Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project (Comprehensive Gang Model) (OJJDP Model Program Guide)

Office of Justice Programs, Innovation - Partnerships – Safer Neighborhoods

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Serving Children, Families and Communities

PREVENTION

IMMEDIATE SANCTIONS

INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS

RESIDENTIAL

REENTRY

MPG HOME SEARCH HOME SEARCH ENTIRE PROGRAM DATABASE SEARCH USING RISK & PROTECTIVE FACTORS PROGRAM TYPES RATING SYSTEM REFERENCES NOMINATE PROGRAMS RELATED LINKS RESOURCES DMC-REDUCTION BEST PRACTICES DATABASE DSO BEST PRACTICES DATABASE

Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project (Comprehensive Gang Model)

Intervention:

The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project (GVRP) was a comprehensive, community-wide program designed to reduce serious violence in Chicago’s gang-ridden Little Village neighborhood. The main goal of the GVRP was to reduce the extremely high level of serious gang violence, first at the individual youth gang member level, and then at the aggregate (especially gang and community) level.

The foundation of the GVRP was the Comprehensive Gang Model (also known as the Comprehensive Community-Wide Gang Program Model, the Comprehensive Gang Prevention and Intervention Model, and the Spergel Model). The model assumes gang violence is a product of social disorganization and presumes gangs become chronic and serious problems in communities where key organizations are inadequately integrated and where there are insufficient resources to target gang-involved youth. To address these problems, the Comprehensive Gang Model calls for community institutions—including law enforcement, social welfare agencies, and grassroots organizations—to work together using a more integrated, team-oriented approach.

The model identifies five core elements (or strategies) communities should incorporate into their programs to achieve successful outcomes:

Community mobilization. Local citizens and organizations are involved in a common enterprise. The program should include local police officers, probation officers, community youth workers, church groups, boys and girls clubs, and several local residents who work as a team to understand gang structures and provide social intervention and social opportunities whenever possible.
Social intervention. The program should reach out to youths unable to connect with legitimate social institutions. A youth, the gang structure, and the environmental resources must be taken into account before the youth is provided with crisis counseling, family counseling, or referral to services such as drug treatment, jobs, training, educational programs, or recreation.
Provision of social opportunities. Youths at different points in their lives need different things. Older gang members may be ready to secure a legitimate job and need training and education to do so. Younger youths at risk of becoming gang members may need alternative schools or family counseling. The program should provide individualized services for each youth based on his or her needs.
Suppression. This not only consists of surveillance, arrest, probation, and imprisonment to stop violent behavior, but also involves greater communication between agency service providers and control providers. All providers jointly decide what happens to a youth when trouble arises or when it is about to.
Organizational change and development of local agencies and groups. All workers need to work closely with one another and collaborate. Former gang members working as community youth workers need to be given as much respect as police officers in the program. Each group can provide important information for the program that the other may not be able to obtain.

The Comprehensive Gang Model was originally developed in six sites throughout the country. From 1992 through 1995, the Chicago Police Department ran the GVRP in Little Village. In 1994, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention also launched a series of 4- and 5-year demonstration projects, testing the model in five different cities: Bloomington–Normal, Illinois; Mesa, Arizona; Tucson, Arizona; Riverside, California; and San Antonio, Texas.

The Little Village community, a 5 ½-square-mile area southwest of Chicago’s central business district, was selected because it was one of the most chronically violent gang areas in the city. At the time the GVRP was implemented, the community of 100,000 was 90 percent Mexican or Mexican American, and residents were primarily lower income and working class families. Two major gang constellations existed in the Little Village community: the Latin Kings and the Two-Six. From 1989 to 1992, members from these gangs accounted for 75 percent of all gang-motivated homicides, aggravated batteries, and aggravated assaults in Little Village. The Latin Kings were the more violent and criminal group, while the Two-Six engaged more in property offenses. Gang youth ages 17 to 24 were primarily targeted for services because they accounted for 70 percent of serious gang violence. The program later began to target youth ages 12 to 27.

The project involved a collaboration of personnel from numerous agencies, including two full-time tactical officers, a part-time neighborhood relations sergeant, and a part-time clerical officer from the Chicago Police Department; three full-time adult probation officers; a part-time staff community organizer; and four full-time community youth workers, including a field supervisor who worked under the direction of the project coordinator. Community youth workers were mainly former gang members from the area. An independent community group, the Neighbors Against Gang Violence, was also formed and became affiliated with the project.

Project team members were able to fulfill their organizational missions while targeting hard-core gang youth using a collaborative approach. For example, tactical officers provided information to other project members about gang incidents, and even referred gang members to community youth workers for services. On occasion, community youth workers provided information to police about youth involved in violent gang incidents. They also helped gang members meet probation appointments and requirements. Additionally, probation officers provided information about criminal activities. The community organizer served as a liaison between Little Village residents and the project team.

