The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project in Chicago

cars. The judge accepted the recommendation. The youth was returned to complete the rest ofhis six-month probation at a state correctional institution. The youth worker visited him severaltimes in the institution, and helped him complete his preparation for a GED. When the youthwas released, he no longer hung out with the gang in the community.Such collaboration occurred despite different views by the various team members aboutthe reasons gangs and gang members did what they did, and preferences about how to control orhelp them. For example, youth workers tended to believe that gang members were personally“messed up;” their activities were unpredictable and they needed help. Police and probationbelieved that certain gang members were simply “cold killers” and as much information aspossible about the youth and his activities had to be accumulated in order to put him away.Youth workers believed that while accumulation of information about the youth was important,the most important factor in preventing or curtailing the youth’s potential for gang crime was thedevelopment of a positive relationship with the youth, and counseling and mainstreaming theyouth through more effective school and job experiences.The different types of workers could be frustrated with the Project approach. The tacticalpolice officers complained at one point that some of their positive efforts towards gang youthwere not successful. Some of the gang youth, even after they were referred to youth workers andindirectly helped to obtain jobs, were still on the streets. Jobs did not necessarily keep “gangbangers” away from the streets. The jobs simply meant that the youth had more money to buyguns or bullets. Project police began deciding to lock up Project gang youth, but thencomplained that gang members who became too friendly to them were “getting an attitude.”Youth workers and NAGV members were somewhat competitive. They often worked4.17