Music making interventions

Impact on crime
Evidence quality 1
Effect
How it works
cog full Evidence quality 2
Mechanism
Where it works
where full Evidence quality 1
Moderator
How to do it
what full Evidence quality 3
Implementation
What it costs
cost empty Evidence quality 0
Economic cost

What is the focus of the intervention?

Music making interventions for young people at risk of offending - defined as being ‘known to youth justice professionals’ – can be delivered in various justice contexts (e.g. custodial, residential or community settings).  They cover different activities including structured group performance, instrument tuition or exploring rap lyrics.  Music making interventions aim to promote prosocial skills development by providing positive experiences and the opportunity for self-development. They are intended to build resilience and contribute to young people’s well being (defined as 11-25 year olds).  They are believed to have the potential to prevent offending behaviour in the long run.

This narrative is primarily based on one systematic review covering 11 studies.

EFFECT

How effective is it?

​Overall, there is no evidence to suggest that music making interventions have an impact on crime.  However, there are indications that these interventions improve social skills and other outcomes such as self-efficacy in participants.

How strong is the evidence?

​Although the review was systematic, many forms of bias that could influence the study conclusions remain. Nevertheless a transparent and well-designed search strategy was used.

Many of the studies reviewed were considered of weak methodological design - with small sample sizes and a lack of detail in reporting the research design. The reviewers assessed the studies as biased and hence the strength of the evidence reported in the overall review is weak.

MECHANISM

How does it work?

​Music subcultures are believed to have a powerful influence on the development of identity and values in young people.  Music making interventions might reduce crimes committed by juvenile offenders by: a) providing positive social experiences, b) addressing problematic attitudes and perceptions, c) building resilience and supporting well-being, d) promoting identity development, at the same time as distracting from negative influences and crime, e) allowing participants to experiment with new self-images (e.g. a 'creative self'), f) providing an acceptable outlet for aggression and/or other difficult feelings, g) relieving stress and/or providing an emotional release or h) promoting psychological growth and physical mastery. 

However, none of these potential mechanisms are empirically tested.  The majority of studies report the improvement of intermediate outcomes that could potentially be linked with a reduced risk of future offending, but these are seldom reported as statistically significant (possibly due to small samples).  Intermediate outcomes include improved confidence, self-efficacy, self-esteem, improved education/work performance, better interpersonal relationships, social skills, or mental well-being, improvements in emotional feelings or mood and reduced prison rule-breaking and feelings of anger.  

MODERATORS

In which contexts does it work best?

​​Little detail on context is provided by the review authors.  The 11 studies reviewed had implemented music making interventions in several countries (with different judicial systems), varying justice contexts (e.g. custodial, residential or community settin​gs) and were sometimes implemented in combination with other interventions such as cognitive-behavioural therapy.  The variety of settings makes it difficult to generalise from the results.​

Participants in the studies were more likely to be male, and there was some reporting of ethnic diversity in the samples.  However, small samples meant th​​at outcomes could not be analysed in relation to gender and ethnicity.

IMPLEMENTATION

What can be said about implementing this initiative?

​Evidence suggests that young people are more likely to participate in the intervention when activities are perceived to be of cultural relevance; fo​​r example, rap music is often used (4 studies).

Other findings indicate that music making interventions are more effective in settings that provide a safe predictable relationship between project staff a​nd participants (1 study), and use empowerment-focused group work (1 study).  In addition two studies reported that the short-term nature of the projects was a constraint to successful implementation, which led to participant frustration and disappointment (1 study).

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

How much might it cost?

​The review does not mention costs (and/or benefits) and no formal economic analysis is provided.​​​

General considerations

  • ​Ethical issues are not sufficiently reported in the studies reviewed.  Practitioners should consider access protocols, participant's r​​ights, consent, confidentiality, risk management and data protection.

  • ​This review has​​ highlighted substantial gaps in the evidence base – specifically more studies with a rigorous research design are needed to measure both intermediate outcomes such as self-efficacy and social skills, and crime outcomes, to properly test whether music making interventions have any effect on crime.

Summary

Overall, there is no evidence to suggest that music making interventions have an impact on crime Evidence suggests, however, that they can improve social skills and other outcomes such as self-efficacy.  Music making interventions are believed to work by fostering prosocial skills in an environment relevant to the young offender.  Using a culturally relevant music genre is believed to improve chances of recruitment and participation in interventions. There is weak evidence that it reduces rule breaking in prisons and that ‘delinquent behaviour’ might be reduced but no details are provided.

Ratings for Individual Reviews

Review 1

How it works
cog full Evidence quality 2
Mechanism
Where it works
where full Evidence quality 1
Moderator
How to do it
what full Evidence quality 3
Implementation
What it costs
cost empty Evidence quality 0
Economic cost

Resources

​Daykin, N., De Viggiani, N., Pilkington, P. and Moriarty, Y. (2012). Music making for health, well-being and behaviour change in youth justice settings: a systematic review. Health Promotion International. Vol 28(2). doi:10.1093/heapro/das005​

 

This narrative was prepared by UCL Jill Dando Institute and was co-funded by the College of Policing and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).  ESRC Grant title: 'University Consortium for Evidence-Based Crime Reduction'. Grant Ref: ES/L007223/1.

Uploaded on 19/02/15

Return to the Crime Reduction Toolkit