2
Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
The young stories of Chiquimula speak of moments in which the community has been 
stained due to disputes. Women are the most exposed and vulnerable without being able to go out 
alone, although they have the need to do so due to the absence of basic services such as water. In 
addition, they mention specific insecure areas and the response of impotence that the neighbors
have had:
Then the community is already stained (...) by the same people. For all the 
fear that you can find it more with the patojas because sometimes there is only one 
in the house and even if there is no water because there is fear that the water will 
run out and it is a little irritating because there is no one who is going to 
accompany the duck to bring water, or how the girl is going to go to wash.
Young. Focus group with young people, Municipality of Chiquimula, Chiquimula
In addition, on several occasions, the people of Chiquimula and Quetzaltenango mention 
that there are communities in which violence have occurred more often such as interdepartmental 
and inter-municipal routes and roads. Acts of vandalism, smuggling, kidnapping, and murder are 
most frequently mentioned.
There are two borders in that village that the trucks technically come from 
Balladero and Camisa, where I live from –Balladero–there is a border in Honduras and in 
Camisa too, and that's where the drug trafficking is put, so they investigated that when all 
that comes here, it goes through Chanmagua then they have to stop there, but they didn't 
let the coffee trucks pass. 
Adult. Focus group with young adults, Municipality of Esquipulas, Chiquimula
In the area where I live there are blind steps and in those blind steps too many drugs and 
weapons are moved.
Community leader. In-depth interview with key players in San Marcos
The youngest of Chiquimula pointed out that the canteens and discos where alcohol is 
consumed are areas where fights and even robberies are generated, so there are certain hours in 
which they should avoid traveling around. In the same way, it was mentioned that nearsome homes 
there are meeting points between gangs and therefore it is more difficult to leave their homes or 
travel in a pedestrian way for fear of being harmed:
here ahead there is a canteen they put boluses, and steal or look for the mess
Young. Focus group with young people, Municipality of Chiquimula, Chiquimula
43
It was identified that, according to the size of the population and its geographical 
distribution, deficiencies in police coverage are denoted. The representative of the education sector 
interviewed indicated that there are a number of communities in which it is difficult to enter without 
police accompaniment:
It is a series of communities where even teachers have to go up and the 
police accompany them (...) Barrial, which is another place, because there the 
teachers still go up alone, the PNC does not go up, but it is quite conflictive, 
because if the teachers go up on their motorcycles or some collectors from some 
institutions sometimes assault them.
Representative of the education sector. In-depth interviews with key players in 
Chiquimula
The flip side of this situation is the opinion collected about how safe and peaceful the 
communities are, where 72% of the people surveyed consider the neighborhood, they live in to be 
quiet, safe, and free of danger. When disaggregated, it is denoted that women (28%) and 
Quetzaltecos (50%) are the ones who perceive insecurity the most in their communities.
Figure 26. Indicator 08: Percentage of people who consider their communities to be peaceful and 
safe
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Yes
72 No
26
NK/NR
2
44
Table 11. Percentage of people who consider their communities to be peaceful and safe, by 
sex and department
Percentages
Sex Total Department
Chiquimula San Marcos Quetzaltenango Huehuetenango
Yes
Male 37 38 38 28 38
Female 35 37 37 20 37
Total 72 75 75 48 75
No
Male 12 9 11 27 10
Female 14 13 13 23 13
Total 26 22 24 50 23
DK/DA
Male 1 1 - 2 1
Female 1 1 1 1 1
Total 2 2 1 3 2
Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
In contrast, there are certain practices that self-limit displacement at certain times and 
areas, suggesting not only a recognition of violence in towns, but that there are high levels of 
naturalization in their environments. For example, in the case of Chiquimula, institutional actors 
refer to extreme expressions of insecurity such as homicidal violence, but the issue of robberies is 
also mentioned as something not so serious:
I would put 90 or 95% but the reality is that the municipality is quite safe, 
maybe what affects us a little is the issue of robberies, but an issue of murders, I 
think that from what we have in the year we do not have any murder in the 
municipality.
COCODE representative. In-depth interviews with key players in Chiquimula
In addition, younger people unanimously indicated that they do not feel safe: "For the 
drunks and thieves." "Because there’s a lot of drug addicts and a lot of drunks." In Chiquimula it is 
mentioned that drunk people generate unsafe and violent spaces when they begin to threat and 
take out their weapons.
The phenomenon of insecurity at the community level is perceived as the result of two types 
of situations: (1) people outside the community who move to commit crimes and (2) as a matter of 
relational violence linked to the consumption of alcohol and drugs:
In my community there is not much crime, sometimes motorcycles come to 
disturb.
Young adult. Focus group with young adults, Municipality of Chiantla, 
Huehuetenango
In addition, 15% of the people consulted reported having been victims of violence of some 
kind (robbery, aggression or physical abuse, vandalism or damage to property, fraud, extortion, 
assault, and others). Quetzaltenango is where more reports were collected with 19%, followed by 
San Marcos 17%, Huehuetenango with 14%, and finally Chiquimula 11%. Also, there can be seen a 
distinction y area: the urban area (19%) reports having suffered more violent acts than the rural 
area (13%). 
45
Figure 27. Indicator 06: Percentage of people in target areas who report being victims of violence 
in the past year.
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
From the qualitative perspective causes of violence are recognized. In the department of 
Chiquimula, relational violence linked to the consumption of alcohol and drugs is reported, as well 
as the existence of land conflicts either between family members who fight over land or drug 
trafficking disputes: 
An example of Jocotán, there you hear someone who was wounded with 
machetes or something. Last time it came out that they turned around a patrol 
there in San Naguas because they did not let the coffee pass (...) As they saw that 
sometimes the drug comes in the café and that time, they did not let pass like three
trucks.
Young adult. Focus group with young adults, Municipality of Esquipulas, 
Chiquimula
Gender-based violence has also been identified by young women who recognize difficulties 
within a macho culture in their towns, where traditional gender roles normalize attitudes that 
rebound in violence. One of the young adults interviewed referred to the phenomenon in 
Chiquimula as "For a woman, they were going to war":
Typically, the history of the patojas it is understood that if he liked to walk 
with one and with another (...) here they call him a mellow woman. The family 
treated her well and, in the end, her family got angry with the boy and they killed 
the father because they thought he had done something to her.
Young adult. Focus group with young adults, Municipality of Esquipulas, 
Chiquimula
The existence and increase of cyber violence are also reported. Sometimes these 
expressions of violence are not visible by the environment, because there is no control over the risky
situations for girls and young women. It is mentioned that teenagers use social networks more 
frequently, and that apart from wasting time and opportunities, they are also exposed to deception.
Yes
15 No
85
46
Sometimes they are chatting and they do not know with whom, and what 
they do is put an appointment in such a part and already with that it is marked all 
his life, for the same reason for not doing things well.
Young adult. Focus group with young adults, Municipality of Esquipulas, 
Chiquimula
Regarding the reports of people that have being victims of violence, it is mentioned that 
theft (5%) and physical abuse (5%) are the crimes that most affect the persons consulted. Followed 
by vandalism or property damage (4%). 
Figure 28. Crimes reported by victims of violence, last 12 months
-Percentages, n=485-
Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
People surveyed feel safer walking during the day (84%) than at dusk (74%); followed by 
walking during sunrise (72%), and finally at night (48%). The majority (53%) feel safe going out at 
any time of the week, however, a small percentage (6%) prefer to occupy the weekend to go out, 
and some others (4%) mention that they prefer not to go out at any time. One of the departments 
where they feel more insecure to go out at all times of the day is Quetzaltenango. For these 
departments, the self-limitation of timetables and circulation areas is a practical solution. In 
addition, as stated above, gender stereotypes carry the weight of holding women accountable and 
blaming themselves for exposing themselves to risks and vulnerabilities:
In my house it closes at seven, well, just as my two sisters tried to rape 
them, she just leaves school and they come to bring her to my house because at 
seven and thirty everything is closed and no one goes out anymore.
Young. Focus group with young people, Municipality of La Libertad, 
Huehuetenango
Do not let them go out alone, because if they go alone, one does not know where 
they are going (...) the mother, because they are all the time explaining what are 
the risks that can run and if one does not correct them, they walk with freeway 
without any correction.
5
5
4
3
2
2
2
Robbery
Aggression or physical abuse
Vandalism
Fraud
Extorsion
Assault
Other crimes
47
Adult. Focus group with adults, Municipality of Jocotán, Chiquimula
71% of this people consider their community to be a safe place for children and 27% do not 
believe so. In Quetzaltenango, you feel less safe, where the consideration that the community is 
safe for children drops to 52%. 
After that, the homes were also consulted about the existence of a violence prevention 
commission with the police (COCOPRE). San José Arada and San Juan Ermita are the municipalities 
with the highest recognition of this commission. On the other hand, in Malacatán only 12% of people 
surveyed are reported to know about the existence of COCOPRE in the community. Overall, 59% 
say there isn't.
Qualitative studies showed that the level of knowledge of the actions and institutions linked 
to the Violence Reduction Plans is low, especially among the youngest. The young people of San 
Marcos show to have more knowledge on the subject, however, the vision of what is done is very 
limited. In this case, only programs of delivery of school supplies or recreational events are 
mentioned, they also mention that in very insecure areas where young people and children are 
vulnerable and exposed, they provide them with support and sometimes back up safely.
They have given us tools, how to celebrate birthdays (...) Like being in an unsafe place, 
when someone wants to touch us and they give us help.
