The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project in Chicago

frequently mentioned problem was general crime and safety (51.8%): Little Village, (53.2%) andPilsen (41.2%). Drugs and lack of services was the third set of problems most frequentlymentioned, Little Village (31.3% and 28.1%, respectively) and Pilsen (26.8% and 27.8%,respectively). These problems again were mentioned more often than the economy,unemployment, ineffective parenting, alcohol, poor education, or housing (see Chapter 17).Community efforts in Little Village and other high gang-crime communities to addressthe problem were limited. Marches, testimonials and community meetings typically wereusually sporadic, one-time affairs. Patrols of local residents formed to protect youth on the wayto and from school, as well as citizen efforts to aid police to detect or control gang activities,were short lived. Police occasionally instructed parents on how to determine whether their sonwas a gang member. Police sweeps, restrictive laws, or severe penalties for gang offenders wereusually called for by local citizens as a last resort.Beginning the Organizing ProcessThe priority Project objective at the start had to be the creation of a street-level team tocontrol and provide services to target gang youth in Little Village. The second objective wouldthen be community involvement. How these two strategies were to be interrelated was not clear.The immediate community-organizing related activity was meeting with local communityagencies, particularly around the need for jobs expressed by gang youth. The Projectadministrative staff spent a great deal of time contacting local employers as well as city agencies,colleges, unions, and youth agencies to inquire about access to training and jobs for programyouth. Suburban Job Link, Inc., a relatively new agency in Little Village, happened to be7.10