A Systematic Review of Sport for Development Interventions Across Six Global Cities

(1)

Otterbein University

Digital Commons @ Otterbein

Health and Sport Sciences Faculty Scholarship

Health and Sport Sciences

6-18-2018

A systematic review of sport for development interventions

across six global cities

Megan Chawansky Dr.

Otterbein University

Follow this and additional works at:

https://digitalcommons.otterbein.edu/hsports_fac

Part of the

Sports Sciences Commons

Repository Citation

Chawansky, Megan Dr., "A systematic review of sport for development interventions across six global

cities" (2018). Health and Sport Sciences Faculty Scholarship. 14.

https://digitalcommons.otterbein.edu/hsports_fac/14

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Health and Sport Sciences at Digital Commons @

Otterbein. It has been accepted for inclusion in Health and Sport Sciences Faculty Scholarship by an authorized

administrator of Digital Commons @ Otterbein. For more information, please contact

[email protected]

.

CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

(2)

Review

A

systematic

review

of

sport

for

development

interventions

across

six

global

cities

Meredith

A. Whitley

a,

*

,

William

V. Massey

b

,

Martin

Camiré

c

,

Lindsey

C. Blom

d

,

Megan

Chawansky

e

,

Shawn

Forde

f

,

Mish

Boutet

g

,

Amanda

Borbee

a

,

Simon

C. Darnell

h

a_Adelphi_University,_Department_of_Exercise_Science,_Health_Studies,_Physical_Education,_&_Sport_Management,₁_South_Avenue,_Woodruff

Hall,Room172,GardenCity,NY11530,UnitedStates

b

OregonStateUniversity,MilamHall118L,2520SWCampusWay,Corvallis,OR97331,UnitedStates

c

UniversityofOttawa,SchoolofHumanKinetics,FacultyofHealthSciences,125UniversityPrivate,Room345,Otttawa,K1N6N5,Canada

d

BallStateUniversity,2000W.UniversityDrive,Muncie,IN47036,UnitedStates

e

UniversityofKentucky,CollegeofEducation,127SeatonBuilding,Lexington,KY40506-0219,UnitedStates

f_University_of_British_Columbia,_Auditorium_Annex,₁₉₂₄_West_Mall,_Vancouver,_BC_V6T_1Z2,_United_States g

UniversityofOttawa,Geographic,StatisticalandGovernmentInformationCentre,65UniversityPrivate,MorissetHall,309D,Ottawa,ON K1N6N5,Canada

h

UniversityofToronto,55HarbordStreet,Toronto,ONM5S2W6,Canada

ARTICLE INFO Articlehistory:

Received1September2017 Receivedinrevisedform15June2018 Accepted18June2018 Availableonlinexxx Keywords: Peace Physicalactivity Programme Research Global Evidence ABSTRACT

Recentlypublishedreviewshavebeguntheprocessofsynthesizingtheknowledgewithinthe growingSportforDevelopment(SfD)field,butthereisaneedtocriticallyevaluatethe researchonwhichthesefindingsarebased.Thissystematicreviewisacriticalappraisalof bothquantitativeandqualitativeevidenceinacademicandgreyliteratureintheSfDfield.The strengthandqualityoftheresearchisassessedtoprovideamorenuancedunderstandingof thereportedevidenceofSfDinterventionsinsixglobalcities(CapeTown, HongKong,London, Mumbai,Nairobi,andNewOrleans).Theresultsincludeseveralkeyfindings:(a)thereisa limitednumberofacademicandgreyliteraturewithenoughmethodologicaldetailsfor criticalappraisal;(b)thequalityofmethodsandevidenceinindividualstudiesislargely classifiedasweak;and(c)thereisaneed formorerigorous,systematicresearch and evaluationeffortsthatareopenlysharedandassessed.Thesefindingsprovideafoundation fromwhichtosuggest‘nextsteps’forSfDorganisationsandresearchers.

1.Introduction

The SportforDevelopment (SfD)movementhasgainedmomentum sincethelate 1990s, withthenumberof SfD

organisationsandinterventionsconsistentlyincreasing(Coalter,2007,2013a;Levermore&Beacom,2009).Whereasearly researchin theSfDﬁeldfocused ontheevaluationofsingular SfDinterventions(Schulenkorf, Sherry, &Rowe, 2016),

*Correspondingauthor.

E-mailaddresses:[email protected](M.A. Whitley),[email protected](W.V. Massey),[email protected](M.Camiré), [email protected](L.C. Blom),[email protected](M.Chawansky),[email protected](S.Forde),[email protected](M.Boutet), [email protected](A.Borbee),[email protected](S.C. Darnell).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.013

GModel

SMR500No.ofPages13

Pleasecitethisarticleinpressas:M.A.Whitley,etal.,Asystematicreviewofsportfordevelopmentinterventionsacrosssix globalcities,SportManagementReview(2018),https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.013

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Sport

Management

Review

(3)

synthesesoftheknowledgewithintheSfDﬁeldhavebeenpursuedinrecentlypublishedreviews,including:(a)aqualitative meta-studyofpositiveyouthdevelopmentthroughsportbyHoltetal.(2017);(b)anintegrativereviewofSfDliteratureby

Schulenkorfetal.(2016);(c)anintegrativereviewofsport-basedyouthdevelopmentliteraturebyJones,Edwards,Bocarro, Bunds,andSmith(2017);(d)asystematicmapoftheevidenceonSfD’sefﬁcacyinAfricabyLanger(2015);(e)asystematic

review of life skill development through sports programmes serving socially vulnerable youth by Hermens, Super,

Verkooijen,andKoelen(2017);and(f)asystematicreviewofpositiveyouthdevelopmentinAboriginalphysicalactivityand sportsettingsbyBruneretal.(2016).Thesereviewsprovideasenseofthemostcommonoutcomes(e.g.,positiveidentity, empowerment, academic competence, relationships, communication skills, self-regulation skills, leadership, social responsibility skills, enjoyment, resiliency, sport competence) from SfD and related programming. While Jones and colleaguesnotedthedominantfocusonindividualoutcomes,oftenwithanover-generalizationtocommunityand society-leveloutcomes(Coalter,2010a),Schulenkorfetal.foundthattwothirdsoftheSfDstudiesintheirintegratedreviewfocused onthecommunitylevelofdevelopment.Additionally,Hermensetal.,Holtetal.,andJonesetal.exploredthecontextualand organisationalfeaturesthatmayimpacttheseoutcomes,whichaddressesanaspectofSfDresearchthatisoftenoverlooked (Coakley,2011;Haudenhuyse,Theeboom,&Skille,2014).

Thus, researchershave synthesised SfD knowledgein meaningful ways, although there is not yet consensuson a

comprehensivetheoryofchangewithinSfD.Additionally,theuseoftheoreticalapproaches,models,andframeworksisfar

from consistent. While positive youth development, social capital theory, and the Teaching Personal and Social

Responsibilitymodelarecitedfrequently,severalothermodelsandframeworkshavebeenutilizedwithintheresearch literature(e.g.,ecologicalsystemstheory,self-determinationtheory,feministtheory,neoliberalism,symbolic interaction-ism,theoryofplannedbehaviour;Holtetal.,2017;Schulenkorfetal.,2016).Despitethisincongruence,previousreviews

havesuggested criticalfactors which appear tobecommonacross manyof theSfDstudies, which informa broader

understandingofSfDpractice.Forexample,Schulenkorfetal.(2016)identiﬁedkeyconstructsandfeaturescriticalforSfD interventions:(a)activeengagementofachangeagentorrolemodel;(b)participatoryapproachtointerventiondesign, implementation, and evaluation; (c) prolonged intervention engagement; (d) intentional integration of development

activities into intervention; (e) cultivation of safe spaces for community engagement and development; and (f)

empowerment process whereby local communities assume intervention oversight and ownership. Holt et al. (2017)

developed a model of positive youth development through sport which identiﬁed central themes critical to SfD

interventions:(a)positiveyouthdevelopmentclimate(e.g.,adultrelationships,peerrelationships,parentalinvolvement); and(b)lifeskillsfocus(e.g.,lifeskillbuildingactivities,transferactivities).Overall,thesereviewshavehelpedbridgethegap betweenresearchandpracticerelatedto‘whatworks’and‘why.’

Despitethebreadthoftheaforementionedwork,withfewexceptions(Hermensetal.,2017;Holtetal.,2017;Langer, 2015),thedominantfocushasbeenintegratingandsummarizingtheresearch_findingswithoutspeci_ficconsiderationforthe qualityoftheevidence.Therefore,theSfDknowledgehasbeensynthesisedbuttherigouroftheSfDstudiesincludedinthese reviewsmaybevastlydifferent.ConsideringthattheSfDfieldisplaguedwithpersistentquestionsaboutrigourandwhat constitutessufficientevidence(Coalter,2010b,2013a;Nicholls,Giles,&Sethna,2011),combinedwiththedrivetowards evidence-informedandevidence-basedpoliciesandprogrammesinotherfields(e.g.,international development,youth development;Langer&Stewart,2014;Roth&Brooks-Gunn,2016),thereisaneedtoaddressthischallenge.Thecurrent systematicreviewrespondstotheseconcernswithaholistic,criticalappraisalofbothquantitativeandqualitativeevidence intheSfDfield.Thestrengthandqualityoftheresearchisassessedtoprovideamorenuancedunderstandingofthereported evidenceofSfDinterventions.