Young. Focus group with young people, Municipality of Malacatán, San Marcos
In the case of Quetzaltenango and Huehuetenango, six of the seven participants in the focus 
groups indicated that they had not heard about the commission or the plans being implemented, 
while in the case of Chiquimula no participant reported knowledge. 
48
Figure 29. People who report their community has a violence prevention commission with the 
police (COCOPRE)
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
As for the institution or organization that would come to report a crime, the majority of 
respondents (54%) would report a crime to the police, 20% would do so to the COCODE,14% would 
file their complaint with the assistant mayor and 7% would report it to the magistrate's court.
60
60
45
39
39
39
34
32
31
30
29
27
24
23
22
22
18
16
14
12
San José La Arada
San Juan Ermita
Aguacatán
Cuilco
Olopa
Quezaltepeque
San Jacinto
Jocotán
Esquipulas
La Democracia
San Marcos
La Libertad
San Pedro Sacatepéquez
San Pablo
Colomba
Chiquimula
Chiantla
Tacaná
Coatepeque
Malacatán
49
Figure 30. Institution or organization to which you would report a crime
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Of the previous institutions, in Chiquimula they trust COCODE more (91%) to file a complaint 
and distrust the police more (21%). In San Marcos, they have more confidence in the COCODE (87%) 
and the auxiliary mayor's office (87%) and distrust the police more (27%). In Quetzaltenango, 
COCODE is more trusted (87%) and the police are more distrustful (25%). In Huehuetenango, they 
trust the auxiliary mayor's office more (92%) and the peace court is more distrustful (27%).
To ask directly, about trust in the police; 75% of Chiquimulteca people trust the police to 
some extent, followed by Huehuetenango with 72%, San Marcos with 63%, and Quetzaltenango, 
where there is less confidence of 57% (Graph 32).
Perceptions of trust, at a qualitative level, have to do with the presence of police near the 
places where informants live or transit. In the case of Chiquimula where people report having the 
highest level of trust compared to other departments, they mention that despite having had bad 
experiences previously, they should quickly tell the authorities and create a communication 
environment so that the police can attend more effectively, or at least have knowledge of the areas 
where illicit acts occur: 
I understand the people who have been affected and I know that it is good to ask for help, 
but as I said, out of fear there are times when we do not do it, I do not say it badly, because as 
there it depends on truth, but so that it is not repeated.
Young adult. Focus group with young adults, Municipality of Esquipulas, Chiquimula
6
2
24
61
7
26
15
48
5
10
12
64
7
16
25
49
7
14
20
54
Magistrate's
court
Assistant Mayor
COCODE
Police
Total Huehuetenango Quetzaltenango San Marcos Chiquimula
50
Figure 31. Indicator 21: Trust in the police
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Within small communities, where people know each other, they prefer to refrain from 
reporting, for fear of reprisals:
They waited for him on the road, three waited for him and grabbed him 
between two and the other hit him and they did not inform, as I gave him, but if 
they came to a moment where if they wanted to do it, [talk] about the one who hit
him or and they did not want to talk anything, because they were busy, but if I told 
him that it was good that they talked and put an end to that because according to 
them they know the same reason.
Young adult. Focus group with young adults, Municipality of Esquipulas, Chiquimula
As can be seen, the closest red of support when they are victims of acts of violence is the 
family, since it is the closest circle of trust they have, and after that they decided how to proceed. 
In this sense, in the case of women, the stigma suffered by the fact that they have been a victim of 
violence is mentioned again. In this case, they may be recommended to report and go to the police, 
however, there is the risk of being hurt again or threatened for raising their voices, so they prefer 
that the event remains in their family nucleus:
Fear is a weapon that dominates us all and I have gone through that fear 
and that is why I know that it is something ugly that one cannot control and always 
more than one person will be constantly telling (...) but also, one runs the risk of 
being hurt, maybe it will not affect me so much, but even a loved one can hurt you, 
(...) in my view, to speak as much as to the fathers, as to the brothers who will 
already see the solution and can help us not to hurt us anymore.
Young adult. Focus group with young adults, Municipality of Chiantla, 
Huehuetenango
There is also generational variation; young people are more willing to trust in the possibility 
that the authorities have the capacity to protect themselves from situations of violence, faced with 
the question "What can a child or young person who feels in danger of abuse do?" The responses 
of the young people in Huehuetenango were "to bite the authorities, as the National Civil Police".
11
10
7
8
9
28
25
18
14
20
47
52
54
59
54
10
11
18
16
14
Quetzaltenango
San Marcos
Huehuetenango
Chiquimula
Total
Strong Distrust Semi - Distrust Semi - Trust Strong Trust
51
Migration
With regard to migration, 69% of the households surveyed report knowing about children, 
young people, or teenagers who migrated to the United States. Huehuetenango is where this 
phenomenon is most reported, with 76%. Quetzaltenango is where these cases are least known 
(57%). 
Figure 32. Indicator 13: Percentage of households reporting knowing about minors and youth in 
the community who migrated to the United States during the previous six months
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
In addition, people have an appreciation of the diversity of migrant profiles, they mention 
that the phenomenon of migration is “very diverse, because they leave single, some united, with 
children, etc. ", it is mentioned that they know more cases of migration by young men. On the 
contrary, the institutional representatives recognize in the first place of migration a flow of children 
(between seven and ten years old) followed by young people migrating to the United States. This is
due to the decision of the parents to take them out first because they see it as an advantage to pass 
to the other country. Another possibility is that a family member will receive them from the other 
side. In terms of migration, the interviewees identify two major edges: 1) the strength of the 
narrative that they are doing better there and that they will be able to send remittances; and (2) 
clear recognition of the risks involved in the transfer:
I believe that death too because many leave their homes and no longer 
return and are in the struggle of wanting to arrive, and from what we see in the 
news, they die in the desert, for lack of food, water, or abandon them to their fate.
Young adult. Focus group with young adults, Municipality of Chiantla, Huehuetenango
In this sense, the answers indicate that the knowledge of the risks is not a sufficient 
deterrent, and to the question of "If the majority know the risks, or we know of the risks that we 
have seen in the news, in the press, in the networks. Why are people still leaving?" the responses 
of young adults in Huehuetenango spoke of a need to generate income and therefore some people 
decide to risk their lives to find opportunities that are not offered to them in the country:
By necessity mostly, it is that people go to those risks, they know what they 
are sticking to and decide to take risks to be able to overcome themselves.
Young adult. Focus group with young adults, Municipality of Chiantla, Huehuetenango
57
66
70
76
69
Quetzaltenango
Chiquimula
San Marcos
Huehuetenango
Total
52
The main reason that drives migration in Quetzaltenango, is the perception of lack of 
opportunities, which is mentioned quantitatively and qualitatively. According to some interviewees, 
it is not understood as a life plan to be a migrant. In the case of Quetzaltenango, young adults, for 
example, indicated that migration is seen as a temporary solution. Most of them leave in search of 
a job to save money, have more income and return to buy land to get settle:
They are going to have prepared for when they return to the country, 
whether they have where to live, such as looking for a job as a waiter, to be able to
have a little more income to be able to buy a land or a house.
Young adult. Focus group with young adults, Municipality of Coatepeque, Quetzaltenango
On the other hand, in the case of Huehuetenango, it is mentioned that one of the reasons 
for migrating is due to the influence that people receive when observing the achievements of those 
who leave. For example, on social networks or when meeting returned migrants, they see that they 
have material goods after having migrated, which gives them the idea that when they leave the 
country they will do better economically, without thinking enough about the aforementioned risks. 
From the quantitative findings,55% consider that people migrate outside the community due to lack 
of employment and opportunities, another 50% say they do so for economic reasons and to look for 
work.
Figure 33. Reasons why people believe migrate outside the community
-Percentages, n=2517-
Source: Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Continuing with the issue of migration, a large proportion of respondents (48%) consider 
that people who have returned from abroad to the community contribute by opening businesses. 
In Huehuetenango, these perceptions increase by 54%. 
4
4
4
50
55
Due to debts
Get away from gang violence
Have a job but are looking for a better
one
Look for a job, economic reasons
Lack of a job / employment
opportunities
53
Figure 34. Consider that people who migrated and returned from abroad, contribute by opening 
businesses
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Interviewees indicate that remittances by the migrant population may go beyond families. 
In fact, they demonstrate an interest in developing social projects, with which there is an 
opportunity to generate funds for the community. It is mentioned that there are those who help 
families in the community of scarce resources in an economic way and with food, this has become 
more noticeable with the crisis that occurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is also mentioned 
that there are cases in which young people who have left, have organized themselves to do projects 
for the benefit of the community such as paving a few blocks.
The people who have migrated and have changed their lifestyle a little improving that 
economic part said: I am going to spend so much money, buy quintals, buy this, everything and 
share with the people you need.
Representative of the private sector (FUNCAFE). In-depth interviews with key actors in
Quetzaltenango
However, there are returnees who spend the money trying to leave again, the case of 
Quetzaltenango is highlighted where there are returnees without investment culture or have no 
interest in the community. Although there is skepticism some people do refer to experiences of 
ventures that have carried out returnees. In the departments of Huehuetenango, San Marcos, and 
Chiquimula, cases are mentioned where people save time to start a small business, generating 
income for them, but also jobs for the benefit of the community.
