PREVENTING PUBLIC TRANSPORT CRIME IN EL SALVADOR BACKGROUND PAPER 2:

PREVENTING PUBLIC TRANSPORT CRIME IN EL
SALVADOR
BACKGROUND PAPER 2:
Summary report: Focus group interviews

PREVENTING PUBLIC TRANSPORT CRIME IN EL
SALVADOR
BACKGROUND PAPER 2:
Summary report: Focus group interviews
June 2015
SolucionES Project
Cooperation Agreement No. AID-519-A-12-00003
Document prepared by:
Lic. Carlos Ponce (National consultant)
DISCLAIMER
This publication was possible thanks to the support of the people of the United States of America through the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID). The views and opinions expressed in this document are the
author's and do not necessarily reflect those of USAID or the Government of the United States.

CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................1
2. OBJECTIVES ..............................................................................................................................................1
3. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................2
4. PUBLIC TRANSPORT USERS ......................................................................................................................4
4.1 Disorder and incivilities.......................................................................................................................4
4.2 Types of crime in public transport system........................................................................................10
4.3 Suggestions to improve public transportation given by participants...............................................16
5. PUBLICT TRANSPORT DRIVERS................................................................................................................18
5.1 Disorder and incivilities.....................................................................................................................18
5.2 Types of crime in public transport....................................................................................................21
6. PUBLIC TRANSPORT STAFF AND POLICE AGENTS ...................................................................................26
6.1 Disorder and incivilities.....................................................................................................................26
7. BUS OWNERS ..........................................................................................................................................31
7.1 Disorder and Incivilities.....................................................................................................................31
8. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.........................................................................................................................35
8.1 Main Sources of Disorder..................................................................................................................35
8.2 Main forms of crime..........................................................................................................................38
8.3 Preventive suggestions suggested by focus groups participants......................................................40
9. REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................41
Appendix: Focus Group Discussion Guides.................................................................................................42

PREVENTING PUBLIC TRANSPORT CRIME IN EL SALVADOR
1
1. INTRODUCTION
This document was elaborated upon request of FUSADES, to discuss the findings of focus group sessions
carried-out as part of an ampler research project that addresses crime and fear of crime among users of
public transport buses, microbuses and related environments in El Salvador. It constitutes the second
component of a three-pronged research approach, designed to delve into these matters.
A systematic observation of the public transportation system was executed in the first phase of the
project, to identify factors that contribute to the construction of opportunities for the perpetration of
offenses, the increase of fear of crime, and the deterioration of perceptions of safety. The results from
that exploration, discussed in a previous background paper, revealed that Salvadoran public transport
exhibits characteristics that have been associated with transport crime elsewhere. More specifically,
service was found to be deficient and irregular, plagued with signs of disorder and decay, resulting from
the financial limitations that generally haunt this type of systems.
In other cultural contexts, it has been suggested that, although thwarting crime opportunities is an
offense-specific effort, fully comprehending findings such as those obtained through the current project’s
systematic observation, can provide useful information about underlying conditions that shape similar
opportunity features associated with groups of crimes committed in public transportation, which can help
develop broad preventive measures (Smith & Clarke, 2000). Consequently, the second component of
FUSADES’ investigation, discussed in this document, seeks to ascertain a better understanding about the
distinct dynamic that operates in El Salvador, expanding on the results acquired through the first module
of the investigation.
The prevailing goal is to better comprehend crime, fear of crime, and perceptions of safety in Salvadoran
public transportation to identify avenues for future crime-specific research and to explore core issues
associated with various offenses, which can provide valuable information for the design and
implementation of wide-ranging, immediate and feasible measures to enhance security and safety, and
prevent crime. Focus groups were designed and conducted to explore relevant topics with different actors
that intervene in public transportation. The objectives and methodology are detailed in the following
sections of the paper. The information gathered from focus group sessions is discussed in separate
sections, dedicating one to each type of participant profile. A summary of the findings is included at the
end of the paper.
2. OBJECTIVES
 Identify the main sources of disorder, as described by users, bus drivers, police officers and bus
owners.
 Determine the main forms of crime afflicting the system.
 Elicit and detail crime prevention recommendations from focus group participants.

2
3. METHODOLOGY
This paper employs certain terms to make the discussion of focus group information more clear and
succinct. “Bus” is henceforth used to refer to both buses and microbuses (except when otherwise noted)
and “operator” is utilized to refer to people responsible for driving buses and/or collecting fares from
passengers. The terms “passenger” and “user” are used interchangeably to refer to people who use public
transportation.
Focus group interviews were undertaken with four different types of participants: (1) passengers; (2)
operators; (3) enforcers (patrol, emergency and transit police officers); (4) bus company
owners/managers. A total of 156 individuals participated in the discussions: 100 passengers, 20 drivers,
20 police officers and 16 bus owners/managers (see Table 1). The Vice-Ministry of Transport (VMT) was
contacted to organize focus groups with some of their officials, but there was no response to the
respective formal requests.
Table 1. Composition of focus groups
Participants Participant Profile
Number of participants
Number of
Focus Groups Male Female Total
Passengers Employee 4 16 16 32
Unemployed 2 6 6 12
Retired 2 11 12 23
Students (university) 4 19 14 33
Operators Drivers 3 20 0 20
Enforcers Patrol and emergency police
officers
2 7 5 12
Transit police officers 1 7 1 8
Owners Interdepartmental routes 1 6 0 6
Urban bus routes 1 5 0 5
Urban microbus routes 1 4 1 5
Total 21 101 55 156
Crimes committed in public transportation contexts target both users and service providers (Smith &
Clarke, 2000). The current exploration, nonetheless, focuses exclusively on the former, emphasizing,
therefore, the importance of information provided by focus group discussions among passengers. Various
elements were considered in the design and execution of sessions held with this type of participant to
assure representativeness and to create the conditions that facilitated enriching debates about the
addressed topics.

3
Routine activities theory, one of the theoretical explanations that fall under the umbrella of criminology’s
opportunity theories, which is the practical guide for FUSADES’ research on public transport, posits that
human activity patterns are related to crime (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Consistent with this premise, spatial
concentrations of offenses committed in public transportation have evidenced shifts that coincide with
transit fluxes associated with peak hour travel patterns (Newton et al., 2014). Additionally, the
environmental particularities within settings related to public transport have shown to influence the types
of crimes that are committed in distinct localities (Loukaitou-Sideris, 1999). Different movement patterns,
thus, expose users to different levels of victimization risk and types of crimes. People’s transit behavior,
on the other hand, is influenced by employment status and age, as the focus of their daily activities vary.
Consequently, focus groups were organized and carried-out with university students and employed,
unemployed and retired adults that used public transportation. Sessions were held with people that
shared similar employment status to enrich discussions regarding similar experiences.
Explorations done elsewhere also show that female public transport users are particularly at risk for being
targets of specific types of offenses, predominantly of a sexual nature, and, as a result, have distinct
security needs (Smith, 2008; Loukaitou-Sideris, 2005; Beller et al., 1980). Considering that eliciting
information from participants about gender-sensitive topics requires that sessions be held in a trusting
environment where opinions can be aired and discussed freely and comfortably (Liamputtong, 2011;
Hennink, 2007), and that the moderator’s demographic characteristics must not inhibit discussions
(Manderson et al., 2006), the different types of public transport users were additionally segregated by the
participants’ gender into separate focus groups, in order to use moderators of the same gender.
Focus group recruitment was executed employing different strategies that offered access to targeted
profiles. In order to assure the anonymity of participants, the names of the entities that aided in their
recruitment are not mentioned in this paper.
Retired public transportation users were identified and recruited with the help of a non-governmental
organization that provides services for senior citizens in El Salvador. A private foundation that interacts
with university students and a higher learning institution, both located in the metropolitan area of San
Salvador, contributed in finding and contacting university students that used public transportation and
were willing to participate in focus groups. Private companies contacted by FUSADES to collaborate with
this investigation, provided a pool of employed adults that used the public bus system and, moreover,
facilitated their participation in focus group sessions. Access to a database of unemployed adults,
constructed through various research projects, was granted by a private research firm that, additionally,
helped recruit suitable participants.
The National Civil Police (PNC) assisted in identifying police officers assigned to patrol, transit and
emergency response units in San Salvador and coordinated their attendance to focus groups. A total of
20 police officers were recruited, in collaboration with the PNC, to conduct 3 separate focus groups.
Agents were divided according to their designated job and, when possible, according to gender, so sexual
transgressions could be discussed in a more comfortable environment. Sessions with male and female

