The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project in Chicago

of the specific types of services provided by the Project youth workers in reducing patterns ofarrests for the different types of program youth.In this analysis, we use data from the larger worker-tracking-record subsample of youth(n = 154) (for whom we also have police arrest data), rather than from the smaller debriefinginterviewsubsample of youth (n = 65). Using summary worker-tracking data provides arepresentative sample of program youth and youth-worker efforts. The tracking data werecollected at three points in time during the entire Project period, although with less narrativedetail than the debriefing data. However, we must eliminate 26 of the 154 youth in the workertrackingsample since they have no violence or drug arrests (although they self-reported a varietyof offenses, including violence and drugs – usually at a lower level of frequency than arrestedyouth). This leaves us with a sample of 128 youth from the two targeted groups in Little Village– Latin Kings (n = 60) and Two Six (n = 68) – for whom we have both arrest and programservicedata.Success and Failure Rates of Program YouthBefore we present our Logistic Regression models of the odds of success to failure ofdifferent types of gang youth in reducing their arrests in response to specific program servicesand strategies, we provide summary findings on the success and failure rates of all youth(including program, comparison and quasi-program youth: N = 410) in lowering arrests –without examining the effects of specific services provided. We apply multivariate controls forthe youth’s age, gang-affiliation and arrestee typology, but not pre-program arrests, since oursample size is too small to accommodate all of our control variables and we already know that14.3