The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project in Chicago

activities were. Most organizations in both communities considered education to be one of theirprimary services (47.3% at Time I; 46.3% at Time II). Other predominant activities werebusiness and social services (e.g., food and clothing, counseling, and recreation). The onlysignificant difference between communities was that Little Village organizations were muchmore involved in community enhancement (e.g., cleaning the neighborhood, painting overgraffiti) at both Time I and Time II.Data Analysis. The analysis of organization respondents examines differences only betweenLittle Village and Pilsen, since organizations and agencies are not clearly related to, or focusedon, one gang territory rather than another. We did not systematically compare organization andresident responses within or across communities. In general, the perceptions and experiencesreported by organization respondents (particularly about the gang problem) were similar to thoseof residents within the communities, only more shallow, i.e., with less variation within or acrosstime periods.We asked the organization representatives in Little Village and Pilsen the same questionsrelating to community and gang crime changes we asked the resident respondents.Organizations in each community were concerned with, and generally addressed, the problemsand needs of each community as a whole. There was little formal reference to, or identificationwith, the interests of specific gang territories, either in Little Village or Pilsen. Nevertheless,organizations located deep within one gang territory were likely to be dealing most often withresidents and gang members from that territory, rather than from another territory. In thefollowing analysis, we address differences between Little Village and Pilsen organizations which16.21