Re-imagining the Youth Court

Gillian Hunter from the Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research shares findings from research conducted in collaboration with The Centre for Justice Innovation (CJI) on developing problem-solving practice in the Youth Court.

Youth courts and problem-solving justice
The number of young people coming to court has declined by 75% over the past decade due to falls in youth crime and the successful diversion of cases away from formal court proceedings. Those who do end up in courts, however, tend to be the most vulnerable and disadvantaged young people, their biographies replete with experiences of being in care, exclusion from mainstream schooling, and evidence of welfare, mental health and learning and communication needs.

Our research, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, explored youth court practice in three areas in England with a view to identifying opportunities to develop problem-solving approaches. Problem-solving justice emphasises rehabilitation; it promotes procedural fairness and respectful treatment by the court, and interventions and supervision (sometimes from a number of agencies) that are focused on outcomes and responsive to the changing circumstances of the young person. It also involves longer-term judicial monitoring to review and support compliance with the court’s sentence. There are already elements of problem-solving in how youth courts operate: there is a degree of specialism required to work in these courts; hearings should take place in adapted courtrooms where there is more emphasis on engaging with the child compared to adult court hearings; youth offending services (YOS) are specialist multiagency teams that coordinate and supervise interventions; and the guidance for sentencing young people encourages a child-focused approach which centres on rehabilitation wherever possible and warns against the unnecessary criminalisation of young people. It is clear, however, that these elements of problem-solving practice could be further developed and enhanced.

Our report, co-authored with CJI and launched on 30th June 2020 – Time to get it right underlines the need for action rather than more words. Our research followed several high-level independent reviews of the Youth Justice System, completed since 2014, all of which have recommended aspects of problem-solving practice as a better way to address young people’s underlying needs and reduce their likelihood of future contact with the justice system. It is also widely recognised that the decline in numbers of young people going through the courts has created the necessary space for a system ‘re-boot’.

Local innovation and challenges
Despite the absence of a national strategy on youth justice, the study found local innovation and enthusiasm for changes in line with problem-solving practice, including, for example, the use of informal review hearings to support the progress of young people on community orders. This was described by one YOS worker we spoke to as helping to establish a more positive relationship between young person and court:

Because up until then, their experience of magistrates and people dictating what happens to them, which is how they see it, is people sat on a bench who are talking to them in a particular way, who are deciding what will happen to them, who are telling them what to do and then suddenly …They have a review and they are sitting around a table with people who are genuinely taking a real interest in them, who are not being lovey-dovey. Although the setting is informal it is quietly exploratory, it is quietly challenging, but it’s all done at the young person’s pace so they’re more relaxed, they’re more engaged.”

We also encountered committed and hard-working court and YOS staff and lay and professional judiciary working in a strained system that throws up daily challenges: delays in cases reaching court; the closure of youth courts and associated loss of local expertise; court layouts that are ill-adapted to young people’s participation in hearings; children’s services that are under-funded and often absent when they need to provide support to young people in court; and shortfalls in the help that can be offered to address young people’s mental health, or communication and learning needs. “A sticking plaster” analogy was used by one magistrate we talked to, in considering how well the system is currently addressing young people’s needs.

Young People’s voices
The young people we interviewed, with recent experience of youth court, were frequently confused by court language and felt largely detached from proceedings, sometimes not fully understanding the implications of their sentence until later. However, they also told us that they appreciated when efforts were made by judiciary and others in court to explain what was happening in ways they could understand.

Time for action
Our research highlights the need for enhanced problem-solving practice in the youth court – including greater specialist knowledge and training for those working with young people as judges, magistrates and legal representatives, and further adaptations of court layouts such that they are always less formal than the equivalent for adults. There should also be better resourcing of youth justice and children’s services to ensure the young people who come before the court receive the support they need. Our research found local endeavours to introduce problem-solving in the absence of national initiatives to promote the approach and we emphasise the need for an official repository  so that learning can be shared and further innovative practice in the youth courts can be fostered.

Further information

 

Share
. Reply . Category: Law . Tags: , ,

Health education for classical musicians

Could compulsory health education at UK conservatoires improve the health and wellbeing of classical musicians? Dr Raluca Matei of Birkbeck’s Centre for Sustainable Working Life shares the findings of a recent study conducted with Jane Ginsborg, Juliet Goldbart, and Stephen Broad.

Picture of classical musicians

Despite rating job satisfaction very highly, many classical musicians also suffer for their art. In the largest survey to date (Fishbein et al., 1988), 76% of players reported a medical problem severe enough to impair performance. The most prevalent were musculoskeletal, affecting the shoulder, neck and back, however, they also reported acute anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances.

More recent research shows that musicians experience hearing loss (O’Brien et al., 2014), visual problems (Beckers et al., 2016), and eating disorders (Kapsetaki and Easmon, 2017). There is a higher prevalence of insomnia and psychological distress among musicians than in the general population and they may be more likely to use psychotherapy and psychotropic drugs such as sedatives, antidepressants, hypnotics and/or medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Vaag et al., 2016a,b,c).

