The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project in Chicago

when the outcome variable was changes in total arrests. None of the types of tracking groupsdid better than the other in respect to changes in total arrests, although the youth in the 0-trackedgroup reduced their frequency of total arrests while the 1-time and 2-or-more-times trackedgroups increased their frequency of total arrests. Only age group (p = 0.005) and pre-programarrests (p = 0.001) were significant predictors. The model accounted for 49% of total variance.However, when the dependent variable was serious violence arrests, the tracking variablewas significant (p = 0.042), as was pre-program arrests for serious violence (p = 0.001). Wecould not estimate a change score for the 0-tracked group, but the 2-or-more-times tracked groupshowed a significantly greater reduction in level of serious violence arrests compared to the 1-time tracked group (p = 0.015). The highest violence arrest subgroup in the 2-or-more-timestracked group also did significantly better than the comparable subgroup in the 1-time trackedgroup (p = 0.013). This model accounted for 56% of total variance.The pattern of results was similar in the next model, when the dependent variable waschanges in total violence arrests. Only pre-program arrests for total violence was a significantpredictor (p = 0.001). All age groups showed declines in total violence arrests, as did all of thethree levels of tracking groups. There were also no significant differences by particularsubgroup based on the pre-program arrest levels of violent offenders. The model accounted for56% of variance.There were interesting differences in the effects of the three levels of tracking onproperty arrests during the program period, particularly between the 0-tracked and the 1-timetracked and 2-or-more-times tracked groups. All variables, except the interaction term age andtracking group, were significant in the model. The most significant factors were age (p = 0.001)12.5