4
patrol officers were conducted separately, and a same gender facilitator moderated focus groups. Transit
enforcement agents were all included in one session.
Bus owners and company representatives that operate urban and interdepartmental bus routes were
summoned to focus group sessions through sector associations. Sessions with 16 bus owners were
conducted in 3 separate focus groups.
The objectives and relevant theoretical premises of focus group discussions were thoroughly explained to
moderators before sessions were held. They were also given a question guide to aid in the moderation of
focus groups and to make sure that specific topics regarding disorder and crime within public
transportation were addressed (See Appendix 1 for Question guides). Focus group interviews covered a
wide range of topics deemed relevant to understanding patterns of public transit crime and to identifying
preventive solutions, emphasizing certain topics depending on the role played by participants within
public transportation. All sessions, in general terms, covered: (1) Transit patterns; (2) Crime victimization:
type of crime, event and perpetrator characteristics, and police response; (3) Fear of crime; (4) Disorder
and incivilities; (5) Quality of public transport: functionality, organization and assistance; (6) Government
policies or procedures in running the transport system.
Most focus group interviews were held in FUSADES’ premises, though, when needed, some sessions were
done in other, more convenient locations. Each focus group took approximately 2 hours. As required by
the USAID ethical board, informed consent was obtained from the participants and they were assured
that their contribution would be anonymous.
Transcripts from 21 focus groups were revised, coded, and information extracted according to topics
required by FUSADES. The discussions paint a picture of a chaotic and competitive bus system, plagued
by a variety of crimes, many of which are serious. Relevant information was elicited regarding underlying
issues that cause disorder and chaos in the system, which seemed to be of as much concern to passengers
as crime itself.
4. PUBLIC TRANSPORT USERS
This section addresses users’ discussions related to disorder and incivilities, crimes, and suggestions to
improve the Salvadoran public transportation system.
4.1 Disorder and incivilities
Focus groups unanimously described the Salvadoran public transportation system as disorderly.
Discussions about the topic concentrated in four areas: the operation of buses, negative interpersonal
interactions, lack of passenger orientation, and sensory cues of chaos and decay.

5
4.1.1 Operation of buses
Users identified sources of disorder in public transportation and associated them with the system’s design
and an array of common practices among drivers, fare collectors, and bus owners, triggered by two
underlying issues: an overwhelmingly competitive environment and an excessive amount of discretion
bestowed upon operators.
a) Overwhelmingly competitive environment
Participants explained that the way in which operators are paid generates a constant racing mindset
among them. Focus group discussions described a hectic environment, driven by a need to generate as
much money as possible by transporting as many passengers as possible, as quickly as possible.
Users argued that bus owners establish a daily fee that drivers and fare collectors have to meet, regardless
of the actual amount collected through the day’s runs. Everything beyond the daily fee, the operators get
to keep. This arrangement, participants assured, inevitably incites a race between the different buses that
run in the same route, to transport as much passengers as they can, as many times as they can.
Focus group debates further complicated this context, positing that routes, most of the time, are ran by
buses that belong to different owners, adding another layer of competition. The race, thus, is not limited
to individual buses, but it also involves sets of buses owned by different companies along specific routes.
This competitive environment was said to generate overcrowding, stimulate aggressive and dangerous
driving, and cause passenger mistreatment and unreliable service, which are some of the most cited issues
during users’ discussions about disorder in public transportation.
Participants explained that drivers appear to always be in a hurry and, as a result, abuse passengers by
harshly rushing them to get on and off public transportation vehicles, not waiting for them to safely sit
down or get off before abruptly speeding away from the stop, and driving carelessly and fast throughout
the route’s runs, with no regard for the welfare of infant and senior users. A frequent complaint was that
drivers stopped in the middle of busy streets and made customers exit in intense transit areas. Another
frequent objection was that buses stop at an angle at bus stops, cutting off other public transportation
vehicles, and, in doing so, force users to descend on to the street and not the sidewalk. Focus groups
portrayed drivers and fare collectors as people with no respect for transit regulations, rude, and not
interested in the passengers’ wellbeing and comfort.
Moreover, participants argued that some appear to be notably drunk or under the influence of drugs while
working. Users maintained that inadequate (or inexistent) recruiting and control procedures are
contributing factors that have allowed young, rude, irresponsible, and underqualified men to take over
bus driver and fare collector positions.
Users claimed that operators, in an effort to hog more passengers, often remain long periods of time at
stops, waiting for the bus to fill up, purposely delaying service and making customers late. During peak
hours, on the other hand, participants contended that operators saturate vehicles with passengers to
dangerous levels, skip or refuse stops if they think that it will cause them to miss more populated ones

6
ahead, and stop at unauthorized or illegal spaces to speed the process of loading and unloading of
customers.
Competition is further exacerbated by owners that require drivers to keep route runs under a set
maximum run time. Users conveyed that, between hogging passengers and traffic caused by buses racing
each other, accidents, and road work, time limits make drivers even more aggressive, skip more stops,
treat customers even worse, and constantly seek shortcuts, disrespecting established routes, to comply
with this requirement.
Focus group discussions revealed that the competition between buses of the same route also involves
competing for a spot at bus stops, usually saturated by buses of different routes. Users explained that,
during peak hours, stops are overflowing with people waiting for different routes and long lines of buses
briefly stopping to pick up passengers, making it difficult for people to identify their corresponding route
and forcing them to rush to where it stopped to board it.
b) Excessive discretion awarded to operators
Focus groups discussions about disorder noted bus operators’ behaviors and practices related to the
amount of discretion with which drivers and fare collectors do their jobs. Participants’ descriptions
prototypically depicted them as holding all the power during their interactions with users, who were
portrayed as the weaker counterpart. Situations cited during focus groups specifically conveyed excessive
freedoms regarding bus stops, fare collection, and bus personalization.
Users explained that operators decide in which authorized bus stops they stop and for whom. As stated
before, sometimes it has to do with their permanent objective to hog as much passengers as possible.
Other times, however, participants claimed that official bus stops are not respected because drivers
estimate - based only on their best guess, not according to a set standard - that the bus is full enough and,
therefore, decide not to pick up any more customers.
Users also contended that bus drivers are more likely to stop if there is an attractive woman at the bus
stop and tend not to if there is only a single male customer waiting. Focus group participants also
complained that some bus drivers don’t like to make a full run and turn back before the designated end
of the route. As a result, operators don’t stop when they spot customers whose destinies are near the end
of the route.
Halting at unauthorized stops was also identified as a common practice and a source of disorder by focus
groups, and linked to the operators’ level of discretion. Participants explained that passengers always
want to be dropped off and picked up as close as possible to their destination and point of origin,
respectively. They also noted that getting off at dangerous authorized stops is avoided, but drivers and
fare collectors are the ones that get to decide if they do or not. Focus groups discussions uncovered, for
example, that altercations between passengers and operators, or even simple perceived signs of
disrespect, entail retaliation by bus drivers and fare collectors towards customers, stopping a few stops
ahead the guilty party’s desired stop and, therefore, increasing the walk to their final destination.

7
Fare collection was another source of disorder and area in which drivers and fare collectors exercise a
great deal of discretion. Users asserted that operators sometimes intentionally give back the incorrect
amount of change and, other times, argue that they do not have enough change, promising to give it the
next time the customer boards the bus. Participants also alleged that operators make them jump the door
turnstile when entering the bus or make them board through the backdoor where there isn’t one and
charge them fare anyway. Not charging attractive female passengers and gang members was described
as a common practice.
The presence of street performers and vendors, and panhandlers inside buses was also acknowledged as
a source of disorder. Focus group participants complained that bus drivers and fare collectors allowed
them to board buses and did not charge them. This, according to user discussions, delays service and
worsens overcrowding.
Focus groups noted the operators’ use of mobile telephones openly and frequently during, with little
regard for legal prohibitions, was noted as a source of disorder. Users criticized that drivers and fare
collectors where distracted when using their telephones and, as a result, the quality of service was
affected negatively. Moreover, it was argued that the operators’ attention was further diminished when
female acquaintances accompany them during runs, intermittently engaging in public displays of
affection.
Participants also explained that bus drivers and fare collectors are allowed to personalize public
transportation vehicles and identified the result as a source of disorder. Focus groups described that some
buses have sophisticated stereo equipment and is used to play loud music with explicit lyrics at full volume
during route runs. They added that, in some cases, this is complemented by strobe or black lights installed
inside the vehicle. Users also complaint about unofficial decals placed inside and outside buses, that
displayed religious, funny, and, sometimes, vulgar quotes or images, or made reference to sport teams.
4.1.2 Negative interpersonal interactions
User focus groups identified negative interpersonal interactions as a source of disorder. Discussions
portrayed Salvadoran public transportation as a place where anything can happen, a context in which
society’s rules and codes of conduct do not apply. Participant depictions conveyed a sense of lawlessness
in a subculture within the system where otherwise unacceptable behaviors are tolerated under certain
circumstances. This environment was said to promote negative interactions between users and between
users and operators.
Users described an anarchic environment in which the stronger prevail. Women, children, and the elderly
were acknowledged as the most vulnerable passengers. Scenarios most frequently cited by participants
involved people trying to get on or off the bus, aggressively agglomerating at the entrance or exit. During
these common and chaotic situations, men were said to push away women, women push away seniors,
and children were said to be tossed around by everyone. These negative interactions, not accepted out
of the confines of public transportation, were described by users as the norm inside the system and said
to spur verbal confrontations and other disruptive outcomes.