There was no formal system for referring gang members to the GVRP. Community youth workers in the two gang areas were the main source of program youth contact for inclusion in the program and referral to agency services. Other members of the team, particularly police, often confirmed the appropriateness of particular gang members to be targeted.

The GVRP focused on integrating the five components of the Comprehensive Gang Model. Targeted youth were provided with economic and social opportunities for employment and referrals to social interventions. Suppression efforts by project team members were also accomplished. Efforts to mobilize the community and encourage organizational change and development were not as successful.

The social interventions included a variety of services provided to gang members, such as remedial education, recreational activities (e.g., softball games involving both gangs), counseling in homes and on the streets, crisis counseling, and referral to drug treatment and mental health services. Community youth workers were responsible for reaching out, contacting, and providing a range of limited but intensive services to youth gang members.

Economic and social opportunities were provided through access to jobs and job training, as well as educational resources. At the time the GVRP was implemented, the effects of an expanding economy helped provide opportunities for targeted youth.

The suppression component (i.e., socialized suppression) was implemented through information gathering, gang member monitoring, and criminal activity arrests. Project team members worked collaboratively to implement this component of the model. For example, project police and probation officers were involved in a variety of social problem-solving and community-oriented gang prevention and control efforts, which increased their knowledge of gang problems and understanding of which youth to target for suppression. Community youth workers also functioned as control agents and service providers. There was constant communication among project team members about new and useful information on gang violence and targeted youth.

The GVRP encountered difficulties with the community mobilization as well as the organizational change and development components of the Comprehensive Gang Model. The project developed primarily at the project team level and remained largely independent; it was not integrated into larger agency operations. In addition, a broad-based steering committee was never formed, making the community mobilization process hard to achieve at the broader community level. There was a lack of leadership in the development of a community mobilized approach to the gang problem, and the process was only partially achieved at the grassroots level.

Evaluation Methodology:

Study 1
The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project (GVRP) was evaluated by Spergel and colleagues (2003) using a quasi-experimental design. The evaluation collected and analyzed data on 493 youths who were either program youths (195), quasi-program youths who received some services (90), or youths who were part of a comparison group that did not receive services (208). Service contact was the feature distinguishing the quasi-program from comparison youth. Evaluators discovered that some gang members who were selected to be part of the comparison group received some sort of service contact. These members became the quasi-program group.

In all the three samples, youth from two gangs, the Latin Kings and Two-Six, are similarly represented. There were no significant differences between the groups in demographic characteristics. The sample was almost entirely male, with no more than four females included in each group. The ethnicity of participants in the program, quasi-program, and comparison groups was predominately Latino, mainly Mexican American. Only 4.2 percent of the program group was of European origin, with no Asian or African American individuals. Only 2.3 percent of the quasi-program group was non-Latino, while the comparison group was 11.5 percent non-Latino. Age distribution was almost identical for all three groups. The average age was 17.98 years for program youth, 17.86 years for quasi-program youth, and 17.95 years for comparison youth.

Data collection included criminal history records and aggregate level police arrest data. Police arrests were aggregated into seven general categories: (1) total arrests; (2) arrests for serious violence offenses (homicide, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, and armed robbery); (3) arrests for all violence offenses (including misdemeanors), such as battery, simple assault, intimidation, and weapons possession; (4) arrests for property offenses; (5) arrests for drug offenses; (6) arrests for additional offenses that were characteristic of police suppression efforts, such as disorderly conduct, mob action, and unlawful assembly; and (7) arrests for other offenses—including status offenses but excluding probation and parole violations.

Levels of arrests were established for each category of arrests to control for regression effects. Changes in youths’ police arrest histories were compared between the 4 ½-year pre-program period (Time I) and the 4 ½-year program period (Time II). There were two different units of analysis: change in the level or frequency of arrest, and change in the number of youths who saw any improvement or deterioration in arrests, regardless of level of change. The data was analyzed using a general linear model statistical procedure (analysis of variance).

Community surveys were also conducted in Little Village and the comparison community of Pilsen to determine if the Little Village community perceived a change in the gang problem that could be associated with the GVRP. Data was collected from 195 residents and 114 organizations in the two communities at two interview periods, 2 years apart.

Evaluation Outcome:

Study 1
Overall, Spergel and colleagues (2003) found mixed results. The Gang Violence Reduction Project appeared to reduce arrests for violent crimes, serious violent crimes, and drug crimes, but did not have an effect on arrests for property crimes or total arrests.

Total Violence Arrests
The analysis showed significant differences between the three groups in total violence arrests between Time I and Time II. Program youth had a greater reduction of total arrests for violence compared to the comparison and quasi-program youth.

Serious Violence Arrests
The analysis showed significant differences between the three groups in serious violence arrests between Time I and Time II. Program youth exhibited a larger reduction in arrests for serious violence than the comparison or quasi-program youth.

