1. Opportunities Provision For Preventing Youth Gang Involvement for Children and Young People (7-16) Presented by Lizbeth Velazquez

2. Systematic Review
Fisher H, Montgomery P, Gardner F. Opportunities Provision for preventing youth gang involvement for children and young people (7-16). Campbell Systematic Reviews 2008:8
DOI: /csr
Co-registered within both the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations.

3. Support/Funding
Centre for Evidence Based Intervention, University of Oxford, United Kingdom
The Nordic Campbell Center, Danish International Institute of Social Research Denmark
Supported by the Nordic Campbell Center. The review authors have no known conflicts of interest.

4. The Campbell Collaboration (C2)
Founded on the principle that systematic reviews on the effects of interventions will inform and help improve policy and services.
Offers editorial and methodological support to review authors throughout the process of producing a systematic review.
Areas include: Crime and Justice, Education, Social Welfare, and Methods

5. Synopsis
Research has shown: youth who join gangs are more likely to be involved in delinquency and crime, particularly serious and violent offences, compared to non-gang youth and non-gang delinquent youth.
Opportunities provision: commonly used gang prevention strategy based on anomie and strain theories and the belief that giving youth educational and employment opportunities such as tutoring or job training and placement, will reduce gang involvement.

6. Objectives/Search Strategy
To determine the effectiveness of opportunities provision for preventing youth gang involvement for children and young people aged 7 to16.
Electronic searches: ASSIA, CINAHL, CJA, Cochrane Library, Dissertations Abstracts, EMBASE, ERIC, IBSS, LILACs, LexisNexis Butterworths, MEDLINE, NCJR Service Abstracts Database, PsycINFO, and Sociological Abstracts, to April Reviewers contacted relevant organisations, individuals and list-servs and searched pertinent websites and reference lists.

7. Selection Criteria
All randomised controlled trials or quasi- randomised controlled trials of interventions that have opportunities provision as the majority component, delivered to children and youths aged 7 to 16 not involved in a gang, compared to any other or no intervention.

8. Data collection & Analysis
Searches yielded 2,696 unduplicated citations.
2,676 excluded based on title and abstract
2 excluded based on personal communication with study authors
Full-text reports for 18 citations were retrieved
16 excluded since they were not evaluations, did not address a gang intervention programme, did not include gang-related outcomes, did not include opportunities provision intervention components, or presented preliminary findings for outcomes reported in another citation.
Remaining 2 reports were at least partially relevant to opportunities provision for gang prevention, but methodological flaws excluded both from analysis.

9. Main Results/Conclusions
No randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised controlled trials were identified
No evidence from the above currently exists regarding the effectiveness of opportunities provision for gang prevention.
Only 2 studies addressed O.P.- a case study and a qualitative study, both of which had such substantial methodological limitations that even speculative conclusions as to the impact of O.P. were impossible.
Rigorous primary evaluations of gang prevention strategies are crucial to develop this research field, justify funding of existing interventions, and guide future gang prevention programmes and policies.

12. Inclusion Criteria- If yielded results
Type of studies: allocation to group was by random or quasi-random
Types of participants: Children and young people aged who were not involved in a gang
Types of interventions: O.P., programmes combining O.P. w/ other interventions, primary control intervention= no intervention
Types of outcome measures:
Primary outcomes:
1) Gang membership status (dichotomous) and
2) Gang-related delinquent behaviour and criminal offences, including homicide, assault, robbery, burglary, and drug trafficking (objective measures such as arrest and subjective measures such as self-report were acceptable).

13. Inclusion Criteria Cont.
Secondary Outcomes:
1) Employment status for youth 16 and older at outcome measurement
2) School-reported truancy
3) Achievement of scholastic benchmarks for youth 18 and under at outcome measurement
4) Delinquent behaviour and criminal offences external to gang activities or committed by an individual not involved in a gang
5) Association with delinquent peers (measured thorough a delinquency peer scale- dichotomous)
6) Objective and subjective measures of illegal drug abuse
7) Hospitalisation or injury due to: gang-related activities, or delinquent activities as determined by self-report or hospital record
8) Firearm possession (both conviction and self-report)

14. Inclusion Criteria Cont.
Instruments: self-report or official records such as school, police, probation, or court data- when applicable self and other reported outcome measures would have been analysed separately due to possible divergence, but would not have been ranked in terms of reliability (Dishion, 2005).
When available: behavioural and attitudinal measures of problem behaviour and related constructs, such as those in the National Evaluation of GREAT student Questionnaire (Esbensen, 1999) would have been included.
Outcomes had to be reported in quantitative terms and include end point (post-intervention) data for both experimental and control groups.
Outcome intervals: post-intervention after short-term f/u up to 6 mos, after a medium-term f/u up to 18 mos, after long-term f/u period up to 5 yrs, as data were available, to assess the durability of the intervention.

15. Reviewers’ Conclusions
Implications for Practice:
Complete lack of evidence from randomised controlled trials, queai- randomised controlled trials, or excluded studies, found by this extremely sensitive search of all available literature makes it very difficult to advise practitioners as to future intervention and policy efforts.
Potential recommendation for practitioners is to demand rigorous evaluations of gang prevention programmes that include O.P. components, evaluations that can guide future funding and intervention profiles.

16. Reviewers’ Conclusions Cont.
Implications for Research:
Paucity of good quality research regarding gang prevention programmes and specifically gang prevention programmes based on O.P. must be addressed.
Review only found 2 excluded studies with considerable methodological flaws= insufficient international commitment to delinquent youth, gangs, and good quality social research.
Research void must be remedied to ensure responsible funding choices and succeed in reducing youth gang involvement and the associated crime and delinquency

17. Liz’s Thoughts and Future Research
Latina Gang Culture
CROSS program in Ogden