28% of the people surveyed have considered living in another community or country, a fact 
that is replicated in Chiquimula (28%), increases when you are from San Marcos (30%) and 
Huehuetenango (29%), man (32%), a person under 35 years (35%), someone with higher education 
(33%) or urban area (30%). The data decreases by populations such as Quetzaltenango (25%), 
women (24%), and with primary education (23%). 
The reasons why people interviewed would migrate are the same because they believe 
other people would; due to economic reasons (48%) and employment (46%). 
On the other hand, the rights of migrants are perceived in a polarized way (Question: We 
would like to ask your opinion about the current and future situation -approximately in 5 years- of
the rights of migrants?). 41% believe that the conditions of the rights of immigrants are or will be 
44
46
47
54
48
Chiquimula
Quetzaltenango
San Marcos
Huehuetenango
Total
54
bad, 25% have neutral opinions and 30% perceive that their situation is and will be good. This 
polarization is also reflected at the departmental level: San Marcos is the most polarized and 
Chiquimula has more negative and neutral tendencies. Projections and favorable perceptions 
towards the rights of immigrants are higher with lower educational level (35% of those with primary 
school), among women (33%) and people under 35 years of age (33%). 
Figure 35. Perception of the rights of migrants
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Knowledge about the project
42% of the people surveyed have heard about the Project: where it is most known is in 
Chiquimula (55%) and in Quetzaltenango is where it is least known (27%). Of those who know it, 
36% have participated in an activity of the Project; in Chiquimula more people have participated 
(47%) while lower participation was reported from San Marcos (22%). Among the youngest, the 
level of knowledge of the project is very general and limited to recreational activities mainly, as 
when consulted on a Commission Against Violence (see the previous section). 96% of participants 
in these activities consider that the information shared in these spaces is useful.
Figure 36. You've heard something about Community Roots
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
45
37
44
47
22
29
26
26
34
33
30
27
Huehuetenango
San Marcos
Quetzaltenango
Chiquimula
Unfavorable Neutral Favorable
27
30
48
55
42
70
69
48
43
56
Quetzaltenango
San Marcos
Huehuetenango
Chiquimula
Total
No Yes
55
When asked about knowledge about a plan to reduce violence and migration, 15% have the 
knowledge, 29% have not heard about any of them and a majority of 56% know nothing about it. 
Figure 37. Indicator 02: Percentages of the community who are aware of the Violence and 
Migration Reduction Plan
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
When asked about who is implementing the violence reduction and prevention plan, 37% 
do not remember or do not know, 17% think that the neighbors, and 15% believe that the Civil 
National Police.
The information provided by the participants of the focus groups, especially among young 
people, suggests communication and positioning difficulties. Most did not recognize the existence 
of plans to reduce violence and migration in their communities. However, in Chiquimula, 
Huehuetenango and Quetzaltenango there was a vague idea of the subject.
In addition, causes of the problem of positioning may be due to the uneven scope/territorial 
coverage of work promotion; one of the young people from Quetzaltenango points out that he had 
information when he lived in a hamlet because activities were carried out:
Solo in another hamlet where I used to live. Rural Industry, there if there 
were quite a few and made a tournament for everyone, even now they have just 
improved the field.
Young. Focus group with young people, Municipality of Coatepeque, 
Quetzaltenango
Once they recognize that recreational activities are part of the actions of the project, the 
young people of Quetzaltenango point out that due to the type of activities they develop (they point 
out, for example, football matches) they generate a gap in access to the activities of the project,
therefore, there were boys and girls in attendance who could not participate because of it. It also 
recognizes the importance of community organization in enabling alternative solutions to the 
phenomenon of insecurity, which limits the participation and organization of activities:
When the COCODE was organized, they saw how they could help us to see how to calm the 
situation because for us we honestly felt insecure, we were afraid to go out and go to work or do 
something because we were afraid that something would happen to us.
Young adult. Focus group with young adults, Municipality of Chiantla, Huehuetenango
Yes
15
No
85
56
Community attitudes
The following section explores perceptions on different issues related to gender and equal 
access to opportunities. The statements then try to reflect the degree of agreement that the people 
consulted have on the issues, which are grouped by: equal opportunities, participation in local 
organizations, reproduction of gender inequality against women, equal participation in politics, 
domestic violence, gender roles in household decision-making and household chores, gender-based 
violence against women and LGBTIQ+ people.
Respondents were asked about the participation of women in exercising their right to equal 
opportunities. There is a greater agreement (96%) that women and men should have the same right 
to education, work, health services, and others, and that women can own land (95%). On the other 
hand, 9% do not agree that men and women should have the same opportunities to obtain and 
process credits. Another 7% disagree that men and women should have equal rights to all types of 
work.
With regard to participation in local organizations, there is great agreement that both 
women and men should be able to participate in cooperatives, associations of artisans or producers, 
or commercial organizations equally (96%), in addition to the fact that both men and women should 
be able to serve in the COCODE or municipal council (97%) and with which women must participate 
in the COCODE (95%) as well.
Figure 38. Citizenship on equal opportunities for men and women
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
6
4
3
2
81
78
82
77
10
15
13
19
Men and women must be able to have
the same opportunities to obtain and
process credits
Men and women should have equal
rights to all types of jobs
Women can own land
Women and men should have the same
right to education, work, health services
and others
Total disagreement Disagreement Nor agree or disagree Agree Totally agree
57
Figure 39. Perception of equal opportunities with regard to participation in local organizations
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Issues of equal participation in politics were also discussed. 93% agree to some extent that 
political participation is the task of men and women, 96% agree that women and men can be mayors 
and 99% agree that men and women can vote.
Figure 40. Perception of equal participation in politics
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
3
2
2
83
84
85
12
13
11
Women must participate in the COCOD
Both men and women must be able to
serve on the COCODE or municipal
council
Women and men should be able to
participate in cooperatives, associations
of artisans or producers or commercial
organizations equally
Total disagreement Disagreement Nor agree or disagree Agree Totally agree
5
84
81
82
15
15
11
Both men and women should be able to
vote
Both men and women should be able to
become mayors
Participating in politics should be an
option for both women and men
Total disagreement Disagreement Nor agree or disagree Agree Totally agree
58
It was asked statements that manifest gender inequality against women, 43% agree that 
there are some jobs that are only for men and others only for women, another 33% agree that 
participating in Parent Councils in schools is primarily the responsibility of women, 25% agree to 
some extent that a well-paying job should be offered to a man rather than a woman, 11% agree that 
it is more important to send boys to a school than to send women.
It should be noted that the perception of access to opportunities under equal conditions is 
filtered by the force of traditional gender roles, in this sense, the set of informants of the 
communities shows that as age increases and belonging to a more rural environment, the traditional 
roles assigned to women and their opportunities are less established. The young adults interviewed 
are aware of this and mostly express a critical stance so that these patterns stop reproducing:
I believe that, in these times, both men and women, should have opportunities for 
everything.
Young adult. Focus group with young adults, Municipality of Chiantla, Huehuetenango
Figure 41. Reproduction of gender inequality against women
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
In terms of perceptions of domestic violence, while the majority (64%) disagree to some 
extent with hitting children when they misbehave, 11% disagree or disagree and 26% agree. On the 
other hand, 98% disagree that a man or woman can hit their partner. 
However, it is important to emphasize again that within the predetermined gender roles 
women are relegated to a position of obedience and servitude to men, and when it is not fulfilled 
women suffer from stigma, exclusion, and blame, which can lead to domestic violence of a 
psychological and mental nature:
the man returns from work and the woman or wife stop shepherding because she goes to 
serve him his food or take good care of him…
Adult. Focus group with adults, Municipality of Chiantla, Huehuetenango
14
8
5
6
70
62
58
45
5
5
4
6
10
21
29
40
It is more important to send boys to…
A well-paid job should be offered to a man
before a woman
Participating in the Parent Councils of the
schools is mainly the responsibility of…
There are some jobs that are only for…
Total disagreement Disagreement Nor agree or disagree Agree Totally agree
59
Figure 42. Perception of acts of domestic violence
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
With these last two questions, the indicator of project number 28 is constructed, with which 
it is tried to approximate the disagreement of the population with gender violence: the degrees of 
acceptance of violence against men and women also indicate their disapproval. According to the 
baseline (VM Guatemala, pp. 90-93) study, this indicator is obtained by calculating the average of 
the answers "strongly disagree" and "disagree", with which 25%have to be in total disagreement 
with the sentences, while73% disagree, the remaining 2% agree, are indifferent or did not answer 
the question (Graph 43).
Among young adults, there is greater sensitivity to the issue of Gender-Based Violence
(GBV), and it is expressed that the problem is largely cultural and structured, and that, although in 
more urbanized communities there is more rejection of inequality and spaces for participation have 
been opened for women, there is still they need more workshops, more training and talks to raise 
awareness:
I think that in prevention many things have been done (...), as I say making awareness, 
having the opportunity to attend workshops, talks, talks to raise awareness and bring this 
information to our community and inform.
COCODE representative. In-depth interviews with key actors in Quetzaltenango
27
23
8
71
75
56 11 25
It is acceptable for a man to hit his wife
or girlfriend
It is acceptable for a woman to hit her…
It is acceptable to hit children when they
are misbehaving.
Total disagreement Disagreement Nor agree or disagree Agree Totally agree
60
Figure 43. Indicator 28: Percentage of community members in target areas indicating that Gender￾Based Violence (GBV) is less accepted after participating in or being exposed to U.S. government 
programs
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
A selection of the statements presented so far, make up indicator 29 of the project, which 
seeks to indicate the degree of agreement with men and women to access equal opportunities. 