8
Another source of disorder, framed by bad interpersonal exchanges and predominantly noted by focus
groups, involved various examples of operators verbally and physically abusing passengers. Participants
that discussed interactions between customers and bus drivers and fare collectors, described them as
being rude and vulgar, and argued that they display a lack of customer service training. Verbal altercations
with an operator were said to sometimes motivate drivers to drive aggressively with the intention of
knocking down users. Focus groups frequently illustrated this abuse by contrasting it with how animals
are treated. Personal experiences that involved drivers and fare collectors yelling and cursing at
customers, were utilized during discussions to explain mistreatment.
Focus group participants also described instances were passengers’ made inquiries or complaints about
service to operators, but either got no response or incited a rude and generally useless answer. As noted
before, users partially linked customer abuse to the competitive nature of Salvadoran public transport.
However, they also associated it with long hours and stress that the operators’ job involves.
Additionally, unruly behavior by gang members was cited as a negative interaction. Gang members were
described as loud passengers travelling at the back of the bus, occasionally harassing users. Their behavior
was said to create a tense environment in which violence could erupt spontaneously.
4.1.3 Lack of passenger orientation
Focus groups recognized that the absence of information about public transportation’s operations creates
disorder. Debates about the topic painted the system as very complex, referring to particularities that
make it difficult, and sometimes impossible, for new passengers to navigate through routes they’ve never
travelled before. Participants noted that some important bus stops, for example, do not have proper
infrastructure or anything to identify them as such, and, thus, are only known by regular users.
Moreover, even those authorized bus stops that are clearly marked were said to lack any type of signage
that displays the routes that stop, schedules, or runs’ details. Hence, unfamiliar users’ only hope is to ask
habitual users for directions. It was suggested that there is no other source that can be queried to research
this information. Participants also criticized that customers were not effectively informed about route
changes, which, they argued, resulted in delays and confusion.
4.1.4 Sensory cues of chaos and decay
Focus groups detailed sensory cues associated with disorder and deterioration regarding the condition of
the bus, the operators’ appearance, and bus stop characteristics.
a) Bus condition
Disorder was linked by users to several signs of bus decay. Focus groups portrayed public transportation
vehicles as generally being in terrible cosmetic and mechanical condition. Participants particularly
emphasized missing and damaged seats and handrails, holes on the floor, leaky roofs, broken windows
and traffic signals, graffiti, noisy engines, garbage accumulation, and excessive exhaust smoke and
crackling sounds.

9
Discussions about these deplorable circumstances concluded that bus maintenance, repair, and care
played an important part. Some users argued that many owners, besides asking drivers and fare collectors
for a daily fee, demand that they take care of any bus mechanical and cosmetic issues. This, they
contended, places a financial burden upon operators that is unlikely covered.
Other participants noted that most buses are very old and, therefore, are prone to exhibit these
conditions. Furthermore, they criticized that owners only apply a fresh coat of paint to dilapidated buses
to pass them off as new or restored.
b) Operators’ appearance
Focus groups sustained that the operators’ appearance contributed to disorder within public
transportation. Participants maintained that not using uniforms creates disorder because it makes it more
difficult for passengers to identify them. Participants claim that most drivers often dress in dirty clothes
and, sometimes, favor gang-like attire, which arouses a sense of decay.
c) Bus stop characteristics
Users complained that bus stops are chaotic. Overcrowding was one of the most frequently cited sings of
disorder and associated with three issues. First, participants explained that several routes stop at the same
stop and, as a result, more people wait for their buses at the same stops. Second, focus group discussions
revealed that the service cycle for some routes was irregular or involved long waiting periods, which was
said to cause an overwhelming accumulation of passenger at bus stops. Lastly, users linked overcrowding
to street vendors, who were accused of taking over bus stops and, consequently, making passengers
sometimes wait for their buses in the street or otherwise undesignated areas.
Customers running up and down the street to board their buses was also identified as a source of disorder.
Participants pointed out that the high saturation of routes at particular bus stops makes it more difficult
for buses to stop at designated areas. As a result, buses stop where they can, as close as they can to their
designated bus stops. Users described long, curvy lines of buses of different routes inappropriately parked
at an angle along the sidewalk. During these hectic situations, passengers were said to have to keep up
with where their route stopped along those lines of buses, in order to catch it. According to participants,
flocks of users run significant distances from designated bus stops to where their corresponding route has
stopped askew. They portrayed a similar scenario when referring to the disorder caused by drivers
discretionarily stopping away from the designated areas.
Focus groups discussions about official bus stops described them as being in poor conditions and
connected this with disorder. Users particularly mentioned damaged roofs, stolen or missing benches and
signage, potholes, graffiti, and garbage.

10
4.2 Types of crime in public transport system
User discussions regarding crime in public transportation offered details about victimization patterns,
response to incidents, and strategies to reduce being targeted. Debates about these topics are
summarized in this section.
4.2.1 Patterns of victimization
Participants’ descriptions of bus crimes provided details about the most common types of offenses,
victims, perpetrators, weapons, modus operandi, targets, and weapons. Gang-related crimes,
victimization at bus stops, sexual transgressions, and differences between buses and microbuses
regarding safety issues, were also discussed.
a) Type of crimes
Focus group debates about crime in public transportation invariably made reference to property offenses,
describing robberies and thefts in a similar proportion. Crimes against people were relatively less cited
and tended to concentrate on sexual or gang-related transgressions. Considering the particular nature of
these offenses, they are addressed separately.
b) Victims
Every focus group offered at least one description of personal victimization, indicating that everyone,
regardless of gender or age, is a potential target. Consistent with this proposition, some users explained
that the victim’s profile varies depending on where the route runs. University students, for example,
posited that in the buses they take to school, offenders prefer to target students. Unemployed male
adults, on the other hand, claimed that in areas near or adjacent to business districts, perpetrators fancy
employees as victims.
However, some groups argued that female passengers are, overall, the most frequent victims. Participants
explained that perpetrators victimize women because they pose less of a threat, considering that they
tend to be physically weaker and are less prone to resist or react to attacks. Additionally, females were
said to be favored by criminals because they carry their valuables in handbags and they are more likely to
bring jewelry, which increases their value as targets.
c) Perpetrators
Participants quickly assured that gang members are the most frequent offenders of bus crimes.
Nevertheless, some focus groups argued that there is a vast array of people that commit crimes within
public transportation, from street performers to common criminals, and that gang members are not the
only ones that victimize passengers. Users sustained that there are both male and female offenders, but
that they all tend to be young.

11
d) Modus Operandi
Most accounts of personal victimization offered during focus groups, depicted the execution of bus crimes
as organized and planned, involving two or more offenders working in coordination. According to user
discussions, part of the assailants first scope for potential victims at bus stops or during the ride. Once
targets have been identified, participants explained that some of the offenders move in on their victims
and the rest relocates to strategic positions inside the bus, in support of their colleagues, to provide cover,
react against threats, prevent victims from fleeing, or handle operators. After the victims’ property has
been taken, perpetrators exit the bus.
Users claimed that the timing of the different phases described above, is planned ahead. They contended
that offenders identify the most convenient part of the route’s run, which offers the highest number of
potential victims and the lowest probability of being caught. Consequently, the optimal locations to board
the bus, commit the crime, and exit, are selected beforehand.
The actual execution of the offense, however, varies. Participants asserted that thefts are most likely to
occur during peak hours, when buses are overcrowded to a maximum. Pick-pocketing was said to be quite
common during the convulsive boarding and disembarking sequences at bus stops, and the saturated
conditions in which people travel. Users described various attention-diversion techniques employed by
pickpockets: using women to distract victims either by touching, flirting with, or rubbing against male
passengers, cutting pockets and bags to gain access, and bumping into victims.
Focus groups argued that robberies tend to take place when overcrowding is not at its worst and during
slow hours. A frequent scenario portrayed through discussions described offenders standing up,
announcing to the rest of the passengers that they were being robbed, and then proceeding to take their
valuables. Sometimes offenders were said to claim gang affiliation and demanded money to pay for
funerals, doctors, or lawyers of fallen, wounded, or arrested fellow gang members, or because they’ve
just got out of prison. Personal accounts of victimization also included robberies were perpetrators came
up to one or multiple victims and made individual or collective threats and demands.
Additionally, users explained that thefts and robberies tend to occur more frequently at the back of the
bus. They argue that close proximity to the exit door gives offenders a chance to escape more easily and
promptly.
e) Targets
Focus group participants deemed mobile telephones, jewelry, and cash, as the most sought after loots.
The majority of personal victimization accounts, nevertheless, referred more frequently to mobile
telephones as intended targets.
f) Weapons
Users claimed that conventional handguns and sharp objects are the most common weapons utilized by
offenders. They also warned that perpetrators frequently don’t use any weapons and simply claim gang
affiliation or appear to belong to a gang as a threat to rob passengers.