ThissystematicreviewprovidesacriticalappraisalofSfDresearchinsixglobalcities(CapeTown,HongKong,London, Mumbai,Nairobi,andNewOrleans).Aglobalnon-profitorganisation,theLaureusSportforGoodFoundation,andan inter-governmentalagency,theCommonwealthSecretariat,bothofwhomareactivelyengagedintheSfDfield,selectedthecities foranalysis.Thesebodiesoriginallyidentifiedninecitiesaspartofacallforproposalstoconductthissystematicreview.The funders_’prioritieslikelydrovetheidenti_ficationofthesecities,withLaureus-supportedinterventionsoperatingineight citiesandsixcitieslocatedinmembercountriesoftheCommonwealth.Althoughtherearecertainlyconcernsrelatedto neo-colonialismorneo-liberalismwhenconsideringtheengagementofinternationalorganisationsandagencies(Coalter,2013a;

Lindsey,2017),thiscallforproposalspresentedanopportunitytocriticallyappraiseresearchonSfDinterventionsoperating inthesecities,withtheunderstandingthataglobalassessmentandcriticalappraisalisstillneededwithoutthisgeographic restriction.Withintheoriginalninecities,theresearchteamselectedsixcitiesthatofferedadiversecultural,social,political, developmental,andhistoricallandscape(e.g.,dominantreligion,GlobalNorthvs.GlobalSouth).Theinvestigativeteamwas intentionalinconsideringabroadanddiversespectrumofevidenceinthesesixcitiesbyremovingrestrictionsonlanguage andtheexpectationthatpapershavegonethroughapeer-reviewprocess.Giventhatbothofthesepracticesprivilegethe Global North and academic communities (Darnell, Chawansky, Marchesseault, Holmes, & Hayhurst, 2018; Spaaij, Schulenkorf,Jeanes,&Oxford,2018),non-Englishlanguageandgreyliteraturewereincludedinasearchandscreenprocess that exhausted all resources to locate and retrieve both published and unpublished documents in these six cities. Additionally,bothquantitativeandqualitativeevidencewereconsideredinthissystematicreview,acknowledgingmultiple andequallyvalidformsofevidence(Langer&Stewart,2014).

Insummary,thepurposeofthissystematicreviewwastoconductacriticalexaminationofthereportedevidence,ofboth academicandgreyliteratureinqualitativeandquantitativeform,ofyouth-focusedSfDinterventionsinsixglobalcities:

CapeTown,HongKong,London,Mumbai,Nairobi,andNewOrleans.

2 M.A.Whitleyetal./SportManagementReviewxxx(2018)xxx–xxx GModel

SMR500No.ofPages13

(4)

2.Method 2.1.Searchstrategy

ThesearchtermsforSfDrepresentedtheconceptsofyouth,sports,anddevelopment,withthefinalsearchstrategyfor PsycINFOpresentedinTable1.Databaseswereselectedtoencompasstherangeofsubjectstouchingonthisinterdisciplinary study,includingsportsscience,psychology,education,andhealth,withapilotstudyconductedtodeterminethedatabases mostresponsivetothesearchstrategy.ThefinaldatabaseswerePsycINFO(Ovid),Embase(Ovid),SPORTDiscus(EBSCO), EducationSource(EBSCO),Scopus,WebofScience’sScienceCitationIndexExpanded,SocialSciencesCitationIndex,and Arts&HumanitiesCitationIndex.ThesearchwasrunonDecember19,2016.SinceSfDjournalpublicationsdidnotbegin significantlyincreasinguntilafter2000(Schulenkorf&Adair,2014),searchresultswerelimitedtorecordspublishedafter 1994,andnolimitationwasplacedonpublicationlanguage.

Amanualsearchofresearchpublishedafter1994wasalsocompletedin20relevantpeer-reviewedjournals,withthe referencelistsofincludedarticlesin 12recentresearchreviews(eitherpubliclysharedorsharedbytheauthors)also reviewed.Inadditiontotheacademicliterature,extensivecontactlistsofSfDscholarsandorganisationsineachcitywere developedtorequestpublishedandunpublisheddocuments.Fig.1presentsthePRISMA_ﬂowdiagramofsearchresults. 2.2.Inclusionandexclusioncriteria

Forthepurposesofthisreview,academicliteratureincludedempiricalpapersinpeer-reviewedjournals,dissertations, andtheses.Greyliteratureincluded,butwasnotlimitedto,evaluationreports,annualreports,articlesinnon-peer-reviewed journalsandotherpublicationoutlets,andconferenceposters.

Inclusioncriteriaincluded:(a)reportingofprimarydata;(b)datacollectedinoneofthesixglobalcities;(c)participants betweentheagesof10and25yearsold;and(d)evidenceofaplus-sportorsport-plusintervention(Coalter,2010a).Studies wereexcludediftheywere:(a)focusedonlyonsportdevelopment(i.e.,sportimprovement),whichmeetCoalter’s(2010a) definitionoftraditionalsport(eveniftheymeasuredevelopmentaloutcomes,asthereisanassumptionthatdevelopment canoccurinthesesettings);(b)focusedonlyonhealth(e.g.,weightloss,fitnessincrease),whichwouldnotachievethe explicitdevelopmentalfocusofplus-sportorsport-plusinterventions;(c)educationalorcurriculum-basedinterventionsin schools,whichwouldconflateSfDinterventionswithschool-basedinterventions;(d)mentalhealthinterventionsspecificto a targeteddiagnosis (e.g.,cognitivetherapy for depression),which would redirectthefocus toyouthwithdiagnosed disorders;or(e)theoretical/non-empiricalreports,whichwouldnotreportprimarydata.

Following atitle andabstractscreenof academicarticles,fulltextscreeningof 319articleswas completedbytwo independent investigators,resultingin 21included articles(k= 0.83).In addition totheacademicliterature,all grey literaturewasinitiallyscreenedbyoneinvestigator.Thefulltextsof161SfDdocumentswerethenscreenedindependently bytwoinvestigators,resultingin29SfDgreyliteraturedocumentsforinclusion.Whendisagreementsoninclusiondecisions

Table1

PsycINFOsearchstrategy.

1.child.ti,ab. 26.yoga/ 50.rolemodel?.ti,ab.

2.children.ti,ab. 27.sport?.ti,ab. 51.socialchange.ti,ab.

3.minor.ti,ab. 28.extracurricular?.ti,ab. 52.(sport?adj3

4.minors.ti,ab. 29.extracurricular?.ti,ab. development*).ti,ab.

5.youth.ti,ab. 30.physicalactivit*.ti,ab. 53.(youthadj3develop*).ti,ab.

6.youths.ti,ab. 31.physicalﬁtness.ti,ab. 54.social*adj3

7.young.ti,ab. 32.athlet*.ti,ab. develop*).ti,ab.

8.youngster?.ti,ab. 33.football.ti,ab. 55.(psychosocial*adj3

9.adolescent?.ti,ab. 34.soccer.ti,ab. develop*).ti,ab.

10.preadolescent?.ti,ab. 35.tennis.ti,ab. 56.(econom*adj3

11.girl.ti,ab. 36.swimming.ti,ab. develop*).ti,ab.

12.girls.ti,ab. 37.running.ti,ab. 57.(communit*adj3

13.boy.ti,ab. 38.cycling.ti,ab. develop*).ti,ab.

14.boys.ti,ab. 39.basketball.ti,ab. 58.or/44-57

15.teen?.ti,ab. 40.baseball.ti,ab. 59.sport?for

16.teenage*.ti,ab. 41.martialart?.ti,ab. development.ti,ab.

17.student?.ti,ab. 42.yoga.ti,ab. 60.sport?foryouth.ti,ab.

18.juvenile?.ti,ab. 43.or/23-42 61.NationalYouthSport

19.kid.ti,ab. 44.mentor/ Program.ti,ab.

20.kids.ti,ab. 45.rolemodels/ 62.59or60or61

21.schoolage?.ti,ab. 46.socialchange/ 63.22and43and58

22.or/1-21 47.psychosocial 64.62or63

23.expsports/ development/ 65.limit64toyr="1995-2018"

24.physicalactivity/ 48.peace*.ti,ab. 66.(animalnothuman).po.

25.physicalﬁtness/ 49.mentor*.ti,ab. 67.65not66

M.A.Whitleyetal./SportManagementReviewxxx(2018)xxx–xxx 3 GModel

SMR500No.ofPages13

(5)

occurred,theprimaryinvestigatorfacilitatedadiscussionbetweenthetworeviewerstocometoaconsensusdecision. Disagreementsmostlycentredaroundthelackofdetailsinthestudies.

2.3.Assessmentofmethodologicalquality

Todeterminemethodologicalquality,twoinvestigatorsindependentlyassessedandcriticallyappraisedthemethodsof eachincludedstudy.TheQualityToolforQuantitativeStudies(NationalCollaboratingCentreforMethodsandTools,2008) wasusedforallstudiescontainingquantitativedata(seeTable2).Criteriaformethodologicalqualityincluded:(a)selection bias,(b)allocationbias,(c)controlofconfoundingvariables,(d)blinding,(e)datacollectionmethods,(f)follow-uprates,(g) statisticalanalyses,and(h)integrityofintervention.Eachofthesesevenareaswereidentifiedasstrong,moderate,orweak alongwithanoverallassessment.Ifapaperwasdeterminedtobemoderateorstrongineacharea,thepaperwasratedas strongevidence.Ifthepaperreceivedoneweakclassification,itwasratedasmoderateevidence.Ifthepaperreceivedtwoor moreweakclassi_fications,itwasratedasweakevidence.

