The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project in Chicago

followed by improved schools, increased job opportunities, and better community coordination.The only significant change was that fewer respondents at Time II listed recreational activitiesas a way to reduce the gang problem: at Time I, 43.8% of the total sample (n = 112) said thatmore activities were needed, compared to 29.5% at Time II (n = 105) (Chisquare = 4.712, df = 1,p # 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences when comparing Little Village toPilsen.Experience with the Gang Violence Reduction Project. Little Village organizationrespondents were asked the same questions as the resident respondents regarding theirknowledge of and/or experiences with the GVRP. 9A larger proportion (46.4%) of Little Villageorganization representatives had heard of the Project, compared to resident respondents.However, of the organization respondents familiar with the Project (n = 56), 33.9%thought only youth workers, 32.1% thought only police, and 23.2% thought only Probationofficers were involved in the Project; only 25.0% of the respondents knew Project staffmembers; 17.6% said they collaborated with the Project; and 16.1% believed that the Project hadaccomplished its objectives. The Little Village organization respondents also identified the areasin which the Project could most improve: providing more feedback to the neighborhood,expanding Project services, and providing more street workers.SummaryIn determining the general impact of the Project, we were interested not only in changesin self-reported behavior and arrest patterns of individual program youth and changes in9 Pilsen respondents were not asked questions concerning GVRP.16.30