12
g) Gang related-crimes against the person
Participants’ descriptions of violent crimes committed by gang members inside buses, portrayed users
both as deliberately targeted and incidental victims. Focus groups argued that in high gang activity areas,
gang members board buses to ask young passengers for their identification cards, determine if their
registered addresses are located at neighborhoods controlled by rival groups, and, consequently, attack
those who reside in enemy territories. Users were also said to be collateral victims of aggressions aimed
at rival gang members, or someone associated with them, travelling in the bus or operators with whom
offenders had grievances with.
h) Sexual transgressions
Focus group discussions about the topic asserted that sexual transgressions are commonplace in
Salvadoran public transportation. Participants explained that men take advantage of overcrowding and
hectic driving styles of bus drivers to touch women or rub against them. Moreover, various groups brought
up cases in which male passengers masturbated against, and ejaculated on, females.
Operators were frequently cited as vulgar and accused of unwanted verbal sexual advancements towards
women and of touching them inappropriately while they boarded the bus. Female users complained that
public transportation is filled with inappropriate sexual content and specifically referred to sexually
explicit music, language, and posters and decals as regular ornaments of the bus user experience.
Participants’ depictions of sexual transgressions generally involved accounts of incidents that involved
male offenders and female victims. However, various focus group debates revealed that men-on-men
victimization is also an issue. Male victims were said to react more harshly and repealed the perpetrators’
advancements more overtly than their female counterparts, confronting the offenders directly. Women
used a more subtle response, pushing away perpetrators that rubbed against them from behind with their
elbows or stepping on their toes. Accounts of both types of incidents tended to involve single offenders.
i) Bus stops
Although focus groups discussions recognized that crime is also a problem at bus stops, most accounts of
victimization referred to crimes committed inside buses. Users recognized travelling inside the bus as the
most vulnerable and, thus, unsafe part of public transportation. They explained that passengers are
trapped while inside the bus and argued that crimes at bus stops are more easily avoided. Consistent with
this argument, debates about other issues often included situations in which dangerous bus stops were
avoided by passengers boarding or disembarking elsewhere, even if that meant walking greater distances
from their point of origin or to their destiny.
However, the possibility of being victimized while waiting for the bus was deemed as a source of anxiety
that perpetuates the rule-breaking attitude justified by the subculture that operates within public
transportation. Participants clarified that users want to get away from danger as soon as possible and that
everything that contributes to achieve that goal is considered justifiable.

13
Users claimed that the location of some authorized bus stops put passengers in danger, because they are
forced to exit the bus and walk through areas controlled by gangs that rival their neighborhood’s gang.
Participants explained that this makes gang members suspicious and can lead to being accused of being a
spy for rival groups, which can result in physical attacks.
j) Differences between buses and microbuses
Focus group members agreed that crime is equally prevalent in both buses and microbuses. Nonetheless,
it was pointed out that overcrowding and aggressive driving, which was said to be linked to thefts, tended
to be worst in microbuses.
4.2.2 Response to crime incidents
User discussions revealed that fear of reprisals is an important factor that dictates the reactions of people
to crimes in perpetrated in public transport. Other issues were also said to have an impact.
a) Operators’ response
Participants coincided in that criminals that operate in buses generally work in coordination with drivers
and fare collectors. Different explanations were offered about this relationship. Fear of reprisals was the
most cited. Users claimed that operators collaborate with offenders because they have to travel the same
route on the same bus every day, which makes them an easy target for those who want to retaliate for
not complying with demands. Moreover, drivers and fare collectors were also said to live in high-gang-
activity neighborhoods and, sometimes, are threatened by gang-affiliated neighbors to help them commit
crimes against passengers.
Debates about the topic also revealed that gang membership among operators is quite common. This was
often used to explain the operators’ ties with criminals that victimize passengers. Participants argued that
this cooperation is so strong that, in some cases, drivers and fare collectors point out potential targets to
offenders. Stopping to allow criminals to get on and off the bus at locations with low risk for detection by
police, was also conveyed as a common practice among drivers. Users alleged that operators generally
look the other way or even watch unresponsively through the rearview mirror while passengers are
targeted by offenders. Drivers and fare collectors were commonly portrayed as unsympathetic to crime
and victims.
Some focus groups, however, sustained that operators sometimes try to avoid customer victimization by
not stopping to pick up known offenders and, also, explicitly warning suspicious passengers not to target
other users. These were deemed as exceptional scenarios and not habitual occurrences.
b) Other users’ response
Participants maintained users tend not to respond or report when fellow customers are being targeted by
offenders. It was argued that reacting during the commission of a crime is too dangerous because
criminals generally work in groups inside public transportation. Users also justified that, considering they
travel the same routes every day, intervening puts them at greater risk in the future. Additionally,
participants claimed that police inefficiency and corruption makes it pointless to report crimes and that

14
inappropriate laws favor criminals more than victims in El Salvador, thus making reacting to others’
victimization troublesome. Users also criticized that there is no hotline to report criminal activities.
Regardless of these disparaging conditions, some passengers described discreet attempts to warn others
about offenders, pointing with their eyes and making face gestures to indicate the commission of a crime
is in progress. The few accounts that described overt and massive responses to the victimization of other
customers, was limited to cases of a sexual nature, which, as stated earlier, tend to involve single
offenders.
c) Bystanders’ response
The presence of people other than operators and passengers is widespread in Salvadoran public
transportation. As described before, fare collectors and drivers allow panhandlers and street vendors and
performers to board buses. Focus group discussions suggested that these are not unsuspecting bystanders
to bus crimes, but in fact work in coordination with robbers and thieves, boarding buses before them,
identifying potential victims, and relaying this information. These people were also said to sometimes take
advantage of the unintimidating cover provided by their crafts and appearance, to themselves victimize
passengers.
d) Authorities’ response
Focus groups portrayed authorities as ineffective and corrupt. Users argued that crime and criminal
organizations are overwhelming and that, as a result, the Police is overpowered. Furthermore, there was
a general perception among participants that criminal structures have penetrated the State’s public safety
apparatus. Participants claimed that police officers are seldom around and, even if they are, they don’t
respond to crime as expected by users. Participants justified that police personnel is afraid to act against
officers because they live in gang infested neighborhoods and try to avoid retaliation. Furthermore, users
claimed that when the Police detain offenders, cases are likely lost during later stages of criminal
prosecution and, thus, perpetrators are quickly freed.
Focus groups’ discussions about the authorities’ response to crime within public transportation
additionally conveyed that the Vice-ministry of Transportation does nothing to reduce criminal activities
or tend to victims. Specifically, users stated that it should play a more active role in identifying crime hot
spots and adjusting bus routes accordingly.
4.2.3 Strategies to reduce victimization
During focus group, participants detailed various strategies utilized to reduce the chances of becoming
victims, which essentially involve minimizing risks and removing targets preferred by offenders.
a) Minimizing risks
Users’ accounts conveyed that high-risk situations are evaded by avoiding drawing the attention of
offenders, promptly identifying imminent threats, and modifying travel patterns.

15
Participants offered various examples of tactics that they employ to prevent being noticed by potential
criminals. Openly showing targets favored by offenders was among the most frequently cited. Users said
that they turn off their mobile telephones and try not to pay fare collectors with large bills or use exact
change, so other passengers don’t notice that they are carrying cash or electronic devices.
Not wearing expensive-looking clothes was another strategy offered by users. Young male participants
added that it is important to avoid clothing articles or styles commonly preferred by gangs, not to attract
attention from gang members.
Female participants described tactics to reduce the risk of travelling alone. Specifically, some said that
they asked male acquaintances to accompany them or meet with them at some point of the routes’ runs.
Others explained that they usually look for older, unsuspicious males that can pass of as their fathers, to
sit next to and, in that way, scare off potential offenders.
Focus group debates awarded great importance to passengers being vigilant while using public
transportation to quickly identify threats and avoid dangers. Users explained that they scope other users
before boarding at bus stops to detect any suspicious people or situation and, thus, determine if it is safe
to catch the next bus or not. They also said that when they enter the bus they examine other passengers’
demeanors and search for signs of danger, to decide where to sit or stand. Through their journey, users
assured they maintain this vigilant state and are prepared to flee if danger is perceived.
In addition, focus groups revealed that risk is minimized by utilizing prior knowledge of victimization
patterns. Users said that they tried to sit near the entrance, avoid the back of the bus and did not get off
at dangerous bus stops, and sat at aisle seats. Participants with more flexible schedules explained that
they avoid using buses at night and peak hours. Female participants added that they skip empty bus stops.
b) Removing targets
Participants detailed tactics to reduce victimization that involved hiding or not carrying valuable objects
while travelling on public transportation. Users frequently claimed that they use decoys to give offenders
in case they are targeted, carrying a cheap mobile telephone and leaving only a small amount of money
in their pockets or wallets, while hiding more expensive electronic devices and cash in their underwear or
other inconspicuous places.
Others said they adopted more drastic measures, completely removing desirable targets. Participants
explained that they leave important documents and cards, cash, and valuable mobile devices at home,
and carry only the minimum amount of cash to cover the bus fares and small incidentals. Some users take
an even more radical approach, and contend that they just don’t buy expensive things because they might
get stolen when they use public transportation.