Toexaminethemethodologicalqualityofqualitativestudiesincludedinthereview,ameta-theoryandmeta-method approachwas taken(Frost, Garside,Cooper,&Britten,2016;seeTable3).Indoing so,theinvestigatorsexaminedthe philosophical(i.e.,ontology,epistemology)andtheoreticalunderpinningsofthestudytodeterminehowtheapproachmay haveaffectedtheresults.Dongsoallowedforarelativistapproachinjudgingthequalityoftheincludedstudies(Smith, 2009;Sparkes&Smith,2009).Additionally,themethodology,methods,strategyforanalysis,andcriteriaforassessingrigour wereexamined todeterminethe overall quality and trustworthiness of the results. For mixedmethods studies,the quantitativeandqualitativecomponentsofthemethodswereevaluatedbasedontheapproachesdescribedabove. 2.4.Dataextractionandsynthesis

Thedataextractionincluded:(a)numberofparticipants;(b)ageofparticipants;(c)special/contextualcharacteristicsof participants(e.g.,mentalhealthstatus,povertylevels,environmentalcontext);(d)politicalenvironment;(e)environmental context(e.g.,historical,geographical,cultural);(f)instrumentsused;(g)outcomesassessed;(h)nameofintervention;(i) typeofintervention; (j)timingofintervention; (k)lengthof intervention;(l)whodeliveredtheintervention;(m)key stakeholders;(n)timelineofdatacollectionrelevanttotheintervention;(o)interventionﬁdelity;(p)statisticalanalyses used;(q)results;and(r)qualityofevidence.

Fig.1.PRISMA*ﬂowdiagram.

*Moher,Liberati,Tetzlaff,&Altman(2009). 4 M.A.Whitleyetal./SportManagementReviewxxx(2018)xxx–xxx GModel

SMR500No.ofPages13

(6)

Table2

Literatureappraisaltable:Quantitativedata.

Authors(year) StudyDesign Selection

Bias

Controlfor Confounding Variables

Blinding UseofValid andReliable Tools Fidelity Check OverallQuality Classiﬁcation AmandlaEduFootball(2012) Cohort,OneGroup

Pre-Post

Yes No Unclear Unknown No Weak

Barkley,Warren,andSanders(2016) Cohort,OneGroup Pre-Post

No No Unclear Reliable,

Validity Unknown

No Weak

BoxgirlsSouthAfrica(2015) Randomised ControlTrial

Burnett(2011) SingleGroup Pre-PostOnly

Burnett(2012) Cohort,OneGroup Pre-Post

Likely No Unclear Valid,

Reliability Unknown

No Weak

Burnett(2014) SingleGroup Post-TestOnly

Yes No Unclear No No Weak

Burnett(2015) SingleGroup Post-TestOnly

Butler&Leathem(2014) SingleGroup Post-TestOnly

Delvaetal.(2010) Cross-Sectional TwoGroup Comparison

Likely Yes Unclear Valid,

Reliability Unknown

No Moderate

FitzroviaYouthinAction(2016) SingleGroup Pre-PostOnly

Yes No No Unknown No Weak

Fulleretal.(2010) Randomised ControlTrial

Likely Yes AssessorsYes, Participants Unclear

No No Moderate

Herrmann(2012) Cohort,OneGroup Pre-Post

Yes No No Reliable,No

Validity

No Weak

Hershowetal.(2015) Cohort,OneGroup Pre-Post

Likely No Unclear Unknown No Weak

Kaufman,Braunschweig,DeCelles, Nkosi,Delany-Moretlwe,&Ross (2011)

Cohort,OneGroup Pre-Post

Knight,Kavanagh,&Page(2013) SingleGroup Post-TestOnly

Likely No No Unknown No Weak

Laidler,Fraser,Lau,Wu,andLi (2013)

SingleGroup Post-TestOnly

Lamb(2009) SingleGroup Post-TestOnly

LouisianaPublicHealthInstitute (2016)

Quasi-Experimental

Likely Yes Unclear Yes No Moderate

Odera&Harknett(2016) Cohort,OneGroup Pre-Post

Likely No AssessorsNo,

ParticipantsYes

Unknown No Weak

Parker,etal.(2014) SingleGroup Post-TestOnly

Parker,Pitchford,Farooq,& Moreland(2018)

SingleGroup Post-TestOnly

Praxis(2010) SingleGroup Post-TestOnly

RouteConsultancyLimited(2014) SingleGroup Post-TestOnly

Sampson(2009) SingleGroup Post-TestOnly

Likely No Unclear Unknown No Weak

Sampson(2015) SingleGroup Post-TestOnly

Sampson&Vilella(2012) SingleGroup Post-TestOnly

Sampson&Vilella(2013) SingleGroup Post-TestOnly

Yes No Unclear Reliable,

Validity Unknown

No Weak

Shuttleworth&Wan-Ka(1998) SingleGroup Post-TestOnly

Snelling(2015) Randomised ControlTrial

Likely Yes AssessorsYes, ParticipantsNo

Yes Yes Strong

WomenWin(2015) Cohort,OneGroup Pre-Post

Likely No No Unknown No Weak

SMR500No.ofPages13

(7)

Table 3

Literature appraisal table: Qualitative data.

Authors (year) Ontology Epistemology Methodology Sampling Strategy Data Collection Methods Data Analysis Methods Quality Assessment Methodological Coherence

Allen, Rhind, & Koshy (2015)

Not Stated Not Stated Qualitative / Intervention

Purposeful Interviews Inductive Deductive Content Analysis

None Reported No

Amandla EduFootball (2012)

Not Stated Not Stated Mixed Methods Not Stated Focus Groups, Interviews, Questionnaires, Observations

Not Stated None Reported No

Armour & Duncombe (2012)

Constructivist Constructivist Qualitative Evaluation and Case Study

Not Stated Interviews, Baseline and End of Project Forms

Constructivist Grounded Theory, Thematic Analysis

None Reported Yes

Armour & Sandford (2013)

Constructivist Constructivist Multi-Layered Evaluation Strategy

Not Stated Field Notes, Observation, Focus Groups, Interviews, Reﬂective Journals, Open-Ended Surveys

Staged Grounded Theory Approach

None Reported Yes

Armour et al. (2013)

Constructivist Constructivist Multi-Layered Evaluation Strategy

Not Stated Pupil Proﬁles, Journals, Open-Ended Surveys, Interviews, Focus Groups

Staged Grounded Theory Approach

None Reported Yes

Banciu, Barkley, and Sanders (2016)

Not Stated Not Stated Qualitative / Intervention

Not Stated Interviews, Focus Groups, Observations, Field Notes

Barkley et al. (2016)

Not Stated Not Stated Basic Qualitative Not Stated Interviews Not Stated None Reported No

Bateman & Binns (2014)

Not Stated Not Stated Basic Qualitative Snowball Interviews, Focus Groups Not Stated None Reported No

Burnett (2011) Value Free Knowledge

Not Stated Mixed Methods Not Stated Focus Groups, Interviews Not Stated Researcher Training, Piloting of Instruments

No

Burnett (2012) Not Stated Not Stated Mixed Methods (Case Studies)

Purposeful Focus Groups, Interviews, Surveys Not Stated Follow-Up Interviews, Triangulation

No

Burnett (2013) Not Stated Not Stated Participatory Action Research

Purposeful, Representative

Interviews, Focus Groups Not Stated Triangulation No

Burnett (2014) Not Stated Interpretivism Mixed Methods Purpose Quota Sampling

Interviews, Focus Groups, Observations

Interpretative Phenomenological Approach

Triangulation Yes

Burnett (2015) Interpretivism Interpretivism Mixed Methods Purposeful Interviews, Focus Groups, Observation Interpretative Phenomenological Approach

Triangulation Yes

Coalter (2013b) Not Stated Not Stated Qualitative / Evaluation

Not Stated Interviews Thematic Analysis None Reported No

Crabbe (2000) Not Stated Not Stated Intervention Not Stated Interviews, Observations Not Stated None Reported No

Crabbe, Brown, Brown and Slater (2008)

Not Stated Not Stated Case Study Not Stated Interviews, Observations Not Stated None Reported No

Crabbe, McGee, and Crosby (2013)

Not Stated Not Stated Case Studies in Each Location

Purposeful Interviews, Observations

Not Stated Rich Descriptions No

Fitzrovia Youth in Action (2016)

Not Stated Not Stated Mixed Methods Not Stated Baseline and Exit Forms Not Stated None Reported No

Global Networking Consultants (2018)

Not Stated Not Stated Basic Qualitative Not Stated Interviews, Focus Groups Not Stated None Reported No

6 M.A . Whitley et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (20 18 ) xxx – xxx G Model SMR 500 No. of Pages 13 Please cite this article in press as: M.A . Whitle y , et al., A syst ematic revie w of sport for development interv entions across six global cities, Sport Manag ement R eview (20 1 8), https://doi.org/1 0. 1 0 1 6/j.smr .20 1 8.0 6.0 1 3

(8)

Hershow et al. (2015)

Not Stated Not Stated Mixed Methods Purposeful Focus Groups Content Analysis None Reported No

Laidler et al. (2013) Not Stated Not Stated Mixed Methods Not Stated Interviews, Observations Not Stated None Reported No

Lamb (2009) Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic Interactionism