According to the Baseline Report: "taking into account the 12 sentences, an index was composed 
on a scale of one to five where five represents a greater acceptance towards equal access to social, 
economic and political (p. 107) opportunities". On a scale of one to five, where one is total 
disagreement and five is a total agreement, the population reports a level of 3.95 with which men 
and women should have equal access to social, economic, and political opportunities. Below are the 
indicator averages for each statement, as well as the crossover by sex and department.
Totaly in 
disagreement
25
Agree
73
Agree, indiference 
or NK/NR
2
61
Table 12. Men and women should have equal access to social, economic, and political opportunities, 
according to sex and department
- Arithmetic means, scale from 1 to 5-
Total
Sex Department
Man Woman Chiquimula
San 
Marcos Quetzaltenango Huehuetenango
Women and men 
should have the 
same right to 
education, work, 
health services, 
etc. 4.11 4.15 4.08 4.18 4.11 4.06 4.07
Both men and 
women must be 
able to vote 4.13 4.14 4.11 4.20 4.11 4.06 4.10
Both men and 
women must be 
able to become 
mayors. (Be
elected as
president of 
COCODE or
mayors) 4.09 4.11 4.06 4.17 4.06 4.05 4.05
Both men and 
women must be 
able to serve on 
the COCODE or
municipal council 4.08 4.10 4.06 4.14 4.07 4.01 4.06
Women and men 
should be able to 
participate in 
cooperatives, 
artisan or 
producer 
associations, or 
commercial 
organizations 4.06 4.09 4.03 4.12 4.06 3.96 4.04
Women can own 
land 4.04 4.07 4.02 4.10 4.03 3.98 4.03
Men and women 
should have equal 
rights to all types 
of work 4.04 4.06 4.03 4.07 4.05 3.99 4.03
Women must 
participate in 
COCODE 4.04 4.05 4.03 4.13 4.00 3.95 4.03
Participating in 
politics should be 4.00 4.02 3.97 4.08 3.99 3.90 3.96
62
an option for both 
women and men
Men and women 
should be able to 
have the same 
opportunities to 
obtain / process 
credits or 
economic loans: 
credits 3.96 3.98 3.93 4.04 3.94 3.82 3.95
A well-paying job 
should be offered 
to a man rather 
than a woman 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.50 3.53 3.65 3.54
Participating in 
school Parent 
Councils is 
primarily the 
responsibility of 
women 3.33 3.39 3.28 3.21 3.35 3.35 3.42
Social, economic, 
and political 
empowerment 
index 3.95
Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
Figure 44. Indicator 29: Agreement that men and women should have equal access to social, 
economic, and political opportunities
-Scale from 1 to 5-
Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
79% of the people surveyed agree that decision-making in the home should be shared 
between men and women (households in which there is no partner, they can be siblings, father, and 
daughter, mother, and son), 12% strongly agree, 6% disagree, 1% strongly disagree and 1% disagree 
3.95
63
or disagree. When asking the same question, but in this regard as households that there is a 
male/female partner: 1% do not agree or disagree, another 1% strongly disagree, 4% disagree, 79% 
agree and 14% strongly agree.
Figure 45. Perception of gender roles in household decision-making
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
With regard to perceptions about gender roles in household chores, in the statement 
"cleaning the house is a man's job", is where a greater number of people agree, (32%), however, 
more than half of the respondents (56%) reported disagreeing with it. As for the statement "Caring 
for children is a job only for women", it is observed that the majority of respondents disagree with 
it (80%), because in some way they consider it to be a job between both parents, and a minority of 
15% agree with the above. Finally, in the statement "making money for the family is only the 
responsibility of the man", 74% disagree and only 21% agree with that statement. From what is 
observed, in most of the statements, there is a balance in terms of perceptions, however, the
thinking based on traditional and macho gender roles persists in terms of the responsibility of 
cleaning the home.
4
6
79
79
14
12
Decision-making at home should be
shared as a couple (men and women)
Decision-making in the home must be
shared between men and women. (This
in households where there is no couple,
they can be siblings, father / daughter,
mother / son, etc.)
Total disagreement Disagreement Nor agree or disagree Agree Totally agree
64
Figure 46. Perception of gender roles in household chores
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
In addition to the above, two statements related to gender violence against women were 
evaluated. The first, “when men compliment or suck a woman in public tobe considered a 
compliment" is accepted to some extent by 12% of people surveyed, 79% disagree. The second 
"sexual assault is a woman's fault" is not accepted by 87% of people surveyed, 5% disagree or 
disagree and 5% say sexual assault is the woman's fault. However, in the qualitative exploration, it 
is mentioned that sometimes adolescents and women "are daring” in terms of clothing and their 
attitudes, so they could be the ones who encourage and allow certain attitudes:
There are some that are daring and upload very daring photos, there may be men who are 
on the lookout for them and do not realize it. 
Young adult. Focus group with young adults, Municipality of Chiantla, Huehuetenango
Figure 47. Perception of gender-based violence against women
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
4
7
8
52
67
72
10
5
3
32
20
14
Cleaning the house is a man's job
Earning money for the family is the sole
responsibility of the man.
Taking care of children is a job only for
women
Total disagreement Disagreement Nor agree or disagree Agree Totally agree
10
11
69
76
6
5
11
5
When men compliment in a bad manner
a woman in public, it should be…
Sexual assault is a woman's fault
Total disagreement Disagreement Nor agree or disagree Agree Totally agree
65
In line with the above, it was asked about the perception of gender violence, but in this case, 
it made the LGBTIQ +community. As for the statement about "itis acceptable to hurt or beat 
someone from the LGBTIQ+ community to change their sexual orientation" the majority (85%) 
disagree with it, however, 2% agree. On the other hand, polarization is observed regarding the 
statement “being homosexual, bisexual or of another sexual orientation is something that happens 
naturally”, in this case, 42% disagree, indicating that it is not natural and another 42% agree, 
indicating that it is natural, only 7% are neutral on this issue.
Figure 48. Perception of gender-based violence against LGBTIQ+ people
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
4
15
38
80
7 39 Being gay, bisexual, or of another sexual
orientation comes naturally to some
people
It is okay to hurt or hit someone who is
lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to
change their sexual orientation
Total disagreement Disagreement Nor agree or disagree Agree Totally agree
66
Protection of children
38% of the households surveyed have children from 0 to 17 years old: Chiquimula (48%) is 
where more children are reported, followed by Huehuetenango (45%), San Marcos (34%), and finally 
Quetzaltenango (14%). In the following graphs, these distributions are exposed, in addition to the 
rural and urban ones.
In addition, it was consulted about the most common ways in which childhood is corrected, 
and these are: explain why the behavior is wrong (88%), remove something they liked such as eating, 
playing, or going out (40%), and put some punishment (30%). The less frequent forms are: sticking 
or slapping on the face, head, pulling the hair or an ear (3%), and sticking with a belt, stick, hairbrush, 
or hard object (7%).
Figure 49. Households with children (0 to 17 years old), by department and area
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
74% of Quetzaltecos report that in their community there is nowhere to go in cases of 
suspicion. In Huehuetenango, 71% say there is nowhere to report it. It is followed by Chiquimula 
with 69% of the people surveyed and finally, there are the Marquenses, of whom 68% say that there 
is nowhere to report cases like these. In all cases, the percentage of people who do not know
instances to which to report is considerable. 
38
48 45
34
14
42
31
Chiquimula
Huehuetenango
San Marcos
Quetzaltenango
Rural
Urban
Total Department Area
67
Figure 50. Know where to report suspected physical or sexual abuse of children
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
On the other hand, as to whether they would feel safe reporting cases of suspected child 
abuse in their community, 85% of the people surveyed would not feel safe. When segregating it by 
department, it is observed that there is more confidence to report these situations in San Marcos 
(88%), followed by Huehuetenango (78%), Chiquimula (78%), and where they would report less is 
in Quetzaltenango (77%). 
Figure 51. You would feel safe reporting cases of suspected physical or sexual abuse of children 
in your community.
-Percentages￾Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
As for the reasons why, they do not feel safe reporting these cases, the Quetzaltecos (41%), 
Huehuetecos (28%), and Chiquimultecos (24%) would not report mainly because they do not want 
to be hated or suffer revenge by the family, the Marquenses (32%) on the other hand, would not 
report mainly because it is not safe for themselves, or for their families to report it.
22
23
26
28
74
71
69
68
Quetzaltenango
Huehuetenango
Chiquimula
San Marcos
No Yes
88
78
78
77
81
9
18
18
20
15
San Marcos
Huehuetenango
Chiquimula
Quetzaltenango
Total
No Yes
68
In addition, as mentioned on previous occasions, there is an absence of trust in the 
community authorities, due to possible threats or reprisals, as exemplified in cases of crime and 
violence.
