13.07.2015 Views

The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project in Chicago

The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project in Chicago

The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project in Chicago

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>in</strong> both communities knew probation officers at Time I – 14.4%, as opposed to 37.0% at Time II.This change between time periods was statistically significant (Chisquare = 14.720, df = 1, p #0.001). <strong>The</strong> overall <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> knowledge of probation officers at Time II was attributableentirely to <strong>Little</strong> <strong>Village</strong> responses. At Time I, only 14.3% knew a probation officer; at Time IIit was 50%. <strong>The</strong> change was highly statistically significant (Chisquare = 15.944, df = 1, p #0.001), and this could have been related to the fact that Adult Probation was not only part of the<strong>Gang</strong> <strong>Violence</strong> <strong>Reduction</strong> <strong>Project</strong> but physically situated <strong>in</strong> <strong>Little</strong> <strong>Village</strong>.Respondents were also asked about types of <strong>in</strong>tervention and counsel<strong>in</strong>g supplied byProbation (Table 16.17). 8At Time I, only 12.5% <strong>in</strong> <strong>Little</strong> <strong>Village</strong> thought that probation officersdid a good job supervis<strong>in</strong>g probationers, compared to 35.7% at Time II (Chisquare = 7.43, df =1, p # 0.01). At Time II, more <strong>Little</strong> <strong>Village</strong> than Pilsen respondents felt that probation officershelped with drug-use problems, personal problems, school problems, and assisted with f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g ajob. In all areas, particularly job assistance, <strong>in</strong>creases were greater <strong>in</strong> the proportion of <strong>Little</strong><strong>Village</strong> respondents compared to Pilsen respondents who saw positive change that wasstatistically significant. After 2½ years of <strong>Project</strong> operation, <strong>Little</strong> <strong>Village</strong> organizationrespondents were more positive <strong>in</strong> their view of Probation than were the Pilsen respondents.Few significant changes occurred between time periods when respondents <strong>in</strong> bothcommunities were asked: “What do you th<strong>in</strong>k should be done about the gang problem?” <strong>The</strong>ycould give up to five answers, rank<strong>in</strong>g them <strong>in</strong> order of importance. Better police and lawenforcement, better parent<strong>in</strong>g, and stricter laws and punishment were the most frequent answers,8 For purposes of analysis, respondents who answered “no” when asked whether they knew a probationofficer were then recorded as answer<strong>in</strong>g “no” to the subsequent questions regard<strong>in</strong>g types of <strong>in</strong>tervention andcounsel<strong>in</strong>g.16.29

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!