The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project in Chicago

District with the lowest increase in gang homicides – 30.0% – was Pilsen. However, in thethree-year comparison, the Little Village gang homicide rate increased by 6.9%, but the increasein Pilsen was 53.3%.In the case of aggravated batteries with a handgun or other firearm, which account formost of the serious gang violence, Little Village had the third lowest rate of increase across timeperiods (Table 15.3). Pilsen had the lowest rate of increase of all the areas. This is in contrast tothe ranking in the third year of the program, when Little Village had the lowest increase inaggravated batteries and Pilsen ranked third.The target area maintained the lowest percentage of increase in aggravated assaults witha handgun or other firearm (Table 15.4) over the five-year program period. The rate of increase– 39.5% – was considerably lower than all other comparison areas except District 9, which alsoshowed a relatively small increase in aggravated assaults. In the three-year analysis, LittleVillage actually showed no increase in aggravated assaults.Gang Drug Arrests. Table 15.5 looks at drug arrests for the seven Districts across thetwo time periods. All districts underwent very large increases in drug arrests over the five-yearprogram period. The increases were substantial both in terms of absolute numbers and relativechange. Four of the seven Districts, including Little Village, experienced an increase of over600.0%. Gang drug arrest activity at the aggregated level did not abate in District 10. However,we note that, based on individual-level arrest data for targeted youth in the program, there was infact a reduction in arrests for drug crimes, while there was an increase in drug arrests for thecomparison youth. Program effects at the individual level did not necessarily translate into areaeffects, at least in terms of drug arrests.15.8