Drug Crime Arrests
Between Time I and Time II, there was a statistically significant decrease for program youth compared to the comparison youth in terms of arrests for drug crimes. In fact, there was an increase in drug arrests for the comparison and quasi-program sample.

Property Crime Arrests
The reduction in arrests for property crimes between Time I and Time II was greatest for the quasi-program group, while reductions were almost identical for the program and comparison groups. However, the difference between the groups was not statistically significant.

Total Arrests
There were increases in total arrests between Time I and Time II for all three groups, but there was no statistical difference between the groups.

Perceptions of Gang-Motivated Violence
Residents in Little Village and Pilsen (the comparison community) were asked about their perception of the change in gang-motivated violence. At Time I, 78.1 percent of Little Village residents believed there was a lot of gang-motivated violence in the community, and 77.8 percent of Pilsen residents thought the same. At Time II, 60.4 percent of Little Village residents believed there was a lot of gang-motivated violence in the community, compared to 65.6 percent of Pilsen residents. Although there were declines in both communities, the reduction was greater and statistically significant for Little Village residents.

Other Information:

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention provides training and technical assistance on the Comprehensive Gang Model. Information is available on the National Gang Center (NGC) Web site: http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Comprehensive-Gang-Model/Training-and-Technical-Assistance.

Training and technical assistance are conducted via phone, email consultation, and on-site consultation visits by NGC staff, peer trainers, and subject-matter experts. Training and technical assistance topics on implementing strategies associated with the Comprehensive Gang Model include:

Comprehensive Gang Model overview
Planning and conducting an assessment of community’s gang problem
Establishing and maintaining a Steering Committee
Developing an implementation plan
Project Director training
Outreach worker training

References:

Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. 1999. “Reducing Youth Gang Violence in Urban Areas: One Community’s Effort.” On Good Authority 2(5):1–4.

———. 2000. “Outcomes of the Gang Violence Reduction Project.” On Good Authority 4(3):1–4.

(OJJDP) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 2010. Best Practices to Address Community Gang Problems: OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model. Second Edition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Spergel, Irving A., and Susan F. Grossman. 1997. “The Little Village Project: A Community Approach to the Gang Problem.” Social Work 42:456–70.

Spergel, Irving A., K.W. Wa, S.E. Choi, Susan F. Grossman, A. Jacob, A. Spergel, and E.M. Barrios. 2003. Evaluation of the Gang Violence Reduction Project in Little Village: Final Report Summary. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration.

Spergel, Irving A., K.W. Wa, and R.V. Sosa. 2005a. Evaluation of the Bloomington–Normal Comprehensive Communitywide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Program: Final Report Summary. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration.

———. 2005b. Evaluation of the Mesa Gang Intervention Program: Final Report Summary. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration.

———. 2005c. Evaluation of the Riverside Comprehensive Communitywide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Program: Final Report Summary. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration.

———. 2005d. Evaluation of the San Antonio Comprehensive Communitywide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Program: Final Report Summary. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration.

———. 2005e. Evaluation of the Tucson Comprehensive Communitywide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Program: Final Report Summary. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration.

Program Specification:

New Rating:

Promising

Re-reviewed Date:

October 2012

Program Type:

Community Awareness / Mobilization

Conflict Resolution / Interpersonal Skills

Gang Prevention

Probation Services

Vocational/Job Training

Ethnicity:

Hispanic or Latino (of any race)

White

Gender:

Both

Age:

12 - 24

Target Settings:

Urban

Problem Behaviors:

Aggression/Violence

Alcohol,Tobacco and Other Drug Use

Gang Activity

Risk & Protective Factors:

Risk

Community

Availability of firearms

Community crime / High crime neighborhood

Community instability

Economic deprivation / Poverty / Residence in a disadvantaged neighborhood

Social and physical disorder / Disorganized neighborhood

Individual

Antisocial behavior and alienation / Delinquent beliefs / General delinquency involvement / Drug dealing

Early onset of aggression and/or violence

Victimization and exposure to violence

Peer

Gang involvement / Gang membership

Peer alcohol, tobacco, and/or other drug use

Protective

Community

Presence and involvement of caring, supportive adults in the community

Safe environment / Low neighborhood crime

Individual

Healthy / Conventional beliefs and clear standards

Positive / Resilient temperament

Positive expectations / Optimism for the future

Peer

Involvement with positive peer group activities

Additional Information:

NIJ: What Works

Status:

Program is NOT in operation at this time.

Performance Measures:

Suggested OJJDP Performance Measures for the Program Types(s):

Gangs
Gang Prevention
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
Probation
Probation Services
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF

Vocational/Job Training
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF

Contact Information:

Training & TA Provider:
National Gang Center
Institute for Intergovernmental Research
P.O. Box 12729
Tallahassee , FL 32317
Phone: 850.385.0600
Fax: 850.386.5356
Email: Click Here
Website: Click Here