16
4.3 Suggestions to improve public transportation given by
participants
Users’ recommendations to improve public transportation in El Salvador focused on measures to curve
disorder and crime. There was general plea among all focus groups for the central Government to truly
get involved and resolve the system’s shortcomings.
4.3.1 Order
Measures suggested by participants involved training and conditioning, reducing stressful job conditions
for operators, redesigning routes, enhancing enforcement, improving user orientation, rethinking
boarding and disembarking sequences, increasing standards and controls for operation of buses and
concession of routes, and regulating order inside the bus.
a) Training and conditioning
Focus groups recommended that operators receive training on safe driving, dealing properly with
customers and handling emergencies. Users stressed the importance of this issue by proposing that
training be required by law. They noted the importance of summiting new drivers and fare collectors to
induction training and prompted the creation of an operator’s school.
It was also suggested that training courses be provided for bus owners to improve their team managing
skills, so they can better instruct their operators on safe driving and customer service. Focus groups
acknowledged the importance of initiatives that help debunk the current negative public transportation
subculture, through the promotion of good practices among passengers to reduce disorder and incivilities.
b) Reducing stressful work conditions for operators
Participants recognized that drivers and fare collectors work under overwhelming conditions and that this
affects their performance. Consequently, they propounded mandatory breaks for operators and enacting
regulations that stablish work shifts and set a maximum amount of allowed work hours per shift.
c) Route design
Focus groups suggested that routes be redesign in order to avoid various routes stopping at the same bus
stops and that the number of buses that work high-demand routes be increased during peak hours. Users
theorized that this measures would reduce overcrowding at bus stops and inside buses, because
passenger loads would be redistributed.
d) Harsher penalties and effective enforcement
Participants recommended that more strict and grave penalties be approved for operators, specifically
calling for any transgression committed by drivers and fare collectors to be considered a serious criminal
offense. Additionally, users warned that effective enforcement of regulations and laws, and compliance
with punishments, are necessary and, thus, should be procured.

17
e) Improving user orientation
Focus groups suggested that more information should be provided to users regarding bus routes.
Specifically, users proposed that information regarding routes’ schedules, runs, and fares should be
readily available and clearly displayed for users at bus stops and buses.
f) Rethinking boarding and disembarking sequences
Participants advocated that boarding buses be done in a more orderly fashion and, consequently,
recommended that bus stops be redesigned in such a way that passengers enter and exit the bus in a line.
It was also propounded that municipalities should be responsible for building and keeping bus stops in
adequate conditions.
g) Increasing bus operator and route concession standards and controls
Participants called for harsher regulations that establish more strict requirements for drivers and fare
collectors, to filter-out those with criminal records, traffic violations, suspended or missing drivers
licenses, and other unacceptable behaviors or deficits. It was also suggested that permanent control
mechanisms be created to secure enforcement.
Users propounded that more demanding requisites be put in place for route concessions. They explained
that routes sometimes are awarded to companies or individual bus owners that don’t possess the
administrative and financial robustness to guarantee the proper operation of buses. Hence, it was
proposed that the requirements set forth for applicants who compete for the concession of routes, be
enhanced. Furthermore, focus group discussions called for buses to be repaired and for the establishment
of industry standards for vehicle maintenance.
h) Regulate order inside the bus
Users proposed measures to reduce overcrowding, improve passenger access controls, and ban loud
music inside buses. Focus groups, in order to defuse the saturated conditions endured by passengers,
suggested banning passengers traveling standing-up, establishing a maximum amount of time buses are
allowed to park at bus stops and improving the enforcement of the maximum number of allowed
passengers per bus. Providing overhead compartments to store bags and backpacks, was also mentioned
by participants.
Focus groups debates called for better procedures and regulations to control passenger access. The
implementation of electronic bus cards was cited as an option. It was also suggested that street vendors
and performers, and panhandlers be forbidden inside buses. Additionally, users proposed banning loud
music during bus runs.
4.3.2 Suggestions to combat crime
Participants offered relatively less suggestions to combat crime. The most frequent propositions entailed
deploying uniformed or undercover police agents, private security guards, or municipal police officers in
buses and bus stops. Some users justified that police personnel is scarce and, therefore, bus owners

18
should complement official police work by hiring private security guards. Others argued that local
governments should take a more active role in the matter and assign municipal police to secure bus stops.
Focus groups also suggested that limited police resources should be optimized by analyzing victimization
patterns and, consequently, deploying agents during peak hours to critical routes and bus stops.
Another common proposal involved installing cameras in buses and bus stops. Users warned, however,
that there must be people monitoring and analyzing images so that a corresponding operative response
can be formulated and, thus, assure the intended deterrent effect. Resolving lighting issues at bus stops
and eliminating lonely bus stops were also suggested as measures to reduce crime.
5. PUBLICT TRANSPORT DRIVERS
Efforts were made to recruit both fare collectors and drivers for focus groups. Nevertheless, this proved
to be a difficult task. Operators were suspicious about sessions and there seemed to be an issue with the
possible consequences of providing information about the complex crime dynamics that operate in
Salvadoran public transport. However, twenty drivers were recruited from three different bus routes, with
which three sessions were conducted. The corresponding focus group discussions are summarized in this
section.
Every focus group portrayed Salvadoran public transportation as chaotic. Operators, in contrast with
users’ discussions about disorder and incivilities, linked them directly with relatively less sources,
concentrating mostly on bus operations and negative interactions with customers. Driver debates
provided useful complementary information regarding other issues that users associated with disorder.
5.1.1 Bus operations
Participants’ discussions about disorder and incivilities related to how buses are operated, were rooted
on the competitive environment of public transportation and negative interpersonal interactions between
the actors that intervene in public transport.
a) Competitive environment
Operators recognized that they drive aggressively, speeding, breaking traffic laws, and stopping at
unauthorized places to pick up users. They asserted that this is directly related to the competitive nature
of public transportation in El Salvador, generated by the way they are paid and the system is designed.
Participants added that these conditions are further accentuated by other economic constraints, overall
traffic conditions, and pedestrians’ negligence.
Drivers explained that they are not paid a fixed salary by their employers or awarded any other benefits.
Depending on the company, they said they get to keep between 13% and 15% of the daily bus fare total.
They argued that, consequently, they average about twenty dollars a day. Some suggested that anything

19
below $140 a day in total bus fares, was not acceptable for owners and that repeatedly amounting less
than that, would get them replaced. Drivers claimed that, because of this, they must procure as many
passengers as they can, thus inciting overcrowding, dangerous driving, and illegal stops.
Operators also said that, considering there is a fixed number of customers at bus stops at any given time,
they must compete for them with buses that run the same route or even other ones that don’t.
Participants considered that too much buses and routes coincide during their journeys and, therefore, at
bus stops. Moreover, they complained that some bus routes, in an effort to increase earnings, have
extended their routes’ runs to cover additional destinations, invading territories assigned to other routes.
Drivers contended that, as a result, they have to drive even more aggressively and stop at more
unauthorized stops to pick up more customers.
Discussions about disorder generated by the competitive environment in which public transportation
takes place, depicted buses and microbuses running the same routes as an additional layer of competition
that further obfuscates conditions. Participants suggested that the smaller size of microbuses allows them
to drive faster and more aggressively, giving them the upper hand in the permanent race to hog
passengers.
One driver estimated that the most conservative operators average between twenty five to thirty traffic
violations a day. Discussions about the topic suggested that, although traffic transgressions are frequent,
drivers are careful not to commit them in front of police officers and, for that reason, the amount of tickets
issued is far less than the actual number of offenses. Nevertheless, some operators claimed that they have
paid thousands of dollars in tickets.
They explained that tickets related to the buses’ condition are issued to their drivers’ licenses, even
though vehicle maintenance is the owners’ responsibility. Consequently, they said having to pay these
traffic violations heightens their need for transporting as much passengers as possible, to generate more
income.
Operators pointed out that companies have stablished unachievable standards for daily operations and
set corresponding fines for noncompliance, reducing drivers’ daily income. Participants most frequently
cited company fines for not completing their routes’ runs under the set maximum acceptable time and
for using more gasoline than the maximum allowed per run. Overall heavy traffic and pedestrian
saturation and negligence in narrow streets, were said to make it impossible to comply with set standards.
Fines, therefore, were said to diminish the operator’s income even further and, in turn, worsen disorder
within public transportation.
b) Negative interactions with customers
Driver discussions portrayed fare collection and bus stops as critical points of public transportation, in
which negative interactions with users are prone to spark. These same issues were linked by user focus
groups to disorderly operation of buses, because of high discretion provided to operators.
Regardless of the type of adverse contact with customers, drivers said that the exhausting conditions that
their work schedules entail, increases the probability of reacting inadequately to situations that might