Figure 52. Reasons why you don't feel safe reporting physical or sexual abuse of children in your 
community
-Percentages, n=509-
Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
When asked about the organization to which they would report a case of child abuse, all 
departments would report to the police (61%), followed by COCODE / assistant mayor/sheriff (24%) 
and to a judge or court (8%). The segregated distributions by the department are shown below:
Figure 53. Organization to which you would report physical or sexual abuse of children in your 
community
-Percentages, n=2675-
Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
8
15
18
19
24
8
11
32
21
15
13
14
12
15
41
8
14
15
22
28
I don't want to be hated or suffer
revenge from the community
I don't want to get involved / He
doesn't like to get involved in such…
It is not safe for me or my family
member to report it
It's other people's business; It is not…
I don't want to be hated or suffer…
Huehuetenango Quetzaltenango San Marcos Chiquimula
6
21
71
10
25
58
8
18
60
9
28
57
Judge / Judge
Counsil
COCODE / Mayor
Assistant / Mayor
Police
Huehuetenango Quetzaltenango San Marcos Chiquimula
69
External variables and municipal infrastructure
This section describes the local infrastructure of the departments of interest, as well as the 
existence of other entities, projects, and organizations (governmental, non-governmental, and 
international) that develop projects of education, employment, empowerment, or prevention of 
violence and migration. The information collected goes beyond the fieldwork proposed in the 
methodological section, it was also an effort of documentary and investigative research with 
different public and communal institutions.
According to the Municipal Code (Decree 12-2002), municipalities as autonomous and 
decentralized entities of the State, must ensure the interests of the population and put special 
interest in issues that are a priority for each municipality. However, all are required to have: a 
municipal council, which is responsible for making all decisions and authorizing projects; an 
education commission, which works on bilingual, intercultural, cultural, and sports education; a 
health and social assistance commission, which will ensure the health care needs of each 
municipality; Commission of services, infrastructure, territorial planning, urbanism, and housing, 
which is in charge of providing maps, sketches, and information on the infrastructure of the 
municipality; commission for economic development, tourism, environment, and natural resources; 
commission on decentralization, municipal strengthening, and citizen participation; Finance 
Commission which provides and approves the budgets of the municipal plan and municipal projects; 
probity commission; commission on human rights and peace; commission of the family, women, 
and children. The municipal council has the freedom to organize other commissions in addition to 
those already established, and the autonomy to propose projects according to its organization.
Between the years 2011-2012, the need arose to implement mandatory Municipal Youth 
Offices (OMJ), which must be faithful to the context of their municipality. The National Youth Policy 
2012-2020 (PMJ) proposes to articulate municipal efforts to give a comprehensive response to 
youth, as well as to formulate and execute plans that meet the needs of this population, in order to 
guarantee the implementation of the OMJ. Taking into account the above, there is knowledge of 
these commissions and offices in each municipality of the places worked within the project.
Regarding the specific issue of violence prevention, in 2008 through a ministerial agreement 
of the Ministry of the Interior, the Unit for the Community Prevention of Violence (UPCV) was 
created, in order to have a government entity specialized in the issue of violence prevention. 
Subsequently, the importance of these units was ratified in 2013 and it was established that this 
Unit has the obligation to develop and implement plans, programs, or projects for community 
violence prevention. Finally, in 2014 in order to have comprehensive plans that responded to the 
high levels of violence that the country was experiencing, the National Policy for the Prevention of 
Violence and Crime, Citizen Security and Peaceful Coexistence 2014-2032 was created, which 
unifies the previous programs. In order to commit violence that exists in the country to work with 
municipal offices in the same direction, so all municipalities in the country must have such an office.
In this way, the departments of Huehuetenango, Quetzaltenango, San Marcos, and 
Chiquimula have the aforementioned commissions and offices. However, when inquiring into 
municipal plans and through public information such as the municipal plan, not all municipalities 
70
reported projects or programs. Below is the information on municipal programs and projects that 
have been worked on by department.
In the case of San Marcos, there are the municipalities of San Marcos, San Pablo, San Pedro 
Sacatepéquez, Malacatán, and Tacaná, in which the existence of recreational programs is observed, 
such as projects for the construction of sports courts, communal, municipal and interdepartmental 
football tournaments, as thematic activities and coexistence for the national holidays. Education 
programs and projects are also contemplated, such as the construction of classrooms for the benefit 
of students, support for students who are studying by tele secondary, municipal courses for children 
(English language and reading), literacy programs in support of CONALFA, and some extracurricular 
education centers. which provide opportunities for studies for young people aged 15 and over.
In terms of education for employment, the implementation of specialized technical courses 
was supported, for example, acrylic nail making courses, cooking and confectionery courses, tourism
marketing courses, etc. Training is also carried out for entrepreneurs this year were held for local 
businesses with the support of SEPREM and the Ministry of Economy, as well as workshops to 
strengthen municipal capacities and thus generate jobs for young people.
On the other hand, due to the fact that since 2012 tremors and earthquakes have been 
reported, some municipalities have implemented a Municipal Directorate for Comprehensive Risk 
Management of disasters, and are carrying out training in support with Volunteer Firefighters on 
these issues. 
In the case of Quetzaltenango, the municipalities of Coatepeque and Colomba Costa 
Cucawere taken intoaccount. And, it was found that in the last year they have worked on recreation 
projects in order to prevent violence and crime, such as the delivery of sports uniforms to 
representatives of COCODE, community soccer tournaments, and other projects such as the 
construction of sports courts and multipurpose rooms. Likewise, the existence of the Migrant Unit 
is reported, which has worked workshops on the prevention of human trafficking and in 
collaboration with different municipal offices have implemented workshops related to conflict 
resolution.
In Quetzaltenango, there are more local programs focused on young people and children in 
terms of violence and migration prevention, since workshops are also held focused on children, 
youth, and adolescents. In addition, it is also reported the realization of cooking, pastry, and beauty 
courses in order to promote the technical capacities of young people and that they can undertake 
and generate their own ventures promoting economic growth.
For Chiquimula the municipalities of Quezaltepeque, Olopa, San Jacinto, San Jua nErmita, 
Jocotán, Esquipulas,San José La Arada and Chiquimulawere observed.
Se highlights that there is a very active office for women and children, which has promoted 
courses and training for women and young people in order to empower them and get ahead, among 
the courses taught are: embroidery courses, haircut, cooking workshop, cutting and dressmaking, 
English, electricity, and repair of cell phones. As in other municipalities, different offices, in this case, 
the youth, have implemented recreational activities to promote sports and development in young 
people, while preventing violence, highlighting youth Rails, construction of recreational parks, and 
football championships. Due to the importance of raising livestock and poultry in the department, 
71
technical courses on the production of artisanal concentrate for poultry and pigs have been 
implemented in some of the municipalities, which is expected to contribute to the improvement of 
the capacities of the population, as well as improve the family economy.
In the case of the department of Huehuetenango, the realization of violence prevention 
activities is observed continuously, one of the activities that were carried out at the departmental 
level and boomed was the festival and contest of Barriletes in the month of November. As part of 
the prevention of violence and migration, prevention workshops have been given with young 
people, and various cooking courses, fast food preparation, cell phone repair, among others, have 
also been implemented in order to train young people in technical areas and that they develop their 
own ventures for the improvement of the economy and prevent migration.
Infrastructure construction projects have been carried out for the implementation of 
markets and shopping malls; the idea is that those who decide to undertake have spaces available 
to do so. On the other hand, between the years 2020-2021, the realization of projects for the 
improvement of different schools and public institutes has been reported.
In the context of the pandemic, most of the efforts have been made in the health sector and 
help people with limited resources, this in the four departments in which there is an intervention of 
the Project. The delivery of bags of food, school supplies, and medical supplies is frequently 
observed, as well as the habilitation of areas for the care of patients, which were previously for 
recreational use.
As for the number of NGOs, NGOs, and other international organizations, there is extensive 
coverage of USAID in all areas, as well as the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of 
Development. Below is the number of organizations reported by the department, it should be noted 
that the numbers are subject to the publicly available information.
Table 13. Number of NGOs, NGOs or other organizations
Department
Type of project or program Chiquimula San Marcos Quetzaltenango Huehuetenango
Municipal Projects 8 21 7 14
Other projects (NGOs, 
private entities, 
international entities, etc.) 12 36 15 22
Source: CID Gallup. USAID-Community Roots Project, November 2021.
In the department of San Marcos, the incidence of international entities such as FAO, IOM, 
USAID, and PAHO that have implemented programs between 20 20and 2021 is observed. As for 
governmental or national organizations, it is observed that the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, 
and Food (MAGA) and the Technical Institute of Training and Productivity (INTECAP) implement 
workshops and training in terms of entrepreneurship, technical courses, and education for 
development. It is also noted that there are religious organizations such as Diocesan Caritas, 
Association of Franciscan Sisters, and Pastoral of the Earth, these provide help for people of limited 
resources and also encourage participation and community development, as well as promote 
projects in partnership with the municipality on issues of education, human rights, and migration. 
Likewise, the department is aware of the Project Bridges program with the support of World Vision 
72
and USAID, which has allowed on many occasions to develop the courses that the municipality 
attributes as its own.
In Quetzaltenango, there is a higher incidence of organizations and projects of organizations 
not located in the department, among which we can mention: social organization La Alianza, IOM, 
USAID, Swisscontact. As well as the incidence of the Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance 
(MSPAS), and the Secretariat of Food and Nutritional Security (SESAN) with the latter, nutritional 
days are held, focused on children with problems of Acute Malnutrition (AD) providing them with 
nutritional kits, as well as medicine necessary for their speedy recovery. Several projects were 
recognized in this conference, including the Bridges project by World Vision and USAID.