Compulsory health education for music students

Our study sought to find out if we could empower musicians to improve their health through a conservatoire-based health education course. The course was delivered to first-year undergraduate music students at a UK music conservatoire. The aims of the study were:

  • To explore students’ hearing and use of hearing protection
  • To design an evidence-based health education course
  • To assess the effects of the course on primary outcomes (perceived knowledge of course content and knowledge and awareness of potential risks to health) and secondary outcomes (including general health, health-related quality of life, health-promoting behaviors, self-efficacy, emotional state, perceived stress, frequency and severity of playing related musculoskeletal disorders (PRMDs), and perceived exertion)
  • To identify the topics within the course that were most salient to students

Unlike previous studies, which provide little information as to how curricula were designed and whether formative methodologies were used, the course curriculum was informed by findings of research on music performance anxiety (MPA) and PRMDs; the findings of evaluations of other courses designed to improve musicians’ health; theories and models deriving from health psychology (Taylor, 2012); discussions with the Acting Head of Undergraduate Studies at the institution where some of the authors are based; and members of the Healthy Conservatoires Network.

The course formed the major component of a module entitled Artist Development 1, compulsory for all first-year students at a tertiary-level music conservatoire in the UK. The module took place over the first and second terms of the academic year and consisted of ten weekly 1-hour lectures delivered to the whole cohort (104 students) and eight weekly 1-hour seminars delivered to ten small groups of 10–15 students. The course covered not only physical and mental health, but also effective strategies for practicing, memorizing and rehearsing, and life skills and behavior-change tools inspired by health psychology.

Students were required to submit a portfolio of assessments including a 1,000-word essay in response to both the following questions: (1) Looking back on the Health and Wellbeing component of Artist Development 1, what new information, useful for your own music-making, have you learned from one lecture or one workshop/seminar?; (2) How have you been able to put this information into practice when making music (e.g., practicing, rehearsing, performing or studying more generally)?

Course evaluation

A mixed-methods approach to evaluation was adopted: quantitative analyses of data gathered at baseline and post-intervention, and between-group data (intervention vs. controls); and qualitative, semi-structured interviews (unpublished).

In terms of hearing, tinnitus and hyperacusis were reported by both groups of respondents, with a higher incidence in the (third-year) control group than in the (first-year) intervention group. Ten percent of the intervention group had been diagnosed with hearing loss, although minorities of respondents in both groups reported having had hearing tests in the previous ten years.

Although respondents were more likely to use hearing protection when rehearsing with others and attending concerts, comparatively few members of either group used hearing protection, or, if appropriate, the mute on their instrument, while practicing alone. This could affect hearing, since private practice can cause over-exposure to risky levels of sound.

Reassuringly, respondents reported increased knowledge of the topics covered in the course, including the sound intensity levels associated with hearing loss and how to deal with the health and safety issues associated with learning and playing a musical instrument. They also reported increased awareness of performance factors related to potential musculoskeletal injuries. The ratings of students who had taken the course and those who had not did not differ significantly, perhaps because the control group had had informal exposure to the other topics covered in the course, with the possible exception of life skills and behavior change techniques.

Students who had taken the course also rated their ability to deal with relevant health and safety issues significantly higher than controls.

In contrast, the only desired secondary outcome to increase significantly from baseline to post-intervention was self-efficacy, which may or may not have been the result of the course. Other significant increases were in the wrong direction: sleep problems, distress and lack of vitality all increased significantly from baseline to post-intervention, and controls experienced more severe depression, distress and lack of vitality.

We attribute these negative findings to the cumulative pressure on students over time. The first time the intervention group completed the questionnaire, they were in their second week at the conservatoire; post-intervention, they were facing deadlines for assignments to be submitted and recitals to be given. They may, however, have fared better than the control group simply by virtue of being a year younger. What we cannot know is the extent to which the health education course may have mitigated the demands perceived by the students in the intervention group.

Finally, from the topics covered in student assignments, it appears that managing MPA and behavior change techniques are of most interest or relevance to them at this point in their studies.

Conclusions

In the absence of a national curriculum for health, all institutions of higher education must develop their own approaches to health education, as do many university music departments and music conservatoires. The questions posed by Ralph Manchester in 2006 remain pertinent: “Who will develop this course? What topics will be included in the syllabus? Who will teach it? Will it be offered to freshmen or seniors, or can it be taken during any year? Can one course meet the needs of performance majors, music education majors, and others? Should we develop some minimal national requirements?” (Manchester, 2006, pp. 95–96).

Further questions could be asked, such as: When can a course be considered successful? What are its desired outcomes? How should they be measured? Once the content and delivery of a course have been evaluated, how should they be adjusted, if necessary? To what extent should students’ requirements and feedback be taken into consideration, given the available evidence and the need, on occasion, to challenge their beliefs? Very few health courses have been formally evaluated to date, and reports of those that have been evaluated do not say how the course was improved as a result.

Although it has been argued for the last 25 years that health education for musicians should be evidence-based (Zaza, 1993), the declarations and recommendations fail to mention the importance of evidence-based teaching. There is now a wealth of research on musicians’ playing-related health problems, and their management, but unless this is disseminated effectively to senior managers and educators, instrumental and vocal tutors, and students, there is a risk that conservatoires will maintain traditional practices rather than responding systematically to the best evidence available.

The topic of how music students, too, can be convinced that health education is a vital part of their training remains largely unexplored. Framing the objectives of health education courses as “performance-enhancing” rather than “preventative” is likely to be more attractive to students.

Although the course described in the present study did not have the hoped-for impact on secondary outcomes including reported health-related behaviors, reduced PRMDs and stress, it was associated with improvements in primary outcomes relevant to health education, namely the perceived knowledge of topics covered in the course and awareness of health risks.

Furthermore, the study itself is the first evaluation of a health education course for musicians that documents the process of designing the course on the basis of a rigorous assessment of the available evidence, and its incorporation in the “real world” context of a music conservatoire.

Further Information

Share
. Reply . Category: Business Economics and Informatics . Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,