Mixed Methods Purposeful Interviews Not Stated None Reported Yes

Laureus Foundation South Africa (2012)

Not Stated Interpretivism Basic Qualitative Not Stated Interviews Thematic Content Analysis

None Reported No

Louisiana Public Health Institute (2016)

Not Stated Not Stated Mixed Methods Purposeful Interviews, Focus Groups Thematic Analysis None Reported No

Magee & Jeanes (2013)

Interpretivism Interpretivism Basic Qualitative Not Stated Interviews, Observations Content Analysis Prolonged Engagement

Yes

Meek & Lewis (2014)

Not Stated Interpretivism Basic Qualitative Not Stated Interviews, Focus Groups, Video Diaries, Written Participant Feedback

Content Analysis None Reported Yes

Murthy & Gupta (2016)

Not Stated Not Stated Qualitative / Participatory

Purposeful Interviews, Photo Mapping, Body Mapping Not Stated None Reported No

Odera & Harknett (2016)

Not Stated Not Stated Mixed Methods Not Stated Interviews, Focus Groups, School Tests, Game-Based Tools

Parker, Meek, & Lewis (2014)

Not Stated Not Stated Basic Qualitative Not Stated Interviews,

Observation, Field Journal, Document Analysis

Content Analysis None Reported No

Palmer & Micallef (2018)

Not Stated Interpretivism Basic Qualitative Purposeful Interviews, Questionnaires Content/ Thematic Analysis

Immersion in Data Yes

Parker et al. Farooq, & Moreland (2014)

Not Stated Constructivist Mixed Methods Not Stated Observations, Online Diaries, Interviews, Focus Groups, Document Analysis

Thematic and Axial Coding

None Reported Yes

Parker, Pitchford et al. (2014)

Not Stated Not Stated Mixed Methods Quota Sampling Interviews, Focus Groups, Surveys Thematic and Axial Coding

None Reported No

Praxis (2010) Not Stated Not Stated Mixed Methods Purposeful Interviews, Focus Groups

Sampson (2015) Not Stated Not Stated Mixed Methods Not Stated Interviews Not Stated None Reported No

Sampson & Vilella (2012)

Not Stated Not Stated Mixed Methods Not Stated Interviews, Observations, Questionnaires Not Stated None Reported No

Sampson & Vilella (2013)

Not Stated Not Stated Mixed Methods Not Stated Interviews, Observations Not Stated None Reported No

Sandford, Duncombe, and Armour (2008)

Not Stated Not Stated Multi-Layered Evaluation Strategy

Not Stated Interviews, Focus Groups Not Stated None Reported No

Snelling (2015) Not Stated Not Stated Randomised Control Trial, Mixed Methods Purposeful (those who completed 100% of programme)

Interviews Categorical Analysis None Reported No

Wamucii (2011) Relativism Interpretivism Basic Qualitative Not Stated Interviews, Field Notes, Reﬂective Journal Constant Comparison None Reported No

Women Win (2015)

Not Stated Not Stated Mixed Methods Not Stated Most Signiﬁcant Change Stories Not Stated None Reported No

M.A . Whitley et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (20 18 ) xxx – xxx 7 G Model SMR 500 No. of Pages 13 Please cite this article in press as: M.A . Whitle y , et al., A syst ematic revie w of sport for development interv entions across six global cities, Sport Manag ement R eview (20 1 8), https://doi.org/1 0. 1 0 1 6/j.smr .20 1 8.0 6.0 1 3

(9)

Overall,therewerehighlevelsofheterogeneityinthedesigns,methods,interventions,andoutcomesreportedacrossthe includedstudies.Assuch,quantitativemeta-analysisandqualitativemeta-synthesisweredeemedunsuitableforanalysing theoutcomes.Instead,thefollowingrecommendationsofBraun,Clarke,andWeate(2016)wereutilisedindatasynthesis: (a)familiarizationwiththearticlesanddocuments;(b)extractinginitialthemes;(c)developinghigherorderthemes;(d) reﬁningthemes;(e)deﬁningandnamingthemes;and(f)writingup.

3.Results

Overall,50 SfD documentswere independently assessed and criticallyappraised, with10 quantitative studies, 20 qualitativestudies,and20mixedmethodsstudies.1

3.1.Qualityofevidence

Ofthe30quantitative/mixedmethodsSfDstudies,onlythreestudieswereratedasmoderateevidenceandonestudywas ratedasstrongevidence(seeTable2).Overallconcernswiththequantitativemethodswerelowqualitydesigns(e.g.,16 studiesweresinglegrouppost-testonlydesigns),lackofuseofvalidatedmeasures(ornotreportingthisinformation),and insufﬁcientmethodologicaldetails(e.g.,blinding,enrolmentrates,drop-outrates,controlforconfoundingvariables).Asfor the40SfDstudieswithaqualitativecomponent,theinterpretationsmadefromtheﬁndingswerelimitedbyalackof philosophical,methodological,ortheoreticalunderpinnings,oracombinationthereof,tothestudies(seeTable3).Only15 studiesreportedtheirsamplingprocedures,only18studiesreportedtheanalyticapproach,andonly8studiesdiscussed qualitymeasures(e.g.,triangulation,prolongedengagement,researchertraining,instrumentpiloting).Overall,just10ofthe 40studieswerejudgedtobemethodologicallycoherent,suggestingthattheirpurpose,philosophy,methodology, and methodswerealignedandappropriate.

3.2.Summaryofreportedinterventionoutcomes

Focusing speciﬁcally on data from the SfD studies with rigorous assessments (quantitative) and methodological coherence(qualitative),therewasweaktomoderateevidencesupportingchangesinperceptionsandknowledgeabout

commonyouth development outcomes,although there was noevidencefor actualbehaviourchange.Snelling (2015)

examinedasurftherapyprogrammeinCapeTown,SouthAfricadesignedtoengagechildrenandadolescentsatriskofsocial exclusion.Thisrandomisedcontroltrialwasconductedusingvalidandreliabletools,andshowedthattheinterventiondid notsigni_ficantlyimprovethepsychosocialwell-beingoftheparticipants,nordiditdecreasetheir(self-reported)antisocial behaviour.Similarly,Fuller,Junge,DeCelles,Donald,Jankelowitz,and Dvorak(2010)utilisedarandomised controltrial designed to assess an interactive football-based health education programme for grade 6–7 children in Khayelitsha Township,CapeTown,SouthAfrica.Theresultsdemonstratedhowchildrenintheinterventiongroupshowedsignificant increasesinhealthknowledge,asmeasuredbyindividualhealthstatements,withgrade6childrenshowingsignificantgains inknowledgeformoreofthehealthstatementsthanthegrade7children.However,giventhelackofvalidatedtools,in conjunctionwith nodata examining actualhealth behaviour, these findings shouldbe interpretedwithcaution. The

LouisianaPublicHealthInstitute(2016)employedaquasi-experimentaldesign,usingvalidandreliabletools,toassessyouth outcomesofCoachAcrossAmericaprogramminginNewOrleans,LA,USA.Theresultsshowedhowtheyoungerintervention participantsexpandedtheirnutritionalknowledgeanddevelopedhighimpactattributes(i.e.,well-being,discipline),while boththeyoungerandolderinterventionparticipantsenhancedtheirphysicalﬁtness.Therewerenochanges,asmeasured quantitatively,innutritionalknowledgeorhighimpactattributesamongtheolderparticipants(grades6–12).Finally,Delva etal.(2010)utilisedacross-sectionaltwogroupcomparisontoreportondifferencesinsexualactivityandcondomuseby individualswhohadbeenexposedtotheMathareYouthSportsAssociation(MYSA)programmeinKenya,andthosewhohad not.FindingsshowedthatdespiteatrendtowardsmoresexualactivityintheMYSAprogramme,thosewithexposureto MYSAweremorelikelytoreportusingacondomduringsexualactivities.Unfortunately,whencontrollingforconfounding variables,thiseffectwasnolongersigniﬁcant,withdataalsoshowingalackofa dose-responserelationshipbetween programmeexposureandcondomuse.Thus,itremainsunclearwhethertheMYSAprogramme,orvariousco-intervention effects,aremoresalientinthereportedcondomusedifferences.

ThestrongestqualitativesupportemergedfromArmourandDuncombe(2012),ArmourandSandford(2013),Armour, Sandford,andDuncombe(2013),Burnett(2014,2015),MageeandJeanes(2013),MeekandLewis(2014),Lamb(2009),

PalmerandMicallef(2018),andParker,Pitchford,Farooz,andMoreland(2014).Thethemesidentiﬁedinthesequalitative investigationsasoutcomesfromparticipationinSfDinterventionsincludedthoseconnectedtomentalhealthandwellbeing (e.g.,developmentofandbeliefinpersonalaspirations,improvedresilience,increasedconﬁdence,increasedself-esteem,

1

Aparallelsystematicreviewwasconductedonthereportedevidence,ofbothacademicandgreyliteratureinqualitativeandquantitativeform,of non-sportyouthdevelopmentinterventions,with35documentsindependentlyassessedandcriticallyappraised.However,duetothelowqualityandhigh heterogeneity,thesestudiesdidnotallowforameaningfulcomparison.Assuch,onlythereportedevidenceofSfDinterventionsispresentedinthispaper; datafromtheothersystematicreviewareavailableuponrequest.

