Opportunities provision for preventing youth gang involvement for children and young people (7‐16)

. 2008 Apr 16;2008(2):CD007002. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007002.pub2

Study	Reason for exclusion
Simun 1996	Allocation: Not randomised; no comparison group.   Participants: High‐risk students in six Los Angeles, California (USA) schools; ages 9‐13.   Intervention: Project Support; opportunities provision (tutoring and mentoring in computer labs) was one out of 9 intervention strategies‐‐not the majority intervention component based on intensity and duration.  Reported results: Small, non‐significant gains in all student attitudes after receiving intervention; across the six school, 15% decrease in crimes against persons, 43.5% decrease in property crimes.  Methodological limitations: No comparison group prevents assessment of potential effects on outcome measures from factors other than the intervention, i.e. sample maturation or changing local crime levels.
Weisfeld 1982	Allocation: Not randomised; qualitative case study.   Participants: one individual, a previous street gang leader.  Intervention: None administered.  Reported results: Participant endorses economic or differential opportunity model of crime causation and believes that many youth attracted to gang and criminal involvement because the advantages of legitimate work are not apparent to them.   Methodological limitations: No presentation of data (quotations; testimony) to support authors' reported results; no discussion of data collection and analysis methods; no reflexivity regarding possible impact of authors' previous relationship with participant.

Study

Reason for exclusion

Simun 1996

Allocation: Not randomised; no comparison group.   Participants: High‐risk students in six Los Angeles, California (USA) schools; ages 9‐13.   Intervention: Project Support; opportunities provision (tutoring and mentoring in computer labs) was one out of 9 intervention strategies‐‐not the majority intervention component based on intensity and duration.  Reported results: Small, non‐significant gains in all student attitudes after receiving intervention; across the six school, 15% decrease in crimes against persons, 43.5% decrease in property crimes.  Methodological limitations: No comparison group prevents assessment of potential effects on outcome measures from factors other than the intervention, i.e. sample maturation or changing local crime levels.

Weisfeld 1982

Allocation: Not randomised; qualitative case study.   Participants: one individual, a previous street gang leader.  Intervention: None administered.  Reported results: Participant endorses economic or differential opportunity model of crime causation and believes that many youth attracted to gang and criminal involvement because the advantages of legitimate work are not apparent to them.   Methodological limitations: No presentation of data (quotations; testimony) to support authors' reported results; no discussion of data collection and analysis methods; no reflexivity regarding possible impact of authors' previous relationship with participant.