The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project in Chicago

generally conducted in local churches, libraries, fast-food restaurants, parks, recreation centers,the backs of cars, and in the homes of program youth themselves.The key data-collection problem was finding and reinterviewing program youth at TimesII and III. Youth interviewed were sometimes on the run from police, or in jail or prison; threeyouth joined the armed forces, one program youth was killed during the program period, andseveral of the youth left either temporarily or for long periods to reside in other places in Illinois,Minnesota, Florida, Texas, and Mexico. Time II and Time III interviews were sometimesconducted by long distance telephone.Youth were located for reinterviews using information provided through a network ofgang peers, family, community youth workers, and other members of the Project team. Thereinterview rate at Time III for those interviewed at Time I was 65.5%, – relatively high,considering the nature of the hardcore gang population, their mobility in and out of theneighborhood, and the violence reduction purpose of the program. Inability to locate programyouth, rather than any resistance to being reinterviewed, was the major reason for failure toobtain additional interviews after Time I.The Gang Member Survey SampleThe sample of program youth used in this analysis included 127 youth who wereinterviewed all three times (at Times I, II, and III) and the few who were interviewed only twice(at Times I and III). 1 The Latin King youth were a year older (18.4 years) than the Two Sixyouth (17.4 years) at program entry. Almost all of the youth were of Mexican-American origin.III.1 Some youth (n = 12) who were not reinterviewed at Time II were later located and reinterviewed at Time8.6