In the department of Chiquimula, several municipalities have to work together with the 
Association Paz y Bien de España, Association of Friends of Development and Peace, and Association 
Childfund Guatemala. The incidence of programs promoted by USAID, by FAO, by the UN is also 
observed and a program promoted by OXFAM called the Association of Services and Socioeconomic 
Development of Chiquimula (ASEDECHI) is mentioned, the implementation of workshops and 
training by the Center for Studies and International Cooperation (CECI)is also reported. Religious 
organizations have weight in implementing programs not only for community development and aid 
but also for the prevention of violence and migration in young people. The religious organizations 
that could be found are: Archdiocesan Caritas, Pastoral of Human Mobility, Knights of the Sovereign 
Order of Malta, among others.
Chiquimula has been recognized as one of the departments with the highest rate of 
malnutrition in the country, for being part of the dry corridor, but also for other external variables, 
so several NGOs including Manos Unidas and Action Against Hunger have positioned themselves in 
the department to provide help on this issue and have collaborated on occasions with MAGA and 
SESAN.
In the department of Huehuetenango, there is an impact on projects carried out by CARE 
Guatemala in order to reduce poverty in different municipalities of Huehuetenango. The Center for 
Studies and International Cooperation (CECI) has held multiple workshops to strengthen the 
knowledge of the institutions that affect the municipality for the protection and prevention of 
violence. There is the presence of several cooperatives that offer loans and monetary support to 
entrepreneurs and farmers, such as the Agricultural Cooperative Integral, ANACAFÉ, Cooperativa la 
Esperanza, among others. As in the other departments, there is talk about programs promoted by 
USAID in collaboration with World Vision.
As for the structure for development, information was obtained from the municipalities, 
sometimes you mentioned that all the information on said infrastructure was contained in the 
Municipal Development and Territorial Planning Plan of each municipality, however, these plans 
were designed with the idea of having long-term planning 2018-2032 and that each municipality 
updates them year after year according to the needs of the population. In some municipalities these 
plans have not been updated so there is no recent information on the infrastructure.
In all departments, there are municipal areas such as Municipal Halls of multiple uses, in 
which most of the workshops, training and technical courses are carried out, the future planning of 
new multipurpose rooms part of the municipality is also mentioned to expand the current coverage 
and thus reach more young people, in different sectors. 
73
It should be noted that in all departments there is an increase in the construction of soccer 
fields, sports fields and recreational parks as already mentioned above. In the municipal plans, 
access to education is an issue that has not been worked on enough and in most of the plans a 
section of "educational limitations" is included where the construction of more schools and more 
classrooms is proposed, especially in rural areas far from the urban area as can be seen in the images 
of the municipal sketches available in the annexes section.
Arrival points
● Perceptions about education are mostly favorable (52%). The most optimistic department 
is Quetzaltenango (61%) and the least optimistic is San Marcos (48%).
● There is skepticism about the stability of employment, a majority perceive it unfavorably 
(41%), 27% think neutrally and 31% believe that it will be favorable. Young people show 
greater optimism about employment opportunities (Indicator 24), with 37% very optimistic, 
41% very optimistic, 20% not very optimistic, and 2% not at all optimistic. Education as a 
tool of employability is perceived contradictorily, since the opinion is shared that studies do 
not always guarantee employment in the future, in addition to discrimination in working for
pregnant women.
● Youth participation is favorably perceived (55%), unfavorable opinions are more frequent 
among people with primary education (19%) and over 35 years (20%).
● Opinions are mostly unfavorable (62 percent) regarding poverty, 20 percent perceive it 
neutrally and the remaining 18 percent perceive that the situation is and will be good.
● 64% believe that corruption will affect negatively, 16% think neutrally on the issue and 
another 16% think that the situation is or will be good.
● 72% are not optimistic about inequality in the country, while 25% think that the situation is 
or will be good.
● 27% of those who know organized groups (political, religious, youth, etc.) believe that they 
have enough capacity to change the state of things, while 53% consider that they have some 
power (Indicator 05).
● 70% of the people interviewed have a favorable perception and projection of their own life. 
Those who are most optimistic about their own lives are people under 35 (76%), who have 
secondary education (77%) and higher education (76%), in addition to the urban area (75%).
● Projections are polarized when talking about health; where 30% have unfavorable ideas of 
the current and future state of health and 25% neutral positions. 43% expressed favorable 
projections.
● On the quality of life in the city in which the respondent lives, most opinions are favorable 
(42%). This generates a polarization in which 67% of the rest do not project a favorable 
situation: 24% are unfavorable opinions and 32% neutral.
74
● 51% have unfavorable opinions towards climate change, another 23% of neutral opinions, 
and 26% perceive that the situation could be or is good. The most pessimistic department 
is Quetzaltenango, with 60% of unfavorable opinions, and San Marcos the most optimistic, 
with 27% of favorable opinions towards the climate situation.
● 58% have an unfavorable opinion on the situation of violence. In Quetzaltenango, 
unfavorable perceptions about violence are considerably higher than the other 
departments, with 68% of respondents in that department. In San Marcos, there is a more 
polarized situation, with 50% of unfavorable positions and the rest are distributed almost 
equally between positive (26%) and neutral (24%) opinions. Women (59 percent) perceive 
and project more violence than men (56 percent).
● 41% believe that the conditions of the rights of immigrants are or will be bad, 25% have 
neutral opinions and 30% perceive that their situation is and will be good.
● Unemployment is the biggest problem for Chiquimula (31%), low-quality public services for 
San Marcos (23%) and Quetzaltenango (42%) are more concerned about gang violence. In 
Huehuetenango, alcoholism is perceived as the main problem (25%).
● 72% of the people surveyed consider the neighborhood in which they live to be quiet, safe, 
and free of hazards (Indicator 08). When disaggregated, it is denoted that women (28%) and 
Quetzaltecos (50%) are the ones who perceive insecurity the most in their communities.
● 49% avoid transiting through parts of their community for fear of violence, another 49% do 
not practice this practice. Quetzalteca people (63%), urban areas (51%), and women (52%) 
are the ones who report this behavior the most (Indicator 07). Unsafe places such as rivers 
are avoided -even when they are necessary due to the use of water-, canteens, and discos, 
and in general during the nights.
● It feels safer traveling during the day (84%), at sunset 74%, and during the night 48%. 
● 15% of the people consulted reported having been victims of violence of some kind 
(robbery, assault or physical abuse, vandalism or damage to property, fraud, extortion, 
assault, and others) (Indicator 6). Quetzaltenango is where more reports were collected 
with 19%, followed by San Marcos (17%), Huehuetenango with 14%, and finally Chiquimula 
(11%). Neighbors identify situations of violence in spaces where alcohol is consumed, 
gender violence in situations where gender roles are very marked, and cyber violence. 5% 
have been victims of robbery, 5% of aggressions and physical abuse, and 4% of vandalism.
● COCOPRE is best known in the municipalities of San José Arada (60%) and San Juan Ermita 
(60%). In contrast, in Malacatán only 12% recognize it. 
● The majority of respondents (54%) would report a crime to the police, 20% would do so to 
the COCODE,14% would file their complaint with the assistant mayor and 7% would report 
to the magistrate's court. in Chiquimula they trust the COCODE more (91%) to file a 
complaint and distrust the police more (21%). In San Marcos, they have more confidence in 
the COCODE (87%) and the auxiliary mayor's office (87%) and distrust the police more (27%). 
75
In Quetzaltenango, COCODE is more trusted (87%) and the police are more distrustful (25%). 
In Huehuetenango, they trust the auxiliary mayor's office more (92%) and the peace court 
is more distrustful (27%).
● 14% trust the police a lot, 54% trust something, 20% distrust, and 9% distrust a lot. 75% of 
Chiquimulteca people trust the police to some extent, followed by Huehuetenango with 
72%, San Marcos with 63%, and Quetzaltenango, where there is less confidence with 57% 
(Indicator21).
● 69% of the households surveyed report hearing from children, young people, or adolescents 
who migrated to the United States. Huehuetenango is where this phenomenon is most 
reported, with 76%. Quetzaltenango is where the least is known about these cases (57%). 
According to the feelings of the communities, due to the lack of opportunities (55%) and in 
search of work (50%) (Indicator 13).
● 28% of people surveyed have considered living in another community or country.
● 15% have knowledge about a plan to reduce violence or migration, 29% have not heard 
about any of them and a majority of 56% do not know anything about it. (Indicator 02). 
When asked about who is implementing the violence reduction and prevention plan, 37% 
do not remember or do not know, 17% think that the neighbors, and 15% believe that the 
National Civil Police.
● 25% strongly disagree with gender-based violence, while 73% disagree. (Indicator 28).
● On a scale of one to five, where one is total disagreement and five is a total agreement, the 
population reports a level of 3.95 with which men and women should have equal access to 
social, economic, and political opportunities (Indicator 29).
● 38% of the households surveyed have children from 0 to 17 years old: Chiquimula (48%) is 
where more children are reported, followed by Huehuetenango (45%), San Marcos (34%), 
and finally Quetzaltenango (14%). Among the most common ways in which childhood is 
corrected, these are: explain why the behavior is wrong (88%), remove something they liked 
such as eating, playing, or going out (40%), and put some punishment (30%). The less 
frequent forms are: sticking or slapping on the face, head, pulling the hair or an ear (3%), 
and sticking with a belt, stick, hairbrush, or hard object (7%). 
● 74% of Quetzaltecos consulted report that in their community there is nowhere to go in 
cases of suspicion. In Huehuetenango, 71% say there is nowhere to report it. It is followed 
by Chiquimula with 69% of the people surveyed and finally, there are the Marquenses, of 
whom 68% say that there is nowhere to report cases like these. In all cases, the percentage 
of people who do not know instances to report is considerable. In addition, 85% would not 
feel safe.
