The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project in Chicago

esponse to the worker’s school contacts (Table 14.2). Again, we are comparing the success-tofailureratios in reducing only violence arrests between the violence and drug arrestees and theviolence/no-drug arrestees.For change in drug arrests, the worker’s school contacts were associated with a 94%greater odds ratio of success to failure, particularly for older youth compared to younger youth(odds ratio = 1.48). Two Six drug/no-violence arrestees had a higher ratio of success to failure(odds ratio = 1.24) compared to the Latin Kings (Table 14.3). However, the violence and drugarrestees still had a 45% better ratio of success to failure than the drug/no-violence arrestees inreducing their levels of drug arrests. Again, we are comparing the success-to-failure ratios inreducing only drug arrests between the violence and drug arrestees and the drug/no-violencearrestees.“Very Effective” Job Contacts/ReferralsIn contrast to the general failure of worker efforts at helping youth with school problems,worker efforts at helping youth with jobs resulted in higher ratios of success to failure for theyouth. The majority of youth in the program were 17 years of age and older, and were far moreinterested in jobs than in school achievement. However, the success-to-failure ratios of youthreducing levels of violence arrests, drug arrests, or combined violence and drug arrests, varied bythe type of arrestee who was provided with job services.For change in violence arrests, the worker’s job efforts were associated with a greaterodds ratio of success to failure (2.6 times greater). The difference was almost statisticallysignificant (p. = 0.07). In particular, the older age group compared to the younger age group14.8