SMR500No.ofPages13

(10)

feelingsoffailure,improvedmotivation,increasedabilitytomanageemotions,improvedself-control,improvedhealthand

ﬁtness) and community development, social cohesion, and peacebuilding (e.g., more civic engagement, improved

communicationskills,reducedanti-socialbehaviour,improvedrelationships,enhancedcon_ﬂictresolutionskills,enhanced

community cohesion). A limited number of themes were also identiﬁed for employment, access to educational

opportunities,andlifeskillacquisition. 4.Discussion

WiththeSfDﬁeldsteadilygrowing,thepresentreviewwasperformedtoidentifythelimitationsthatstillexistwith researchandevaluation,evenincitiessuchasLondonandCapeTown,whichhavebeenleadersinthepracticeofSfD.First, therewereveryfewSfDstudiesfoundintheacademicandgreyliteraturethathadenoughmethodologicaldetailsforcritical appraisal. Fortheindividualstudieswhich werecriticallyappraised,thequalityofmethods andevidencewas largely classiﬁedasweak(basedonthecriticalappraisaltoolsutilisedinthisreview),limitingmeaningfulinterpretationswithinthe individualstudiesandcomparativeanalyseswithin/acrosscities.

AnumberofrecommendationscanbemadefromthisreviewthatarerelevanttoSfDorganisationsandresearchers speci_fically,alongwithbroaderyouthdevelopmentorganisationsandresearchers.First,thereisaneedtoopenlyshare researchandevaluationmethods,evenincursoryforminannualreportsand/orwithlinksorreferencestodocumentsthat providemoreinformationabouthowspecificresultswereobtained.Outofthe92SfDdocumentsidentifiedinthegrey literature,only29hadenoughmethodologicaldetailsforcriticalappraisal.Thoughtheremainingdocumentsmettherestof theinclusioncriteriaforthissystematicreview,themethodswerenotreportedinsufficientdetail(ifatall)toallowthe investigativeteamtoevaluatetheirrigour,resultinginquestionsaboutthequalityoftheprimarydatapresentedinthese documents.ThelackofrigourmatchesconcernscitedbyCoalter(2010b,2013a)relatedtothequalityofSfDresearch.Though itisimpracticaltoexpectallpublicationssharedbyorganisationstoprovidemethodologicaldetails,especiallyatthelevel oftenpresentinacademicliterature,includinginformationaboutwherethiscouldbefoundwouldbebeneficialtothefield– andtotheorganisations,asfundersandotherstakeholderswillbeabletounderstandtheprocessbywhichreportedresults wereobtained.

Organisationsandresearchersshouldalsoconsiderreportingnullandnegativefindings,whichrarelyoccurredinthe articlesanddocumentsincludedinthisreview.Thispracticecancertainlybeviewedasrisky(WeltyPeachey&Cohen,2016), butiffunderscanhelpcreateafundingclimatewhereassessmentscanlegitimatelybeframedtonotonlydemonstratewhat worksbutalsowhatneedstoimprove,theentireSfDmovementstandstobenefit.Thispositionsupportsthecultivationofa learning-focusedenvironment,ratherthansolution-focused(Sugden,2010),whichpromoteshonest,criticalreflectionthat willleadtomeaningfulprogrammaticchange.Additionally,alearning-focusedenvironmentenhancesthetransparencyof researchandevaluationefforts,whichcanleadtotheidentificationofbestresearchandevaluationpracticeswithin/across contexts,thecontinuingdevelopmentofthefield’sknowledgebasewithastrongerunderstandingofhowthisknowledge wasproduced,andidentificationofgapsand/orcommonbarrierswithin/acrosscontextsthatmustbeexploredinmore depth.Thereisalsoaneedfortheidentification,creation,anduseofaccessibleanduser-friendlypublicoutletsforresearch publications(Schulenkorfetal.,2016).Researcherstypicallytargetpeer-reviewedpublicationswithpaywallswhichprevent allbuttheacademiccommunityfromeasilyaccessingthisknowledge.Therefore,notonlyshouldpeer-reviewedjournals consideropeningaccesstoremovetheserestrictions(e.g.,JournalofSportforDevelopment),butthereisaneedforpublic outletsbeyond peer-reviewedjournals(e.g.,reports, newsletters,articles,blogs) whichenable researchfindings tobe presentedindifferentformatsthatmaybemoreaccessibletocertainaudiencesand/ortobepresentedinforumsthatare morewidelyreadbythoseoutsideoftheacademicworld.

Another recommendationfor organisationsandresearchersis tooutline,adopt,and testinterventiontheories(i.e.,

programme theories), rather than focusing predominantly on intervention outcomes and benchmarks. The use of

interventiontheories(e.g.,theoriesofchange,logicmodels)wasnotcommoninthissystematicreview,whichsupports previouslycitedcritiquesofSfDresearchandpractice(Coalter,2015;Lyras&WeltyPeachey,2011)andtheﬁndingsofthe integrative review of sport-based youth development literature by Jones et al. (2017). Intervention theoriesconnect organisationalinputsandprocessestointendedoutcomesandimpactsbyconsideringtheconditionsandmechanismsat play(Coalter,2013;Weiss,1995).Withoutinterventiontheories,organisationsandresearchersareoftenunabletoclearly

identify theconditions and mechanismsthat explain whyspeciﬁcoutcomes and impacts are reached. This prevents

organisationsfromintentionally(andeffectively)promotingspecificoutcomesandimpacts.Organisationsandresearchers should also considerhow to pursuelongitudinal studies and integrate long-term data collection efforts into routine procedures(Schulenkorf,2017).Doingsowouldallowforstrategic,rigoroustestingofinterventiontheoriesovertime,along withthepotentialtomeasurechangeovertime.Additionally,byopenlysharinginterventiontheoriesandresultsfrom measurement,evaluation,andresearchefforts,thelargerSfDfield(andrelatedfields)standtobenefit(Weiss, 1995),steadily advancingourtheoreticalandconceptualunderstandingofSfD.

Wecertainlyrecognise(andhaveexperienced)thechallengesinherentinconductingresearchintheSfDﬁeld,butthis doesnotchangetheneedformorerigorousstudiesfocusedonspeciﬁcSfDinterventionsthatutilisedistincttimepoints, multiplegroups,andvalidatedmeasures.Similarly,morestudiesareneededthatutilisemulti-siteandcomparisondesigns toenablecomparisonsbetweensingularSfDinterventionsaswellaswithin/acrossgeographical,cultural,social,political, developmental,andhistoricallandscapes(Giulianotti,2011;Massey,Whitley,Blom,&Gerstein,2015;Schulenkorfetal., M.A.Whitleyetal./SportManagementReviewxxx(2018)xxx–xxx 9 GModel

SMR500No.ofPages13

(11)

2016).Evenfor evaluationsofsingular SfDinterventions,theresearchshouldbecontextualisedwithinthesocial and politicalclimate.Weseethepotentialforinterventiontheorieswhichintegrateorganisationalandcontextualfactorsinto

the intervention design, implementation, and evaluation, along with research grounded in methodological and/or

theoreticalbasistoensurecoherent,transparent,credible,andlogicalinterpretations.Forexample,Schulenkorfetal.(2016)

andHoltetal.(2017) identiﬁedtheoreticalapproaches,models,andframeworksfrequently(andinfrequently)utilized withinSfDresearch;itwouldbebene_ﬁcialtoconsiderthese(andothers)inparentdisciplines(e.g.,sociology,management, psychology,anthropology),along withthepotentialdevelopmentof astandaloneSfDtheoryand/orcross-disciplinary theory(Schulenkorfetal.,2016;Schulenkorf,2017).

Forthequalitativestudiesinthisreview,thephilosophicalperspectiveswererarelyreported,matchingthefindingsfrom thequalitativemeta-studyofpositiveyouthdevelopmentthroughsportbyHoltetal.(2017).Thisisconcerning,asthese perspectivesshapethestudydesignand,ultimately,theknowledgethatisproduced(Culver,Gilbert,&Sparkes,2012).Itis critical,then,forresearcherstoexplicitlyaddresshowtheirontologyandepistemologyshapedecisionsrelatedtotheory, methodology,andmethods.Thisallowsthereadertoassessifthetoolsandapproachesusedtocollect,analyse,andinterpret thedatawerecoherent.Similarly,qualitativeinvestigationsmustincludedetaileddescriptionsofthemethodologyand methodologicalprocedures(i.e.,howdatawerecollected,howdatawereanalysed,howdecisionsweremade)toallowfora nuancedunderstandingandassessmentoftheresearchmethods.This_findingmatches_findingsfromHoltetal.(2017), wherenamedqualitativemethodologieswereinconsistentlyreported,alongwithmissingorinsufficientdetailrelatedto samplingprocedures,dataanalysis, and philosophicalperspectives. To addressthis, peer-reviewedjournalsand other publicationoutletsshouldconsiderexpandingtheirpage/wordlimitsforqualitativestudies(astheJournalofAppliedSport Psychologyhasdone)orallowforonlineappendiceswhichenableresearcherstosharetheirfullmethodology,giventhe

more detailed, nuanced results sections that often lead authors to abbreviating descriptions of methodology and

methodologicalprocedures.