● Due to the pandemic caused by the COVID-19 disease, most municipalities report having 
focused most of the available resources to provide support to families who became 
unemployed, or to people who contracted the virus and did not have resources for medical
supplies. In addition to this, it is observed that most of the recreational use areas such as 
76
Multipurpose Rooms and Sports Courts have been adapted as vaccination centers or 
temporary health centers, so many of the planned activities have been relegated to other 
spaces or postponed without a date of realization. 
● There is more incidence and implementation of plans for community development in 
different areas by non-local organizations than by the municipality. Most of the courses that 
the municipality reports are courses designed by other entities such as World Vision, USAID, 
INTECAP. Most of the municipal projects that municipalities report are related to road and 
highway construction, and improvement of the decoration of the communities. 
● When asked about infrastructure for development, although each municipality has specific 
needs, most report that public schools and institutes are a priority, and the necessary 
infrastructure and personnel are not available. In the municipal sketches, it can be seen 
that the further away from the urban area you are, the less there is the existence of schools 
as well as health centers. 
Lessons learned and recommendations
While it is recognized that there are institutional efforts to address the issues of violence 
and migration in these departments, the need for greater unity of action with local authorities for 
the execution and communication of studies of this type is identified. The joint work of the social 
agents could reflect greater benefits for the communities and better scope for the Project.
In the context of a pandemic, methodological considerations implied new challenges. The 
planning and realization of the work brought with it ideas and proposals such as the use of 
information technologies for the application of qualitative instruments, taking into account the 
limitations that this can mean, the care of health in the face of contagion is worth the effort.
Finally, community intervention from external agents brings to the table constructive 
discussions about the parties involved during qualitative research processes. This means that the 
action of the investigation already has an effect on the informants during the collection of 
information, in this way, the intervention of VMs at different times of the application of qualitative 
instruments could have an interference in the behavior of the informants. It is advisable that, if you 
want to accompany the fieldwork, consider the effects of their presence on the informants and their 
behavior.
77
Acronyms
CECI CENTER FOR STUDIES AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
ECLAC ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
COCODE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
COCOPRE Community Commission for the Prevention of Violence
COMUDE MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
CONJUVE NATIONAL YOUTH COUNCIL
CRP COMMUNITY ROOTS PROGRAM
THE COLEF EL COLEGIO DE LA FRONTERA NORTE
ENCOVI NATIONAL SURVEY OF LIVING CONDITIONS
INE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STATISTICS OF GUATEMALA
LGBTIQ+ LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, INTERSEX, QUEER, AND MORE
MAGA MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, LIVESTOCK, AND FOOD
MIDES MINISTRY OF DEVELOPMENT
MINEDUC MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
IOM INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MIGRATION
ILO INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION
UN UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION
PNC NATIONAL CIVIL POLICE
RTI RESEARCH TRIANGLE INTERNATIONAL
SESAN SECRETARIAT FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY
SPSS STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
UCPV UNIT FOR COMMUNITY VIOLENCE PREVENTION
UNFPA UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND
UNHCR UNITED NATIONS HIGHT COMMISSION FOR REFUGEES
UNICEF UNITED NATIONS INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S EMERGENCY FUND
USAID UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
VM VISION VPP
WV WORLD VISION
78
Bibliography
World Bank. (October 6, 2021). The World Bank in Guatemala. Retrieved from Guatemala 
Overview: https://www.bancomundial.org/es/country/guatemala/overview#1
Canales, A., Montiel, I., Rojas, M., & Vargas, P. (2013). Grieving border. Migration, gender, and 
health in the Mexico-Guatemala region. Guadalajara.
ECLAC. (2021). Assessment of the effects and impacts of the Eta and Iota tropical depressions in 
Guatemala. Retrieved October 15, 2021, from 
https://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/46681-evaluacion-efectos-impactos￾depresiones-tropicales-eta-iota-guatemala
CONJUVE and UNFPA. (2020). Analytical Document of Youth in Guatemala. Retrieved 15 of 10 of 
2021, https://conjuve.gob.gt/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/UNFPA.pdf
THE COLEF. (2020). Survey on migration at the southern border of Mexico.
ENCOVI. (2014). National Survey of Living Conditions. Retrieved October 15, 2021, from 
https://www.ine.gob.gt/ine/pobreza-menu/
Heidbrink, L. (2020). Migranthood. Youth in a New Era of Deportation. California. Retrieved 
November 3, 2021, from 
https://books.google.co.cr/books?id=8kbWDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&
q&f=false
Hernandez, S. (2018). Internal forced displacement in Guatemala: Diagnosis 2010-2016. (Kamar).
INE. (2019). Main Results Census 2018. Guatemala City. Retrieved October 8, 2021, from 
https://www.censopoblacion.gt/mapas
Morente, H. (2010). Socioeconomic diagnosis, productive potentialities, and investment proposals.
Thesis, Universidad San Carlos de Guatemala, Guatemala. Retrieved 04 of 11 of 2021, of 
http://biblioteca.usac.edu.gt/EPS/03/03_0771_v10.pdf
Municipality of Coatepeque. (January-November 2020). Municipality of Coatepeque. Retrieved 
from Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/municoatepeque/posts
Municipality of Colomba Costa Cuca. (January-December 2021). Municipality of Colomba Costa 
Cuca. Retrieved from Facebook: https://es-la.facebook.com/municipalidadcolomba/
Municipality of San Marcos. (January-December 2020). Municipality of San Marcos, Municipal 
Administration 2020-2024. Retrieved 04 of 11 of 2021, of 
https://www.facebook.com/munism2024/
IOM. (2017). Survey on international migration of Guatemalans and remittances 2016.
IOM. (2021). Characterization of international migration in Guatemala. Retrieved October 16, 
2021, from 
https://kmhub.iom.int/sites/default/files/publicaciones/caracterizacionmi2021_29_julio_
2021_final.pdf
IOM, & ILO. (2019). Labor Migration: A Case Study of Guatemalan Youth in Mexico. Retrieved 
October 19, 2021, from http://mic.iom.int/webntmi/Guatemala/
Reyes, M. (2009). Social, economic, and demographic factors of internal and international 
migration at the departmental level in Guatemala.
Roldán, U. (2020). Research Report: Migration Dynamics and Forced Displacement in Guatemala. 
Retrieved October 16, 2020, from 
https://repositorio.conare.ac.cr/bitstream/handle/20.500.12337/7955/Roldan_U_Dinamic
as_migratorias_desplazamiento_Guatemala_2020.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
U.S Department of State. (2020). Trafficking in-person report. Retrieved November 3, 2021, from 
https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-trafficking-in-persons-report/
79
UNHCR. (2014). Children on the run. Unaccompanied children leaving Central America and Mexico 
and the need for international protection. Wahington, D.C. Retrieved October 2021, 
https://www.unhcr.org/children-on-the-run.html
USAID. (2021). Cuilco Fact Sheet, Huehuetenango. Retrieved 05 of 11 of 2021, of 
https://proyectocld.org/publicacion/hoja-informativa-cuilco-huehuetenango/
World Vision Guatemala. (n.d.). Baseline Study Report. Community Roots Project. Guatemala.
VM Guatemala. (2018). Baseline Study Report. Community Roots Project. Guatemala.
80
Annexes
1. Methodology Annex:
Sample Design
The sample design was done by Stirling Cummings. Mr. Cummings is a Research Statistician II for 
RTI USA and provided support for the sample design and subsequent adjustments required after 
implementation of the study.
The sample design contemplated obtaining an acceptable degree of precision and providing the 
basic design for the survey. After analyzing the objectives of the activity and other considerations, 
it was decided that the survey would incorporate the following elements to calculate the 
necessary sample size:
• Statistical power (1-beta): .8 – High enough to offer a low probability of type II error, but low 
enough not to create a high cost for the project.
• Design effect: 2: is the factor that increases the sample size based on the grouping of the survey 
design. This was consistent with the US Department of Homeland Security's findings for 
Guatemala in 2017 and was therefore considered appropriate for the Community Roots Survey.
• Estimate: 50%: This is a conservative value that provides a higher variance and thus a larger 
sample size. 50% is routinely used when there are no data for an initial estimate.
• Margin of error: +/- 5% - 95% two-sided confidence interval for a 50% estimate will vary from 
45% to 55%.
• Number of clusters: The original specifications of the project indicated that 83 communities 
would be visited.
Using these numbers, the sample size was approximately 3,300 households, with a statistical 
power of 0.811.
81
Samplig Frame
According to information from the 2018 National Population and Housing Census carried out by 
the National Institute of Statistics -INE-, the population of the communities to be evaluated is as 
follows:
Department Municipality Population
Chiquimula
San José La Arada 8,756
San Jacinto 12,619
Olopa 27,511
Jocotán 66,379
San Juan Ermita 16,418
Quezaltepeque 28,075
Esquipulas 53,556
Chiquimula 111,505
San Marcos
Tacaná 75,788
San Marcos 47,063
San Pedro Sacatepéquez 79,158
San Pablo 48,937
Malacatán 9,2816
Quetzaltenango Coatepeque 105,415
Colomba 47,544
Huehuetenango
Huehuetenango 117,818
Chiantla 87,447
Aguacatán 49,607
La Democracia 23,017
Cuilco 60,395
Total 1,159,824
82
Sample size
As usual in this type of research, we work with a maximum permissible error (general confidence 
level) of 95% for the total estimates. On the other hand, the margins of error are defined based on 
the sample size with which you are working. At a general level, in cases where the entire sample is 
used, the sampling error would be a maximum of ± 2.81 points.
