The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project in Chicago

program period and the co-relative offense dependent variables differ in each of the models.We note that the length of detention/incarceration had significant effects on thedependent variables (arrest change), but the direction during the program period tended to bepositive, while it tended to be negative in the pre-program period. In other words, most youthwho increased their number of arrests, regardless of type of arrest, had relatively short stays inconfinement in the pre-program period, but considerably longer stays at in the program period.This was particularly true for violence arrests. In general, length of time in confinement did nothave a differential effect on the program, comparison, and quasi-program youth samples.We describe the findings of the seven models in the pre-program period in some detail,i.e., mean arrests for the total of all three samples, for the three samples separately, for the threeage categories separately, and, finally, for the samples by age categories. The specific numbersof program, quasi-program and comparison youth by levels of arrests and types of offenses in thepre-program period, for each of the model analyses below, is described in Table 11.2.Again, in the analyses that follow we refer to the pre-program period as Time I, and theprogram period as Time II.Model I: Total Arrest DifferencesIn the first model, the level of total arrests at Time I, the age category of the youth atTime I, and time in secure confinement (especially at Time II) are each highly significant (p =0.001) in explaining variance in the dependent variable, difference in total arrests between TimeI and Time II. Level of detention and/or incarceration at Time I and the interaction of the agecategory and the particular sample are also statistically significant, respectively at p = 0.018 and11.7