Overall,many of therecommendations for researchers maybe challengingin the current publishingand funding

landscape,withmanyinstitutionalclimatesrewardingresearcherstoagreaterextentiftheyprioritiseresearchandfunding overservicetothefield(e.g.,openaccesspublications,executivereportstopractitioners;Fitzgerald,Allen,&Roberts,2010). Thechallengesareespeciallytruewhenitcomestofacultypromotionandreward,withserviceoftenreceivingdiminished attentionand value(Fitzgeraldet al.,2010; Glass& Fitzgerald,2010).Additionally, someof therecommendations for researchersrelatedtorigourmayleadtofewerpublications(e.g.,longitudinalstudies)orchallengesgettingpublishedor funded(e.g.,reportingnull/negativeresults,publicationbias;Brembs,Button,&Munafò,2013).Thus,researchersconstantly facedilemmas(e.g.,careerprogression,servicetothefield)influencingwhereandhowtheydecidetoallocatetheirtimeand effort,especiallythoseworkingatinstitutionswhererewardstructuresaretiedtoexternalfundingandpublicationsin prestigiouspeer-reviewedjournals.Additionally,thetimeneededforrigorous,longitudinalresearchconductedin_field settingsmaycontrastsharplywithinstitutionalexpectationsforfacultymemberstoteachatregularintervalsandservethe institutioninvariousways(WeltyPeachey&Cohen,2016).Therefore,inorderforresearcherstopursuemorerigorousand accessibleresearch,theymustreceivesupportfrominstitutionsthroughthefacultyrewardsystemandstaffsupport.These challengesarenotlimitedtoinstitutionalsupport,asresearchersalsoneedsupportfromjournalsandfunderstoconduct andpublishstudiesthatmaypresentunpalatableresults.Inconcreteterms,thissupportcouldtaketheformofaninitiative recentlyundertaken bythe journal BMC Psychology topilota results-free peer-reviewprocess, “wherebyeditors and reviewersareblindedtothestudy’sresults,initiallyassessingmanuscriptsonthescientificmeritsoftherationaleand methodsalone”(Button,Bal,Clark,&Shipley,2016,p.1).Thisinitiativeaimstoimprovethequalityofpublishedresearchby makingeditorialdecisionssolelyontherigourofthemethods,therebyhopefullyreducingtheprevalenceofoccurrences whereimpressiveendsjustifypoormeans.TherearealsobarrierstoestablishingandmaintainingpartnershipswithSfD organisationsthatenablerigorous,longitudinalresearch,including:(a)challengingpoliticalandorganisationallandscapes (e.g.,fearofnegativeresults,questionsaboutreturnoninvestment,lackoftrust);(b)inequitablepowerrelations(e.g., asymmetricalorexploitativerelationships,neocolonialorneoliberalagendas);(c)limitedresources(e.g.,_fiscalpriorities minimisingresearch,limitedfundingtoinvestinresearch);(d)divergentresearchandevaluationgoals(e.g.,demonstrating programmeefficacyvs.criticallyassessingprogrammeimpact,leadershipsupportforresearchvs.on-groundscepticism); and(e)longitudinalchallenges(e.g.,short-termprojects,highparticipantandstaffturnover,short-termfundingstreams;

WeltyPeachey&Cohen,2016;Whitley,Forneris,&Barker,2014).ThesebarrierstorigorousresearchintheSfDﬁeldshould also be acknowledged and addressed, with creative solutions actively pursued (e.g., strategic partnerships, cultural

competence, mutual understanding, collaborative research design, equitable power relations, shared trust, strong

relationships;WeltyPeachey&Cohen,2016;Whitleyetal.,2014).

Finally,thereisaneedfororganisationstoprioritisethehiringandretentionofqualified,experiencedstaffwhoare providedwithfinancialincentives(i.e.,enoughtomeettheirlivingneeds)thatputtheminpositionswherebytheycaninvest themselvesfully,onalong-termbasis,toensuringinterventionquality.Trainedandexperiencedstaffrepresentkeyfigures in overseeing internal measurement and evaluation efforts and collaborating withexternal evaluators (e.g., through universityandcommunitypartnerships)ontheirmeasurement,evaluation,andresearchefforts.Thefundamentaltenet remainsthat,inandbeyondSfD,humanresourcesarethecrucialpiecetothesuccessofanyorganisation.However,we recognisethatcurrentprecariousfundingschemeswithinSfDsignificantlyinfluenceanyseriousattemptstoconsolidate staffretentionpractices. Fundingmayrequireasignificantrethinkingofhowbudgetsareallocatedand/orrequeststo current/futurefundersforsupportforthesepositions andefforts(e.g.,financial,resources,capacity building).Another

SMR500No.ofPages13

(12)

approachmaybetoreconsidercollaborationwithotherorganisationsinstrategicways.Manyoftheorganisationsfeatured in theresearchin this systematic reviewseem tohave alreadytaken this approach, withsportoftenintegrated into comprehensiveyouthdevelopmentinterventions.Thissport-plusapproachhasthepotentialtomaximisetheimpactof youth-focused interventions (Jones et al., 2017), particularly when integrated programming targets holistic youth developmentthroughtheuseofdiverseenrichmentactivities,wraparoundprogramming,andstrategicpartnerships.This collaborativeapproachalsoallowsSfDorganisationstoaddressthehuman,_financial,andinfrastructuralresourcesthatare notcurrentlybeingfulfilled,withenhancedaccesstoresources,knowledge,andexpertise(Jonesetal.,2017).ForthoseSfD interventionsstilloperatinginisolationorutilisingasinglesport(e.g.,football),itmaybeprudenttoconsiderinformal collaborationsorformalpartnershipswithothercommunityorganisations,withongoingconsiderationofmergersthatmay maximisethereachandimpactofprogrammaticefforts.Thesetypesofinter-organisationalpartnershipsenableresearch collaborationsacrossorganisationsthatmaximisehuman,financial,andinfrastructuralresources(WeltyPeachey,Cohen, Shin,&Fusaro,2017),enablingorganisationstoactualiserigorous,meaningfulresearchandevaluationeffortswhilealso creatingthepotentialtoexploreemergingquestionsaboutcollectiveimpactacrossorganisations(Kania&Kramer,2011). Anotherwayfororganisationstoovercomethebudgetarychallengesrelatedtohiringtrainedand experiencedstaffto overseemeasurement,evaluation,andresearchisthroughresearchpartnershipswithuniversities(WeltyPeachey&Cohen, 2016),whichunlocktheskills,experience,andexpertiseofSfDscholars.

4.1.Limitations

Limitationstothissystematicreviewincludethegeographicrestrictionofsixglobalcities,whichprecludedanexhaustive systematicreviewandcomparativeanalysisof allSfDresearchfindings.Forexample,thereviewdoesnotaddressSfD researchoccurringinlesspopulatedareas(e.g.,indigenouscommunities)orinthedevelopingnationsoftheSouthPacific andMiddleEast.LimitingtheresearchinthiswayresultedinprominentandhighlycitedpapersintheSfDfieldbeing omitted,whichcertainlylimitsthefindings.Additionally,thesesixgeographiclocationswerepartofninecitiesinitially identifiedbythefundersofthissystematicreview, soitisimportanttoconsiderthatthefunders’prioritiesdrovethe identificationofthesecities.Giventheselimitations,thereiscertainly stillaneedfora globalassessmentandcritical appraisalofthestatusofresearchonSfDinterventions.

WeaddressedconcernsaboutpracticesthatprivilegetheGlobalNorthandacademiccommunitiesbyincluding non-academicevidencewithinthesystematicreviewandaccessinganetworkofpractitionersandacademiccolleaguesworking within/outsideofSfD.However,weallcurrentlyafﬁliatewithinstitutionsintheGlobalNorthandhavevariedexperiences withthesix globalcitiesexamined inthisstudy. Despiteourbestintentions,this mayhavelimitedouracquisitionof evidenceandourcross-culturalanalysis.

4.2.Conclusion

ThissystematicreviewrespondedtotheneedforcriticalappraisaloftheexistingresearchonSfDinterventions(Langer, 2015). The limited number of academic and grey literature with enough methodological detail for critical appraisal, combinedwiththeweakqualityofmethodsandevidenceinindividualstudiesincludedinthisreview,highlighttheneedfor morerigorous,systematicresearchandevaluationeffortsthatareopenlysharedandassessed.Theseﬁndingsenabledthe investigativeteamtoidentifyaseriesofrecommendationsfororganisationsandresearchersthatwillhelpaddressthese gapsandcontributetotheongoinggrowthanddevelopmentoftheSfDﬁeld.

Notes

1ThisworkwassupportedbytheLaureusSportforGoodFoundationandtheCommonwealthSecretariat. 2Additionalinformationaboutthesearchstrategiesareavailablefromthecorrespondingauthoronrequest. 3Referencesmarkedwithanasteriskindicateincludedstudies.

Acknowledgement

We thank the organizations and scholars who assisted in the identiﬁcation and procurement of published and

unpublisheddocuments.

References2

*Allen,G.,Rhind,D.,&Koshy,V.(2015).Enablersandbarriersformalestudentstransferringlifeskillsfromthesportshallintotheclassroom.Qualitative ResearchinSport,ExerciseandHealth,7(1),53–67.

*AmandlaEduFootball(2012).Annualreport2012.CapeTown,SouthAfrica:Author.

2_References_marked_with_an_asterisk_indicate_included_studies.

SMR500No.ofPages13

(13)

*Armour,K.,&Duncombe,R.(2012).Changinglives?Criticalevaluationofaschool-basedathleterolemodelintervention.Sport,EducationandSociety,17(3), 381–403.

*Armour,K.,&Sandford,R.(2013).Positiveyouthdevelopmentthroughanoutdoorphysicalactivityprogramme:Evidencefromafour-yearevaluation. EducationalReview,65(1),85–108.