Sample Size
Population Confidence level % Sampling error %
1,159,824 95 5
Sample Size 3,300
The sample size was 3,300 informants who reside permanently in the 80 intervention communities 
of the Community Roots Project. In the distribution by community (annex) you can see the 
number of interviews that were conducted.
Data Collection
Prior to the field work, the research protocol was developed that describes the step by step of the 
research process. This protocol has been reviewed and approved by an external professional 
research ethics committee.
Despite the fact that at the time of the field collection none of the municipalities to be evaluated 
was on green alert according to the traffic light of the Ministry of Public Health and Social 
Assistance for the control of COVID-19, no substitutions of localities were made in the field and 
there was openness on the part of the inhabitants for the collection of information.
The application of the surveys was on different days (Monday to Sunday) from 7:00 to 18:00, 
which allowed having a good representativeness of the population.
Personnel in charge of data collection
In the defined times and forms, a meticulous selection of the personnel who would participate in 
the project was carried out, under criteria of professionalism, experience and ethics in activities of 
this nature, regardless of the fact that CID Gallup has personnel who have participated in 
conducting surveys throughout the country and who has extensive experience in work of this type.
It should be noted that our own personnel were used for supervision. The field work required a 
General Coordinator (who was replaced at the end of the quantitative phase for reasons beyond 
its execution), 6 Supervisors, 105 Interviewers, 5 Validators.
The activities carried out by each of the elements that participated in the operation are listed 
below:
83
• Project manager (1), responsible person in the company for establishing communication with 
WV.
• Regional Coordinator (1): Responsible for selecting personnel in the municipalities, training 
them, supporting the preparation of work routes and distributing the necessary material for the 
development of the operation. Being also responsible for daily progress control in the field.
• Supervisors (6), responsible for locating the starting points and rural localities in the field, in 
addition to verifying the correct application of the questionnaires, both in households and 
individuals of the various target audiences. In addition, the supervisor distributed the workloads 
by interviewer, verifying the folio number for each household survey to have a better control of 
the workloads.
• Interviewers (105), in charge of locating the households and individuals of the selected 
dwellings, according to the Methodology and applying it to a suitable informant, in order to collect 
all the information required in the survey to subsequently locate the person who I had to apply 
the questionnaire, depending on the quota. In the cases in which the selected individual was not 
found, up to two return visits were planned in order to find him (the interviewer was instructed to 
carry out up to two visits to the same household, at different times, during the time in which he 
was found). remained in the community).
• Validators/Reviewers (5), responsible for coding and reviewing each of the questionnaires at the 
central offices to verify that the information is correct, having a coding control format where they 
wrote down the data of the locality, the result code of each survey and the name of the 
interviewer so that, in the event of an error, the surveys can be returned to the supervisors for 
correction in the field.
Training given to personnel in charge of data collection
The training of the operational personnel was carried out on August 10, 2021, it was carried out 
from the CID Gallup facilities, it was delivered remotely, via Zoom. For the training of the new 
interviewers, the initial video was used so that the instructions were homogeneous, the area 
supervisor was able to resolve any doubts regarding the methodology.
84
Topics covered in the training were:
Schedule Topic In charge
14:00 - 14:15 Presentation and welcome CID Gallup 
14:15 - 15:00 ¿What is World Vision?
José Chavarría (Manager of the 
Monitoring, Evaluation and 
Learning Unit)
15:00 - 15:30 ¿What is the Community Roots 
Project?
Lilian Chanax (Supervisor of 
Monitoring, Evaluation and 
Learning Officers)
15:30 - 15:45 ¿What is CID Gallup? CID Gallup 
15:45 - 16:30 Study Methodology and Data 
Collection Methodology CID Gallup 
16:30- 17:00 Research Ethics CID Gallup 
17:00 - 18:00 Review of the questionnaire CID Gallup 
Field Operational Design
For the collection of information from the 3,300 surveys, a sample of 56 points in rural localities 
and 24 points in urban localities was taken.
A first criterion for designing field logistics was to establish, with each of the Supervisors, a work 
plan that would allow the locations to be distributed in zones or regions that would make possible 
a better use (productivity) of the field personnel and thus have a clear delimitation. of the work 
areas, taking into account the geographical distribution of the localities, the communication 
infrastructure and its location in relation to the larger towns. All this in order to be able to locate 
operation centers for each area that would allow adequate supervision, review and upload to the 
cloud of the questionnaires collected. With these organizational criteria, field logistics were 
defined, identifying the routes and workloads necessary to cover the specifications required by 
World Vision in a timely manner.
Methodology for data collection
The collection of the information from the questionnaires in the selected homes was carried out in 
accordance with the guidelines and methodology set forth in the approved Protocol, below, 
generalities are presented according to localities, as well as the collection process in the home.
85
Urban area
The methodology for collecting information in the urban area is described below:
• The blocks were traversed in a spiral type, following the numbering sequence.
• He began his journey visiting from the first home until achieving the first contact.
• The blocks that were necessary to complete the conglomerate were traversed.
• When the route took the shape of half-moons through natural limits (mountains, streams, 
avenues, etc.), in which case, when closing a ring, it continued with the first accessible block of the 
next ring without exceeding the natural limit, and maintaining the travel in a clockwise direction.
• If an effective survey was carried out, a systematic jump was made; that is, two houses were left
in the middle for each effective contact.
86
Rural area
The methodology for collecting information in the rural area is described below:
• The place was located, if the houses were on both sides of the street and/or they were widely 
dispersed from one another, the house that was located furthest to the northwest point of the 
canton was located and the sweep began in the form of « Zig-Zag» until reaching the limit (see
graph).
• The blocks (housing) that were necessary to complete the conglomerate were visited.
• The systematic jump was not carried out (two houses each effective contact), but rather a sweep 
of the place was carried out.
In both rural and urban areas, the substitution process existed: which consisted in the fact that if 
the selected person was not at home or could not answer the interview, a first appointment 
should be scheduled. Up to two appointments were scheduled before the person was replaced. 
Reasons for replacing the informant: he was sick, he was in jail, he refused to collaborate, he lives 
there, but he goes sporadically, he does not have time availability.
The number of substitutions of people in the field was 283, that is, 8.57%.
87
2. Focus Groups Details:
Municipality Number of 
Participants Date
Profile
Physical space for the 
event
Men and 
women 
aged 10 
to 17
Men and 
women 
aged 18 
to 29
Men and 
women 
aged 30 
and over
Esquipulas 12 6/09/2021 09:00:00
6th. Calle A Zona 04, 
Esquipulas (Casa de Ana 
María, Leader of 
COCOPRE)
Chiquimula 10 6/09/2021 14:00:00
Convergence Center of 
Plan del Jocote, Aldea 
Maraxcó
Jocotán 10 7/09/2021 15:00:00
Casa E ́noya CA-11, 
Jocotán, 20004, 
Guatemala
Chiantla 10 8/09/2021 08:30:00
4th. Avenida A Chiantla, 
Huehuetenango, Chiantla, 
Huehuetenango 13002, 
Municipal Theater
Chiantla 7 8/09/2021 11:30:00
4th. Avenida A Chiantla, 
Huehuetenango, Chiantla, 
Huehuetenango 13002, 
Municipal Theater
Freedom 7 9/09/2021 09:00:00
2nd. Level of the Event 
Hall of the Municipality of 
La Libertad, 
Huehuetenango
Coatepeque, 
Santa Inés 7 6/09/2021 09:00:00
Sector II, Cancha La Jaula, 
by Mr. Jaime Hernández, 
member of COCODE and 
COCOPRE
Coatepeque, 
Magnolia 10 6/09/2021 14:00:00
Directorate of Educational 
Measures (SBS), main 
street, Miguel Angel 
Asturias neighborhood
Coatepeque, 
Coatepeque 10 6/09/2021 15:00:00
3rd. Avenida zona 03, 
Barrio San Francisco, 
Municipal Library.
Malacatán, 
Malacatán 8 7/09/2021 10:00:00
Mixed Rural Official 
School, Canton San 
Sebastián, Malacatán, San 
Marcos
San Pablo, 
Santo 
Domingo
9 7/09/2021 14:30:00
Communal Hall of the 
Escuelita Santo Domingo I, 
San Pablo, San Marcos
88
San Marcos, 
San Rafael 
Soche
10 7/09/2021 15:00:00
5th. Calle 2-43, San Pedro 
Sacatepéquez, Hotel 
Miravalle
3. Municipal Sketch of Departments
Map of health centers and educational centers of San Marcos, San Marcos. 
Maps of San Pedro Sacatepéquez, San Marcos. 
89
90
Maps of Malacatán, San Marcos
91
Tacaná San Marcos Map
92
93
Maps of Quetzaltenango, Quetzaltenango:
94
Mapof Colomba,Quetzaltenango:
95
Maps of Chiquimula:
Maps of Chiquimula, Chiquimula:
96
San Juan Ermita Chiquimula: 
Map of Jocotán, Chiquimula: 
97
Map of Olopa:
Maps of Huehuetenango: 
Map of Cuilco, Huehuetenango: 
98
Map of La Libertad, Huehuetenango: 
Map of Aguacatán,Huehuetenango: 
99