20
trigger altercations. They explained that they usually leave their house between three and four in the
morning, to be ready for the first run at five. Delays caused by traffic and other factors deprives them of
breaks to make-up for lost time, they argued that usually, because of this, they have to eat lunch while
driving. Drivers coincided in that they get off work at around ten at night and go home. They claimed to
work this schedule six days a week and that that the hectic rhythm of their jobs makes them tired and less
patient with customers, increasing the possibilities of bad interactions.
5.1.2 Fare collection
Providing less fare or change than expected was a frequent scenario also described by operators. Drivers,
however, claimed that they ran out of coins fast and, therefore, often have to tell users to wait a few stops
for their change. Participants explained that customers, in these situations, think that they are being taken
advantage of and altercations commonly ensue.
Sometimes opposite roles were depicted. Drivers described cases in which users provided less fare than
expected and operators had to deal with it as circumstances allowed, contributing to disorder. Operators
also portrayed experiences in which customers tried to scam drivers by demanding more change, claiming
to have paid with larger denominations, generating conflictive interactions. Additionally, participants
claimed that not accepting pennies or providing them as change, ignited negative interchanges with users.
However, the most emotional discussions about adverse interactions with customers, involved drivers
feeling discriminated against or being treated as second class citizens. Operators explained that customers
throw or drop fare money in their hands, noticeably avoiding any direct contact. Users were said to
articulate a similar exchange when drivers supply change. Participants revealed that this annoys them,
because they believe that it’s indicative of how those particular customers look down on them. On
occasions, this sentiment was said to trigger altercations between drivers and users.
5.1.3 Bus stops
As stated before, operators pointed-out that they often stop at unauthorized places to pick up passengers,
in an effort to transport as many people as they can to increase their earnings. However, participants also
contended that users constantly ask them to stop at unauthorized places and get annoyed when they
refuse.
Operators claimed that passengers want to exit the bus as close as possible to their destination and start
screaming and hitting the bus until the driver stops where they want him to. It was acknowledged that
users demanding to stop at arbitrary places, affects service in a negative way.
5.1.4 Sensory cues of chaos and decay
Focus groups identified particularities regarding the appearance of operators and the buses as sources of
chaos and decay.

21
a) Buses condition
Drivers recognized that buses are generally in poor cosmetic and mechanical conditions, but argued that
some are in better condition than others depending on the care provided by owners.
Drivers said that owners assign each operator a specific bus to drive. They explained that if the bus, for
whatever reason, does not work, the driver does not earn. Consequently, operators assured that they
check their buses every morning to avoid failures during the day. If they notice anything wrong or if the
bus malfunctions during a run, they said they called the owners. Owners, at that point, then decide
whether or not the issue is worth sending the bus to the shop and having not work. Drivers contended
that some owners try to take good care of their buses and others don’t. Some were said to tend to
problems quickly and others not to.
Participants noted that buses are generally old and, therefore, are never going to be in optimal conditions.
They also warned that public transportation is not a lucrative enterprise and that maintenance budgets
have been hit by economic hardships. They argued that buses use between $80 and $95 of gasoline per
day and that the government subsidy is only $400 per bus. Keeping bus fare fixed at twenty cents and
providing such a low subsidy, was said to leave owners with very small profits, sometimes insufficient to
handle rising maintenance costs.
Operators claimed that any repairs required because of accidents, are partially or totally paid by them. A
participant maintained that owners even make them pay for missed runs while the bus is being repaired.
Focus group discussions revealed that, for owners, the buses’ appearance is less important than
mechanical conditions. Drivers described missing handles, damaged seats, graffiti, and holes on the floor,
and claimed that owners rarely fixed these problems. Operators also depicted how they patched cosmetic
issues. Some participants sustained, however, that owners hire cleaning crews to clean buses every night.
b) Operators’ appearance
Drivers recognized that they often look dirty and explained that this is because they handle cash from bus
fares all day long, are exposed to the streets’ polluted environment, and have to check buses’ mechanical
conditions every morning. They also acknowledge that passengers react negatively to their dirty
appearance. Drivers added that owners used to provide uniforms, but don’t anymore for some time.
5.2 Types of crime in public transport
Operators’ discussions about crime revealed information about victimization patterns, incident response,
and strategies to avoid being targeted.
5.2.1 Victimization patterns
Operators’ accounts about bus crimes offered data on the most common types of offenses, offenders,
victims, weapons, targets, and modus operandi. Gang-related crimes and sexual transgressions were also
discussed.

22
a) Types of crimes
Participants described property and violent crimes. Specifically, thefts, robberies, extortions, and
homicides. They also referred to sexual transgressions which are detailed separately.
b) Victims
Drivers’ accounts of user victimization involved people from both genders as victims of thefts or robberies.
However, they argued that offenders prefer to target women and, similarly to user focus groups,
associated this with females representing less of a threat to perpetrators because of their relatively
smaller physical size and diminished probability of resisting during attacks.
Operators were also portrayed as victims during crime discussions. Although robberies and extortions
were described, most accounts involved homicides. Extortion of bus owners was mentioned, but not
talked about it in detail.
c) Perpetrators
Participants asserted that gang members do not engage in petty crimes and focus on extorting drivers and
bus owners. Most homicide perpetrators described by focus groups also belonged to gangs. Operators’
debates on gang-related crime are discussed separately.
Drivers stated that thefts and robberies are mostly committed by common criminals. Some participants
suggested that the pool of offenders is limited and that most crimes are committed by the same people,
who get on and off different routes and buses looking for victims. Some operators even claimed that
customers know thieves and robbers, and get off the bus when they board.
Drivers emphasized repeatedly that offenders have an unsuspecting demeanor and look just like everyone
else. Criminal incidents described by participants, involved female and male offenders. One driver even
argued that women are more aggressive perpetrators.
d) Modus Operandi
Most incidents described by operators involved two or more offenders working in coordination, who get
on the bus, and wait to target victims until it passes through an area in which their detection is more
difficult. Some drivers argued that offenders even pay bus fare in order to blend in.
Various participants explained that before offenders start targeting victims, one of them goes up to the
driver and stays there, warns him that they are about to start robbing passengers, sometimes instructs
not to stop while crimes are being committed or to deviate from the route’s run, and, finally, orders the
operator to stop the bus so all perpetrators can flee.
Other offenders were said to make a public announcement, demanding money from users. Operator
descriptions of these situations depicted offenders as unarmed and conveyed physical intimidation as
their primary threat.

23
Participants also discussed incidents where offenders disguised themselves as street vendors or
performers, to scope for potential victims among users and, consequently, target them themselves or
pass the information onto other offenders. One driver assured that most robberies and thefts last about
two to three minutes.
Focus groups briefly discussed robberies against drivers, describing few cases in which single or multiple
assailants boarded the bus and demanded operators to give them specific amounts of money from the
cash box or empty its contents into bags.
e) Weapons
Operators assured that offenders use both sharp weapons and firearms, but some argued that handguns
are more common now than in the past. Few incidents described involved fake weapons, like toy pistols
or sharp wires.
Driver depictions of weapon usage during the commission of crimes, involved injuring victims who resisted
and bystanders, with knives and firearms.
f) Gang-related crimes
Focus group discussions about gangs, portrayed them as powerful criminal organizations, which exercise
a high level of influence and control where they operate. Participants described situations in which
communities are dominated by gangs and, thus, residents and commuters have to respect their rules.
Operators argued that gang members work at bus companies and even own buses, conveying that public
transportation is a highly infiltrated industry.
Some drivers claimed that they are extorted by gangs, who demand a daily fee of one dollar. They assured
that if they pay, gangs don’t bother them. Focus groups briefly discussed extortion of owners.
Nonetheless, it was described as a widespread issue and associated it with gang criminal activities and
others who have taken advantage of the problem. One operator explained that his son, who worked also
as a bus driver, had been killed a few months ago because the owner of the bus he operated had not paid
the money demanded by gangs. Another driver criticized that operators are targeted by gangs and all that
owners do is replace them after they are attacked.
Participants also maintained that some drivers and bus owners take advantage of the prevalent extortion
problem and victimize the companies they work for or the competition.
g) Sexual transgressions
Drivers’ descriptions of sexual transgressions mostly involved male passengers exploiting overcrowding
to insidiously rub against or touch female victims. Participants explained that this tends to take place
during peak hours, when overcrowding is at its worse. One operator discussed an incident in which a nurse
was being abducted by an acquaintance and was taking her to another location to allegedly rape her, but
was reported to the police by other users and arrested.

24
5.2.2 Incident response
Participants’ discussions described how drivers and the police respond to crime incidents.
a) Operators
Drivers argued that they have to comply with offender instructions and generally do not interfere during
or after victimization, because they fear retaliation. Participants explained that they are aware that this
makes customers think that they collaborate with offenders, but claim that they can’t intervene because
they are easy targets for vengeful perpetrators.
b) Authorities
Focus group discussions about police portrayed police officers as lazy, corrupt, and focused on harassing
bus drivers. Drivers complained that police agents ask for bribes in exchange of not writing transit
violations, usually demanding less money than the amount that the operator would have to pay for the
fine. They also claimed police officers detain criminals, but if their loot is valuable enough, they keep it,
and let perpetrators loose.
5.2.3 Strategies to reduce victimization
Drivers asserted that their job entails stressful working conditions and great personal risks, and claimed
that they would quit immediately if they were offered any other job, regardless of the industry. During
focus group debates, participants predominantly related risks with crime-related issues, particularly with
gangs and common criminals.
a) Gangs
Drivers’ discussions suggest that operators can do very little to reduce their chances of being targeted by
gangs: pay money extorted by gangs on time and avoid altercations with gang members. Participants, on
the other hand, described an ample array of situations in which drivers, unknowingly, mistreat passengers
associated with gangs or denied them privileges, putting themselves at risk. The circumstances that were
mentioned were diverse, varying from denying a free ride to giving an inappropriate compliment to gang
members’ girlfriends or relatives.
Additionally, there is little operators can do to minimize the probabilities of being targeted to preassure
bus owners who refuse to pay extortion. As stated before, gangs tend to retaliate against drivers when
bus owners don’t pay extortion.
Operators noted that witnessing gang-related crime also puts them at risk and that there is nothing they
could do to avoid these situations.
b) Common criminals
Although some incidents described by drivers suggest that they are also targeted by offenders not
affiliated with gangs, participants acknowledged that passengers are at greater risk. Operators said that
they comply with instructions given by criminals in order to reduce their chances of being victimized.