*Armour,K.,Sandford,R.,&Duncombe,R.(2013).Positiveyouthdevelopmentandphysicalactivity/sportinterventions:Mechanismsleadingtosustained impact.PhysicalEducationandSportPedagogy,18(3),256–281.

*Banciu,R.L.,Barkley,C.K.,&Sanders,B.F.(2016).Gendernorms,sexualityandsportfordevelopment:Challengesfacedbyadolescentgirlswhen participatinginasoccer-basedlifeskillsprogrammeinKhayelitsha,SouthAfrica.PosterPresentedatInternationalAIDSConference2016,. *Barkley,C.,Warren,J.,&Sanders,B.(2016).Morethanjustagame?:Sportasacommunicationplatforminsexualityeducationforadolescentgirls.CapeTown,

SouthAfrica:GrassrootSoccer.

*Bateman,J.,&Binns,T.(2014).Morethanjustagame:GrassrootscricketanddevelopmentinMumbai,India.ProgressinDevelopmentStudies,14(2),147– 161.

*BoxgirlsSouthAfrica(2015).CapeTown,SouthAfrica:Author.Annualreport2015..

Braun,V.,Clarke,V.,&Weate,P.(2016).Usingthematicanalysisinsportandexerciseresearch.InB.Smith,&A.C.Sparkes(Eds.),Routledgehandbookof qualitativeresearchinsportandexercise(pp.191–205).London:Routledge.

Brembs,B.,Button,K.,&Munafò,M.(2013).Deepimpact:Unintendedconsequencesofjournalrank.FrontiersinHumanNeuroscience,7,291.http://dx.doi. org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291.

Bruner,M.W.,Hillier,S.,Baillie,C.P.T.,Lavallee,L.F.,Bruner,B.G.,Hare,K.,&Lévesque,L.(2016).PositiveyouthdevelopmentinAboriginalphysicalactivity andsport:Asystematicreview.AdolescentResearchReview,1(3),257–269.

*Burnett,C.(2011).Localagencyasastrategicimperativeinsportfordevelopment.AfricanJournalforPhysicalHealthEducation,RecreationandDance,17, 916–925.

*Burnett,C.(2012).Storiesfromthefield.Pretoria,SouthAfrica:DeutscheGaesellschaftfürInternationaleZusammenarbeit(GIZ)GmbH. *Burnett,C.(2013).GIZ/YDFandyouthasdriversofsportfordevelopmentintheAfricancontext.JournalofSportforDevelopment,1(1),4–14. *Burnett,C.(2014).Theimpactofasport-for-educationprogrammeintheSouthAfricancontextofpoverty.SportinSociety,17(6),722–735. *Burnett,C.(2015).The‘uptake’ofasport-for-developmentprogrammeinSouthAfrica.Sport,EducationandSociety,20(7),819–837.

*Butler,W.,&Leathem,K.(2014).Asocialreturnoninvestmentevaluationofthree‘sportforsocialchangenetwork’programmesinLondon.London:Active CommunitiesNetwork.

Button,K.S.,Bal,L.,Clark,A.,&Shipley,T.(2016).Preventingtheendsfromjustifyingthemeans:Withholdingresultstoaddresspublicationbiasin peer-review.BMCPsychology,4(59),1–7.

Coakley,J.(2011).Youthsports:Whatcountsas‘positivedevelopment?’.JournalofSportandSocialIssues,35,306–324. Coalter,F.(2007).Awidersocialroleforsport:Who’skeepingthescore.Abingdon,UK:Routledge.

*Coalter,F.(2013).‘Thereisloadsofrelationshipshere’:Developingaprogrammetheoryforsport-for-changeprogrammes.InternationalReviewforthe SociologyofSport,48,594–612.

Coalter,F.(2015).Sport-for-change:Somethoughtsfromasceptic.SocialInclusion,3(3),19–23. Coalter,F.(2010a).Sport-for-development:Goingbeyondtheboundary?SportinSociety,13,1374–1391. Coalter,F.(2013a).Sportfordevelopment:Whatgameareweplaying?London,UK:Routledge.

Coalter,F.(2010b).Thepoliticsofsport-for-development:Limitedfocusprogramsandbroadgaugeproblems?InternationalReviewfortheSociologyofSport, 45,295–314.

*Crabbe,T.(2000).Asportingchance?:Usingsporttotackledruguseandcrime.Drugs:Education,PreventionandPolicy,7(4),381–391. *Crabbe,T.,Brown,A.,Brown,M.,&Slater,I.(2008).Breakingbarriers:Communitycohesion,sportandorganisationaldevelopment.London:Active

CommunitiesNetwork.

*Crabbe,T.,McGee,F.,&Crosby,S.(2013).Activechoicesprogram:Finalreport.London:ActiveCommunitiesNetwork.

Culver,D.M.,Gilbert,W.,&Sparkes,A.(2012).Qualitativeresearchinsportpsychologyjournals:Thenextdecade2000-2009andbeyond.TheSport Psychologist,26,261–281.

Darnell,S.C.,Chawansky,M.,Marchesseault,D.,Holmes,M.,&Hayhurst,L.(2018).Thestateofplay:Criticalsociologicalinsightsintorecent‘Sportfor DevelopmentandPeace’research.InternationalReviewfortheSociologyofSport,53,133–151.

*Delva,W.,Michielsen,K.,Meulders,B.,Groeninck,S.,Wasonga,E.,Ajwang,P.,&Vanreusel,B.(2010).HIVpreventionthroughsport:ThecaseoftheMathare YouthSportAssociationinKenya.AidsCare-PsychologicalAndSocio-MedicalAspectsOfAids/HIV,22,1012–1020.

Fitzgerald,H.E.,Allen,A.,&Roberts,P.(2010).Campus-communitypartnerships:Perspectivesonengagedresearch.InH.E.Fitzgerald,C.Burack,&S.Seifer (Eds.),Handbookofengagedscholarship:Contemporarylandscape,futuredirections.VolumeII:Community-campuspartnerships(pp.5–28).EastLansing, MI:MichiganStateUniversityPress.

*FitzroviaYouthinAction(2016).Strategicplan2014–2016.London:Author.

Frost,J.,Garside,R.,Cooper,C.,&Britten,N.(2016).Meta-studyasdiagnostic:Towardcontentoverforminqualitativesynthesis.QualitativeHealthResearch, 26,307–319.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732315619381.

*Fuller,C.W.,Junge,A.,DeCelles,J.,Donald,J.,Jankelowitz,R.,&Dvorak,J.(2010).‘FootballforHealth’–afootball-basedhealth-promotionprogrammefor childreninSouthAfrica:Aparallelcohortstudy.BritishJournalofSportsMedicine,44(8),546–554.

Giulianotti,R.(2011).Sport,transnationalpeacemaking,andglobalcivilsociety:Exploringthereﬂectivediscoursesof“sport,developmentandpeace” projectofﬁcials.JournalofSportandSocialIssues,35(1),50–71.

Glass,C.R.,&Fitzgerald,H.E.(2010).Engagedscholarship:Historicalroots,contemporarychallenges.InH.E.Fitzgerald,C.Burack,&S.Seifer(Eds.), Handbookofengagedscholarship:Contemporarylandscape,futuredirectionsvolume1:Institutionalchange(pp.9–24).EastLansing,MI:MichiganState UniversityPress.

*GlobalNetworkingConsultants(2018).G-impactstudy:AssessingandunderstandingMagicBus’worktoattaingenderequalitythroughsportandplayinIndia. Mumbai,India:Author.

Haudenhuyse,R.P.,Theeboom,M.,&Skille,E.A.(2014).Towardsunderstandingthepotentialofsports-basedpracticesforsociallyvulnerableyouth.Sportin Society,17(2),139–156.

Hermens,N.,Super,S.,Verkooijen,K.T.,&Koelen,M.A.(2017).Asystematicreviewoflifeskilldevelopmentthroughsportsprogramsservingsocially vulnerableyouth.ResearchQuarterlyforExerciseandSport..http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2017.1355527.

*Herrmann,M.(2012).Isiqalo–WavesforChange:Evaluationreport.CapeTown,SouthAfrica:WavesforChange.

*Hershow,R.,Gannett,K.,Merrill,J.,Kaufman,B.E.,Barkley,C.,DeCelles,J.,&Harrison,A.(2015).UsingsoccertobuildconﬁdenceandincreaseHCTuptake amongadolescentgirls:Amixed-methodsstudyofanHIVpreventionprogrammeinSouthAfrica.SportinSociety,18(8),1009–1022.http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/17430437.2014.997586.

Holt,N.L.,Neely,K.C.,Slater,L.G.,Camiré,M.,Côté,J.,Fraser-Thomas,J.,&Tamminen,K.A.(2017).Agroundedtheoryofpositiveyouthdevelopmentthrough sportbasedonresultsfromaqualitativemeta-study.InternationalReviewofSportandExercisePsychology,10,1–49.

Jones,G.J.,Edwards,M.B.,Bocarro,J.N.,Bunds,K.S.,&Smith,J.W.(2017).Anintegrativereviewofsport-basedyouthdevelopmentliterature.Sportin Society,20,161–179.

Kania,J.,&Kramer,M.(2011).Collectiveimpact:Large-scalesocialchangerequiresbroadcross-sectorcoordination,yetthesocialsectorremainsfocusedon theisolatedinterventionofindividualorganizations.StanfordSocialInnovationReview,9(1),36–41.

