13.07.2015 Views

The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project in Chicago

The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project in Chicago

The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project in Chicago

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Similar sharp decl<strong>in</strong>es <strong>in</strong> frequencies and categories of various types of offenses occurred for theLat<strong>in</strong> K<strong>in</strong>gs and Two Six. <strong>The</strong> reductions were statistically significant for all types of selfreportedoffenses <strong>in</strong> both gangs, except for drug sell<strong>in</strong>g, which decl<strong>in</strong>ed, but aga<strong>in</strong> not tostatistical significance. <strong>The</strong> percentages of decl<strong>in</strong>e for the Lat<strong>in</strong> K<strong>in</strong>gs and Two Six weresimilar, with a slightly greater reduction for the Lat<strong>in</strong> K<strong>in</strong>gs (Table 10.2).Similar patterns <strong>in</strong> the reduction of arrests for the different offenses for each of the gangswere reported, with greater statistically significant reductions for the Lat<strong>in</strong> K<strong>in</strong>gs than for theTwo Six. For all types of self-reported offenses and arrests, the Lat<strong>in</strong> K<strong>in</strong>gs appear to have beenmore del<strong>in</strong>quent than the Two Six. Some of these differences, we shall see later, wereattributable to the differences <strong>in</strong> the average age of the Lat<strong>in</strong> K<strong>in</strong>gs, who were older and,perhaps, ag<strong>in</strong>g out of crim<strong>in</strong>al behavior more rapidly. We control for age differences <strong>in</strong> themultivariate analyses (below).Cohort. It is difficult to compare the three youth Cohorts because of variations <strong>in</strong> the sizeof each Cohort, and <strong>in</strong> the youth-age distribution with<strong>in</strong> each Cohort. <strong>The</strong> first Cohort conta<strong>in</strong>edmore than twice the number of youth than <strong>in</strong> either the second or third Cohorts. Cohort I youthtended to be a little older and were <strong>in</strong> the program for a longer period. Cohort III youth wereyounger, with the least program exposure. In general, all of the Cohorts reported decl<strong>in</strong>es <strong>in</strong>offenses and arrests over time. <strong>The</strong> level of decl<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> self-reported offenses and arrests isstatistically greater for the first Cohort than for the other two Cohorts. <strong>The</strong>re were two m<strong>in</strong>orexceptions to the reduction of offense and arrest patterns across the Cohorts. Cohort II showed aslight <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> drug sell<strong>in</strong>g at Time III, and property arrests were unchanged for Cohort II (butthey were already at zero at Time I and rema<strong>in</strong>ed at zero for Time III) (Table 10.3).10.5

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!