25
However, focus groups described a few incidents in which drivers were injured during attacks perpetrated
against passengers.
Drivers, additionally, explained that they reduce their chances of being robbed by making several cash
deliveries or deposits, at least one at the end of each route run.
participants
Drivers’ proposals to upgrade public transportation in El Salvador were aimed at improving order and
controlling crime.
5.3.1 Order
Propositions related to increasing order focused on reducing traffic, increasing owners’ income, and
decreasing stressful work condition for operators.
a) Reduce traffic
Operators suggested deploying transit police officers to help alleviate traffic and designating separate
circulation routes for private cars and buses. Additionally, they proposed the creation of differentiated
work schedules that would distribute the current heavy traffic at peak hours to more manageable levels
over a longer period of time.
b) Increase owners’ income
Drivers argued that, under current conditions, public transportation is not profitable for owners and, as
result, buses are not given appropriate cosmetic and mechanical maintenance. Consequently, participants
suggested that the Government provides financial support to owners or allow them to increase bus fares.
c) Reduce stressful work conditions for operators
Operators propounded various measures to reduce their stressful working conditions: creating two work
shifts, paying drivers a fixed salary with benefits, providing transportation from and to their homes, and
reducing the maximum number of runs per shift.
5.3.2 Crime
Suggestions to curve crime inside public transportation focused on police deployment and the installation
of surveillance systems.
a) Police
Drivers claimed that, currently, police presence is scarce and, thus, proposed that more police agents
should be deployed, but warn that their effectiveness should be improved.

26
b) Cameras
Operators explained that other measures like panic buttons have proven not to be effective and that
increasing the deployment of police agents is remote. Alternatively, some proposed the installation and
monitoring of surveillance cameras and argued they have proven to be a valuable deterrence tool.
6. PUBLIC TRANSPORT STAFF AND POLICE AGENTS
This section of the document summarizes the information elicited through focus groups with police agents
in which disorder and crime in public transportation was addressed. As mentioned before, it was
impossible to procure the participation of officials from the Viceministry of Transport.
Police officers recognized that Salvadoran public transportation is chaotic and associated this exclusively
with characteristics of bus operation. Discussions about disorder also revealed transit enforcement
shortcomings.
6.1.1 Bus operation
The competitive environment in which the system functions and the elevated level of discretion awarded
to operators, were identified by participants as underlying issues linked to disorder and incivilities in bus
operations.
a) Competitive environment
Police agents explained that buses are driven dangerously, constantly breaking transit laws and public
transportation regulations, and claimed that this is a main source of disorder. Officers mentioned that the
most common transgressions committed by drivers involve using mobile telephones while driving,
invading lanes, driving with open doors, using worn-out tires, speeding, driving with a suspended or
expired license, dangerous driving, not signaling, and disrespecting traffic signs. Participants also said that
accidents occur frequently in public transportation and cited running over pedestrians and collisions
against static and moving objects, as the most common circumstances.
Agents acknowledged that the inappropriate driving style of bus operators is incited by bus owners’
practices. Specifically, they contended that owners set goals for bus drivers and that, in turn, operators
race to comply with those standards. Participants also cited conditions are further complicated by other
factors that flood traffic, noting impractical bus stop designs, the operation of mototaxis, and saturation
of routes.
b) Operators’ discretion
Officers identified unauthorized bus stops, allowed by the ample discretion awarded to operators, as a
source of disorder in public transportation. Some agents explained that buses are forced to stop at
unofficial bus stops because they have to pick-up as much passengers as they can, to fulfill the goals set

27
forth by bus owners, and also because authorized bus stops are always full, on account of overwhelming
route saturation. However, most discussions about the topic assured that this issue has also a cultural
component, in that users have become to expect drivers to stop wherever they ask them to and, as a
result, seek to take the bus or disembark it as close they can to their point of origin or destination,
respectively.
One agent recognized bus personalization as a source of disorder. Particularly, he mentioned allowing the
bus driver to play his music at an excessive volume during bus runs.
6.1.2 Enforcement
Participants portrayed their interactions with bus operators as tense situations. Officers explained that
drivers work under stressful conditions and that enforcement complicates things further for them, as it
represents another problem they have to deal with during their job. Operators were said to react
aggressively when police stopped them and verbally attack agents and that this interactions ultimately
resulted in officers issuing transit infractions. Drivers ripping up their copies of tickets and mocking officers
by reminding them that they never pay fines because they get pardoned by authorities, was cited as a
common occurrence.
Consistent with this attitude, officers claimed that enforcement is curved by the political influence
possessed by the public transportation industry and the corruption of public officials by individual bus
owners and owners’ associations. Agents argued that bus owners call corrupt transit police commanders,
either directly or through a corrupt politician, to get out of tickets or to direct enforcement efforts
elsewhere. Participants also suggested that corrupt officials at the Vice-ministry of Public Transport issue
permits to unsuitable drivers. Additionally, officers assured that during electoral campaigns, politicians
arrange massive pardons for bus drivers and owners to secure their votes.
Focus group discussions about transit enforcement also depicted traffic laws as lenient with owners and
was said to concentrate only on operators. Agents explained the issue persist because owners only have
to change drivers if they become a problem and, thus, are not motivated to implement rigorous recruiting
and supervision mechanisms. Officers noted that enforcement is also negatively affected by scarce police
resources.
6.2 Types of crime in public transport
Police agents’ revealed important information about victimization patterns and incident response.
6.2.1 Victimization patterns
Officer accounts about bus crimes conveyed the most common types of offenses, victims, perpetrators,
weapons, targets, and modus operandi. Sexual transgressions were also briefly discussed.

28
a) Types of crimes
Agents cited robberies, thefts, and homicides as the most frequent crimes perpetrated in public
transportation. They also acknowledged that sexual transgressions were a widespread issue.
b) Victims
Officer descriptions of crimes inside the transport system included both male and female victims.
Nevertheless, they assured that women are targeted more frequently because they represent less of a
threat to offenders, a similar explanation as that provided by user and driver focus groups.
c) Perpetrators
Discussions differed regarding the importance of the physical appearance of perpetrators. Some
participants claimed that offenders are undistinguishable from other passengers, because they don’t
dress or look differently and, sometimes, even wear disguises to scope and approach targets
unsuspiciously. Other agents contended that perpetrators usually have shaved heads and wear gang-like
attire.
Similarly, part of the officers assured that most public transportation offenders belonged to gangs and
others suggested that gang members extort drivers and owners, but refrain from targeting users.
Participants described incidents in which common criminals pretended to be affiliated to gangs in an effort
to intimidate victims. Agents, on the other hand, coincided in that offenders are usually young males or
females.
d) Modus Operandi
Officers generally portrayed bus crimes as planned offenses committed by multiple perpetrators working
in coordination. Some agents assured that some offenders work alone and others, however, warned that
it might appear that some criminals work alone, but that they are in fact collaborating with unsuspicious
bystanders.
Participant accounts, similar to other focus groups, suggested that offenders select the location where
the bus is boarded, scope for potential targets, move in while transiting through an area that offers low
probabilities of being detected or after forcing the driver to deviate from his route, and, finally, exit at low
risk locations, carefully timing each step according to the chosen bus route run. Officers said perpetrators
sometimes pose as street vendors or performers, or use actual ones, to identify potential victims
unsuspectedly. Other offenders were said to stand up and demand money from all passengers using veiled
threats, and afterwards walk down aisles and collect cash from users.
e) Weapons
Handguns and knives were cited by participants as the most common weapons used by offenders.
Nevertheless, some of the incidents described by agents only involved physical intimidation.