*Kaufman,Z.A.,Braunschweig,E.,DeCelles,J.,Nkosi,Z.,Delany-Moretlwe,S.,&Ross,D.A.(2011).GOALtrial:Pilotresultsofasport-basedHIVprevention interventiontoinformacluster-randomizedtrialinSouthAfricanschools.PosterPresentedatXIXInternationalAIDSConference,.

SMR500No.ofPages13

(14)

*Knight,Kavanagh,&Page(2013).London2012OlympicgamesandParalympicgamesinspireprogrammelegacysurvey:UnitedKingdom.London:Author. *Laidler,K.J.,Fraser,A.,Lau,G.,Wu,T.W.K.,&Li,N.L.L.(2013).ReducingHongKong’syouthcrimethroughcommunityintervention:AnevaluationofOperation

Breakthrough.UniversityofHongKong:CentreofCriminology.

*Lamb,G.C.(2009).DoestheHongKongpolice’s‘OperationBreakthrough’succeedinitsaimsofdeterringjuveniledelinquencyandjuvenilerecidivism? (Unpublishedundergraduatepaper).HongKong:UniversityofHongKong.

Langer,L.(2015).Sportfordevelopment:AsystematicmapofevidencefromAfrica.SouthAfricanReviewofSociology,46(1*),66–86.

Langer,L.,&Stewart,R.(2014).Whathavewelearnedfromtheapplicationofsystematicreviewmethodologyininternationaldevelopment?–Athematic overview.JournalofDevelopmentEffectiveness,6,236–248.

*LaureusFoundationSouthAfrica(2012).EvaluationoftheLaureusyouthempowermentthroughsportprogramme.CapeTown,SouthAfrica:Author. Levermore,R.,&Beacom,A.(Eds.).(2009).Sportandinternationaldevelopment.Basingstoke,UK:PalgraveMacmillan.

Lindsey,I.(2017).Governanceinsport-for-development:Problemsandpossibilitiesof(not)learningfrominternationaldevelopment.InternationalReview fortheSociologyofSport,52,801–818.

*LouisianaPublicHealthInstitute(2016).Up2Ussportsevaluationreport:CoachAcrossAmericaprogrammingintheNewOrleansArea.NewOrleans,LA: Author.

Lyras,A.,&WeltyPeachey,J.(2011).Integratingsport-for-developmenttheoryandpraxis.SportManagementReview,14,311–326.

*Magee,J.,&Jeanes,R.(2013).Football’scominghome:AcriticalevaluationoftheHomelessWorldCupasaninterventiontocombatsocialexclusion. InternationalReviewfortheSociologyofSport,48(1),3–19.

Massey,W.V.,Whitley,M.A.,Blom,L.,&Gerstein,L.(2015).Sportfordevelopmentandpeace:Asystemstheoryperspectiveonpromotingsustainable change.InternationalJournalofSportManagementandMarketing,16,18–35.

*Meek,R.,&Lewis,G.(2014).Theimpactofasportsinitiativeforyoungmeninprison:Staffandparticipantperspectives.JournalofSportandSocialIssues,38 (2),95–123.

Moher,D.,Liberati,A.,Tetzlaff,J.,&Altman,D.G.(2009).Preferredreportingitemsforsystematicreviewsandmeta-analyses:ThePRISMAstatement.Plos Medicine,6(7)e1000097.

*Murthy,R.K.,&Gupta,P.(2016).Makingadifference:Empoweringgirlsthroughsports,lifeskillsandgenderawareness.Mumbai,India:DasraandTheNaz Foundation.

NationalCollaboratingCentreforMethodsandTools(2008).Qualityassessmenttoolforquantitativestudies.(Updated13April,2010)Retrievedfrom. Hamilton,ON:McMasterUniversityhttp://www.nccmt.ca/resources/search/14.

Nicholls,S.,Giles,A.,&Sethna,C.(2011).Perpetuatingthe“LackofEvidence”discourseinsportfordevelopment:Privilegedvoices,unheardstoriesand subjugatedknowledge.InternationalReviewoftheSociologyofSport,46(3),249–264.

*Odera,E.,&Harknett,S.(2016).Courtofdreams:Baselinestudy2016.Nairobi,Kenya:InternationalInspiration.

*Palmer,J.,&Micallef,A.B.(2018).Thesocialimpactoffootball-basedemployabilityprogrammes.London:streetfootballworld.

*Parker,A.,Pitchford,A.,Farooq,S.,&Moreland,B.(2018).Urbanstars:Sport,crimepreventionandcommunityaction.London:ActiveCommunitiesNetwork andLaureusSportforGoodFoundation.

*Parker,A.,Meek,R.,&Lewis,G.(2014).Sportinayouthprison:Maleyoungoffenders’experiencesofasportingintervention.JournalofYouthStudies,17(3), 381–396.

*Parker,A.,Pitchford,A.,Farooq,S.,&Moreland,B.(2014).Youthleadershipvolunteeringplacement(YLVP):Researchreport.Gloucestershire,UK:Active CommunitiesNetwork..

*Praxis(2010).ImpactevaluationofMagicBusgraduationprogramme:Finalreport.Mumbai,India:Author.

Roth,J.L.,&Brooks-Gunn,J.(2016).Evaluatingyouthdevelopmentprograms:Progressandpromise.AppliedDevelopmentalScience,20,188–202. *RouteConsultancyLimited(2014).Evaluationoftrackacademyactivitiesprogramme.Wembley,UK:Author.

*Sampson,A.(2009).TheFightforPeaceAcademyUK:Anindependentassessment.London:CentreforInstitutionalStudies.

*Sampson,A.(2015).AnevaluationofthelongertermoutcomesofthePathwaysProgrammeatFightforPeace.London:CentreforSocialJusticeandChange. *Sampson,A.,&Vilella,M.R.(2012).FightforPeaceinRioandLondon–assessingtheirprogressandimpact.London:CentreforInstitutionalStudies. *Sampson,A.,&Vilella,M.R.(2013).FightforPeaceAcademiesinRioandLondon–assessingtheirprogressandimpact.London:CentreforSocialJusticeand

Change.

*Sandford,R.A.,Duncombe,R.,&Armour,K.M.(2008).Theroleofphysicalactivity/sportintacklingyouthdisaffectionandanti-socialbehaviour. EducationalReview,60,419–435.

Schulenkorf,N.(2017).Managingsport-for-development:Reﬂectionsandoutlook.SportManagementReview,20,243–251.

Schulenkorf,N.,Sherry,E.,&Rowe,K.(2016).Sportfordevelopment:Anintegratedliteraturereview.JournalofSportManagement,30,22–39. Schulenkorf,N.,&Adair,D.(Eds.).(2014).Globalsport-for-development:Criticalperspectives.Basingstoke,UK:PalgraveMacmillan.

*Shuttleworth,J.,&Wan-Ka,C.(1998).YouthsporteducationanddevelopmentinHongKong:Aconﬂictmodelofsocialimpactassessment.Sport,Education andSociety,3(1),37–58.

Smith,J.(2009).Judgingresearchquality:Fromcontingencytocertainty.QualitativeResearchinSportandExercise,1,91–100.

*Snelling,M.(2015).Breakingcyclesofviolence,onewaveatatime:AformativeevaluationoftheWavesforChangesurftherapyprogramme(Unpublished master’sthesis).SouthAfrica:UniversityofCapeTown.

Spaaij,R.,Schulenkorf,N.,Jeanes,R.,&Oxford,S.(2018).Participatoryresearchinsport-for-development:Complexities,experiencesand(missed) opportunities.SportManagementReview,21,25–37.

Sparkes,A.C.,&Smith,B.(2009).Judgingthequalityofqualitativeinquiry:Criteriologyandrelativisminaction.PsychologyofSportandExercise,10,491–497. Sugden,J.(2010).Criticalleft-realismandsportinterventionsindividedsocieties.InternationalReviewfortheSociologyofSport,45(3),258–272. *Wamucii,P.(2011).Walkingtheextramile:NavigatingslumidentitiesthroughsocialactivisminMathare,Kenya.TheHowardJournalofCommunications,22

(2),183–199.

Weiss,C.(1995).Nothingaspracticalasgoodtheory:Exploringtheory-basedevaluationforcomprehensivecommunityinitiativesforchildrenandfamilies. InJ.Connell,A.Kubisch,L.Schorr,&C.Weiss(Eds.),Newapproachestoevaluatingcommunityinitiatives(pp.65–92).Washington,DC:AspenInstitute. WeltyPeachey,J.,&Cohen,A.(2016).Researchpartnershipsinsportfordevelopmentandpeace:Challenges,barriers,andstrategies.JournalofSport

Management,30,282–297.

WeltyPeachey,J.,Cohen,A.,Shin,N.,&Fusaro,B.(2017).Challengesandstrategiesofbuildingandsustaininginter-organizationalpartnershipsinsportfor developmentandpeace.SportManagementReview..http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2017.06.002.

Whitley,M.A.,Forneris,T.,&Barker,B.(2014).Therealityofevaluatingcommunity-basedsportandphysicalactivityprogramstoenhancethedevelopment ofunderservedyouth:Challengesandpotentialstrategies.Quest,66,218–232.

*WomenWin(2015).Buildingyoungwomen’sleadershipthroughsport:Programmeevaluation2013-2015.Nairobi,Kenya:Author.

SMR500No.ofPages13