The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project in Chicago

(p = 0.032), but a positive relationship with a girlfriend/wife at Time III predicts an increase inarrests for violence (p = 0.001). We also observe that the variable that indicates influence of theProject is not in this model. The Project’s comprehensive orientation to both social interventionand suppression may be more important in influencing the reduction of serious violence arreststhan less-serious violence arrests. The fourteen-variable model predicts 61% of variation (Table12.4).Drug ArrestsThe model for drug arrests is different from the previous three models. Several of thevariables that enter the equation are the same, but predict in an opposite direction. Several newvariables are in the model. The majority of variables are derived from Time I interview data.Two variables strongly predict increased levels of drug arrests: the perceived larger scope ofgang crime in the neighborhood at Time I (p = 0.001) and possession of a GED or high schoolequivalency certificate at Time I (p = 0.001). Three variables strongly predict lower levels ofdrug arrests: the number of household members currently in jail at Time I (p = 0.001), whetherthe youth has a job at Time III (p = 0.001) and whether he plans to marry at Time III (p = 0.001).The youth employed at Time I (p = 0.003) is a further inducement to reduced levels of drugarrests (p = 0.003). Also, the more household members employed (p = 0.003) predicts lowerlevels of arrests for drug crimes. On the other hand, a series of variables predicts increasedlevels of arrests for drug crime: satisfaction with conditions in the community (p = 0.010), thesmaller the size of the gang section (perhaps now more focused on drug dealing) (p = 0.010), thelarger number of members of his household (p = 0.002) and surprisingly, the fact that he has12.13