29
f) Targets
Participants mentioned mobile phones, cash, and jewelry as the most prevalent targets sought by
offenders.
g) Sexual transgressions
Officers claimed that sexual transgressions against women are very common in public transportation.
Perpetrators, they argued, take advantage of overcrowding to touch and rub against female passengers.
Participants added that women rarely report incidents, because they do not know that the occurrence is
considered a crime or simply because the bureaucracy involved is overwhelming.
6.2.2 Responses to bus crimes
During discussions about bus crimes, police officers talked about elements that shape the drivers, users,
and police responses to crimes in public transportation.
a) Drivers and users
Focus groups portrayed opposing reactions to the commission of crimes for users and operators. Drivers
were said to seldom report offenses and, when they, it’s only if they were victims. Officers explained that
users, on the other hand, are willing to provide information about illicit activities, but only if they are kept
anonymous and avoid the bureaucracy that formally reporting crimes entails. Some agents claimed that
people are keen to make facial gestures from buses’ windows to patrol cars to report ongoing crimes or
call emergency numbers, tip lines, or the officers’ private mobile telephones to provide information.
However, participants complained that, when officers intervene and detain suspects, passengers are
reluctant to testify as victims or witnesses to crimes and, thus, perpetrators can’t be processed.
b) Police
Agents offered contradicting information about the institutional response of Salvadoran law enforcement
to bus crime. Some officers assured that there were centrally sanctioned operational initiatives that
exclusively target crimes committed in public transportation. They specifically mentioned the “Plan Bus”,
which was said to involve uniformed agents patrolling inside bus routes and at bus stops, and undercover
police officers travelling inside buses. Other participants explained that these plans were no longer being
implemented and that, currently, there was no uniform, centralized response initiative to reduce bus
crimes.
Nevertheless, focus groups briefly described various isolated efforts that involved coordinating foot patrol
deployments with bus owners or individually sending uniformed police officers to patrol dangerous bus
stops and buses. The new police CCTV network installed in the streets of San Salvador, was additionally
mentioned as a generic law enforcement measure that is being used to respond to bus crimes.
Agents’ accounts about training were also contradicting. Some officers claimed that, at some point of their
careers, they received training specifically to respond to bus incidents. Others argued that there is no
specific training or institutional protocol that guides their response to bus crimes.

30
Participants identified several issues that hamper their efforts to prevent and abate offenses inside buses.
Scarce police resources was the most cited. Officers contended that calls for service far exceed the
coverage that can be provided by the amount of agents and vehicles currently patrolling the streets. They
added that dispatching patrols to emergencies is further complicated by scarce and deficient
communications capabilities. The emergency 911 dispatcher system was depicted as unreliable and slow.
Furthermore, police response to bus crimes was said to be conditioned by officers’ fear of being detained
or otherwise sanctioned for intervening. Agents explained that there are many cases in which officers
respond to armed-suspect situations that result in perpetrators being justifiably injured or killed by the
police and the responding team is ultimately detained or penalized.
Participants also claimed that offenders take advantage of legal loopholes that allow them to victimize
bus users without punishment. This contention was illustrated by arguing that when offenders stand up
and demand money, but don’t overtly threaten with physical harm, they are not breaking any laws.
participants
Officers’ suggestions to improve order and reduce crime in public transport were relatively scarce.
6.3.1 Order
Agents’ proposals to improve order in public transportation were scant and concentrated on providing
training for users and drivers, submitting the current pool of drivers to a strict cleansing process to root-
out those unfitted for the job, reforming transit laws to increase penalties, and restructuring routes so
that not too many coincide and the adequate amount of buses circulate to meet public demands.
6.3.2 Crime
Officers’ suggestions to reduce crime in buses sought to enhance enforcement capabilities and powers.
Agents propounded that more resources should be given to the police to improve its response to crime.
Installing cameras inside buses and deploying more police was patrols were also proposed by participants.
Officers also called for legal reforms that award response teams more authority and power during
intervention procedures.

31
7. BUS OWNERS
The focus group discussions in which bus owners and company representatives participated provided a
different perspective towards the underlying issues that affect disorder and crime in public transportation
related to government practices.
7.1 Disorder and Incivilities
Owners acknowledged that order does not prevail in Salvadoran public transportation and mentioned
several of the elements identified by other focus groups as sources of disorder. During debates about
disorder, participants mentioned overcrowding, dangerous driving, poor cosmetic and mechanical bus
conditions, negative interpersonal interactions, and unreliable service. Nonetheless, in contrast with
previous discussions, these issues were ultimately attributed, in large part, to bad government practices,
which were said to adversely affect bus operations.
Proprietors’ interventions, overall, denoted little trust towards the government. Corruption among public
officials and the predominance of political interests over technical approaches, were cited as the factors
that fuel most the State’s negative responses and strategies, which were said to consequently erode the
quality of public transportation.
All focus groups blamed disorder on these issues, but discussions suggest that owners’ capabilities and
ensuing efforts to reduce disorder and incivilities vary substantially.
7.1.1 Prevalence of political interests
Owners argued that politics have put financial pressure on their operations and scoured the Government’s
regulating capabilities.
a) Financial pressure
Focus groups discussions suggested that the VMT is heavily influenced by the political interests of the
ruling party. Participants argued that the resulting measures adopted by their regulating authority, have
weakened their finances and, therefore, their capabilities to control disorder and incivilities within bus
operations. Owners assured repeatedly that their businesses have progressively become unprofitable and
justified that these asphyxiating circumstances did not allow them to generate the necessary resources to
provide proper maintenance for buses, repair mechanical and cosmetic issues promptly and adequately,
acquire newer vehicles, and appease the operators’ harsh working conditions.
Bus fare was the most common issue cited by owners. They explained that the Government keeps bus
fare low, far below the minimum suggested by various technical studies, to avoid weathering the electoral
and political onslaught that increasing it would entail. The optimal bus fares proposed by proprietors who
claimed to be quoting them out of research evaluations, diverged substantially from the current fare of
20 cents, ranging from 30 to 60 cents.

32
Participants argued, on the other hand, that the ruling political party intends to take over public
transportation through Alba Petroleos1
. Owners justified their concerns by claiming that high-ranking
party officials, who also serve as high-level executives at Alba Petroleos, are key partners at companies
involved with the operation of the State-sponsored Integrated Transport System for the Metropolitan
Area of San Salvador (SITRAMSS)2
. This supposed intention was said to be the motivation behind several
recent measures that have further limited the bus companies’ liquidity and profitability.
Focus groups suggested that the VMT favors a small group of bus owners and associations directed by
people close and loyal to the ruling party. Some owners proposed that the Government’s objective is to
reduce the number of bus owners through economic pressure and, thus, gradually award control of the
sector to people linked and trusted by the ruling party. In this context, proprietors added that, although
bus fare has been kept constant, government subsidies for bus drivers, which were said to be intended to
compensate low bus fares, have been cut and, moreover, not delivered since 2012.
Participants maintained that this political objective and the consequent official approach, have affected
communication and coordination between public transportation business people and the central
Government, limiting their ability to work together. They sustained that strategies, initiatives, and reforms
are not discussed through open and participatory venues, but in close and restricted meetings.
Furthermore, owners contended that public officials harass those who lay outside their circle of trust,
withdrawing bus route concessions and using other predatory measures that put economic pressure on
unwanted bus owners.
Focus groups discussions suggested that proprietors’ finances have also been more indirectly affected by
the ruling party’s political interests. Participants assured that the last Government administration
negotiated with gangs for political reasons, inadvertently empowering these criminal groups, which have
been extorting public transport for years. Owners noted that, since then, enforcement efforts against
gangs and extortions are weaker, and gangs are stronger and have gained more influence and control.
They also suggested that extortion is a grave problem that greatly affects public transportation.
Situations described by participants conveyed gangs’ rising power and territorial dominance as key
elements that affect the quality of bus services. Focus groups discussions revealed that gangs don’t allow
buses to enter certain neighborhoods and get to approve who is hired to operate buses that run through
their turfs. Drivers were also said to have formed alliances with gangs and jointly offer illegal
1
Alba Petroleos is an ample business conglomerate that functions as a public-private partnership, initially between
municipalities controlled by the ruling party, National Liberation Front Farabundo Martí (FMLN), and the foreign
company PDV Caribe, owned by the Venezuelan government. After being created in 2006, Alba Petroleos immediate
goal was to start supplying Venezuelan gasoline to Salvadorans, under the Bolivarian Alliance for the People of Our
America (ALBA), an initiative promoted by Hugo Chávez to rally political support among Latin American countries.
Since then, the company has grown and, consequently, ventured into different industries, including liquid gas, food,
medicines, transport, and energy. Its expansion has been flagged for alleged clientelism (read more).
2
More details about SIMTRAMSS can be found at the VMT website
http://www.vmt.gob.sv/index.php?option=com_phocadocumentation&view=sections&Itemid=179

PREVENTING PUBLIC TRANSPORT CRIME IN EL SALVADOR BACKGROUND PAPER 2:

PREVENTING PUBLIC TRANSPORT CRIME IN EL SALVADOR BACKGROUND PAPER 2:

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie PREVENTING PUBLIC TRANSPORT CRIME IN EL SALVADOR BACKGROUND PAPER 2:

Ähnlich wie PREVENTING PUBLIC TRANSPORT CRIME IN EL SALVADOR BACKGROUND PAPER 2: (20)

Mehr von FUSADES

Mehr von FUSADES (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

PREVENTING PUBLIC TRANSPORT CRIME IN EL SALVADOR BACKGROUND PAPER 2: