Our Voices

Count:

The Potential Impact of Strength-Based 

Music Programs in Juvenile Justice Settings

Research conducted in partnership with Carnegie Hall’s Weill Music Institute in 

collaboration with New York City’s Administration for Children’s Services.

This project was supported in part by an award from the Research: Art Works 

program at the National Endowment for the Arts: Grant# 13-3800-7014.

Dennie Palmer Wolf 

Steven Holochwost 

WOLFBROWN

Weill Music Institute
We wish to acknowledge the following collaborators who have supported the design, data collection, 

and development of our findings:

• Project advisors: Dr. Tina Maschi, Associate Professor, Fordham University Graduate School

of Social Service; and Margaret diZerega and Ryan Shanahan of the Family Justice Program, 

Vera Institute of Justice

• Songs of Solomon choir: Chantel Wright, Director, and choir mentors

• The research team of the Administration for Children’s Services, particularly Sara Workman and 

Michael Fanelli

• Colleagues in the field: Maud Mary Hickey, Sara Lee, and Lea Wolf

• The staff of the Musical Connections program at Carnegie Hall’s Weill Music Institute, especially 

Sarah Johnson, Ann Gregg, Manuel Bagorro, Elizabeth Ferguson, Jacqueline Stahlmann, and Alvin Taylor

Special thanks to the National Endowment for the Arts for its award of research funding.

The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not represent the views of the Office of 

Research & Analysis or the National Endowment for the Arts. The NEA does not guarantee the accuracy or 

completeness of the information included in this report and is not responsible for any consequence of its use.

Photography of Musical Connections ACS Choral Project at Horizon Juvenile Center by Julien Jourdes. 

Participant faces are not shown to protect confidentiality.

Acknowledgments

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Page

1 Executive Summary

6 I. Setting the Context: Contemporary Juvenile Justice

7 A. The Need for Reform

8 B. Reform Towards What? A Strength-Based Approach

9 C. Music as a Strategy: The Promise and the Limitations 

11 II. The Project

12 A. The Setting: The Larger System and Secure Detention Facilities

13 B. Implementing a Strength-Based Approach: The Musical Connections Songwriting 

 and Choral Performance

16 III. The Design of the Evaluation Study

17 A. The Participants

18 B. Data Collection

18 C. The Measures

20 IV. Findings

21 A. Evidence of What Young People Bring

22 B. Evidence of Effort and Engagement: Persistence, School Credit, Informal Music Activity, 

 and Musical Contributions

23 C. Evidence of Mutuality: Collaboration and Views of Others

24 D. Evidence of Changes in Personal Conduct

25 E. Evidence of Changes in Participants’ Externalizing Behaviors

25 F. Evidence of a Changed Sense of Self

27 G. Evidence of Impact at the Two Facilities: Understanding the Contextual Nature of Change 

29 H. Evidence of the Effects of the Residencies on Facilities Data

30 V. Discussion and Implications

31 A. Limitations of the Study

32 B. Implications for Future Work at the Intersection of Juvenile Justice and the Arts 

34 VI. Conclusion

35 VII. Bibliography

39 VIII. Technical Appendix

Table of Contents 

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | 1
There are more than two million youth in US 

juvenile corrections, 95% of whom have been 

detained or arrested for non-violent crimes. In 

fact, the United States incarcerates more youth 

than any other developed nation and for longer 

periods of time with no evidence that these efforts 

at correction make a difference (Gopnik, 2012; 

Hazel, 2008; OJJDP, 2008, n. d., a and b; Sickmund, 

2010; Sickmund, Sladky, & Kang, 2011; Southern 

Education Foundation, 2014; Synder & Sickmund, 

2006). Statistics from every state that collects data 

show that the system fails to increase public safety 

since as many as 75% of incarcerated youth reoffend 

after being released (Wilson, 2007). Moreover, time 

in the system has lifelong negative consequences 

for young people even beyond reoffending, such 

as school failure and unemployment, as well as 

intensified mental health issues and levels of 

substance abuse (New York State Paterson Task 

Force, 2009). Finally, given that so many young 

people who are arrested are poor and minority 

youth from resource-poor communities, the system 

multiplies their pre-existing vulnerabilities and 

erodes their chances to thrive (Alexander, 2010; 

OJJDP, 2008, n. d., a and b). 

In the face of these sobering facts, many states and 

cities are seeking to reform their juvenile justice 

systems in ways that focus on a more positive, 

strength-based approach that addresses the 

current needs and future potential of the young 

people whom such systems should serve, not 

merely sentence. Proponents of these strengthbased approaches argue that the current juvenile 

justice system cannot clone the adult prison 

system and expect to rehabilitate youth. Instead, 

they argue that the system has a responsibility 

to support, not stunt, young people’s growth 

towards successful adulthood (Butts, Bazemore, 

& Meroe, 2010).

Increasingly, arts organizations have stepped 

forward to act as partners in bringing positive 

youth development projects to juvenile justice 

settings. Their shared emphasis on agency and 

youth voice, combined with ensemble work toward 

a shared future goal, have been the source of 

promising practices and results for participating 

youth. This work, and its evaluation, has been 

particularly strong in the field of music (Daykin, 

De Viggiani, Pilkington, & Moriarty, 2013; Hickey, 

in preparation; Wolf & Wolf, 2012). However, given 

the small numbers of self-selected participants 

without comparison or control groups, the reliance 

on qualitative measures, 

the widespread use of 

self-report data, and the 

short-term nature of 

many of the projects, the 

results fall short of what 

public agencies require 

in order to recognize 

programs or strategies as 

evidence-based and thus 

worth supporting with 

public dollars or applying 

widely in programs 

designed to rehabilitate 

young people. 

In the spirit of building 

the needed evidentiary 

base, this study 

reports results from a 

collaborative project 

between the Administration for Children’s 

Services (ACS) in New York City and Carnegie 

Hall’s Musical Connections program that 

addresses some of these design challenges. For 12 

sessions over the course of two weeks, youth in 

two secure detention facilities participated in a 

choir in which they learned to perform traditional 

repertoire and also how to write original songs 

and lyrics. A choir director, six of her young adult 

vocalists, and two instrumentalist-songwriters 

supported the choir’s musical and ensemble 

development, setting high expectations for both. 

In each facility, nearly one third of the residents 

Increasingly, arts 

organizations have 

stepped forward to 

act as partners in 

bringing positive 

youth development 

projects to juvenile 

justice settings. Their 

shared emphasis on 

agency and youth 

voice, combined with 

ensemble work toward 

a shared future goal, 

have been the source 

of promising practices 

and results for 

participating youth.

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | 2
participated, with the majority persisting to 

the final performance. Throughout, the youth 

engaged in discussion and reflection, keeping 

personal journals. The residency culminated in 

two performances, one for the entire facility and 

one to which families were invited. Thus, the 

program used an ensemble vocal music experience 

to translate the broad principles of strength-based 

approaches to youth justice into concrete and 

replicable practices.

Using a mixed-methods design featuring pre- and 

post-residency assessments, researchers explored 

whether or not intensive engagement in ensemble 

music-making yielded a range of positive youth 

development outcomes. In contrast to the deficit 

models frequently applied to court-involved 

youth, many of the measures focused on the 

growth of young people’s engagement and prosocial behaviors. The evaluation asked: 1) whether 

high-quality, ensemble-based music could create a 

more positive and mutual environment inside the 

high-stress, uncertain worlds of secure detention 

facilities and 2) whether that environment results 

in positive outcomes for young people, including 

stronger social relations, more constructive 

behavior, and a changed sense of self. 

Hierarchical linear modeling of pre- and postresidency data demonstrated that staff reports 

of young people’s externalizing, or acting-out, 

behaviors were significantly lower following the 

residency at both facilities (β = -9.59, p < .001). In 

addition, across facilities, 75% of young people 

completed the music residency and earned the 

half-course credit toward high school graduation 

from their on-site or future New York City high 

school. Nearly two thirds of young people reported 

spending one to two hours between sessions 

working on their music in their own free time, 

acting as agents to set and work towards a longerterm goal. More than two thirds of residents 

reported working with other young people, 

professional artists, and facility staff, not only in 

rehearsals, but also in music-related free time 

activities. Finally, nearly half of the participants 

reported they experienced change in multiple 

areas of personal wellbeing (e.g., positive 

emotional state, sense of 

achievement, self-esteem, 

self-confidence, etc.).

In comparing the 

results across the two 

participating facilities, 

the data revealed that 

participants at one of 

the sites had statistically 

higher rates of earning high school credit 

(t (51) = 2.04, p = .047), built stronger social 

networks around music (β = 19.1, p = .002), were 

more likely to complete the entire residency, and 

exhibited lower levels of disengaged or disruptive 

behaviors (β = -1.73, p < .001). Probing these results 

revealed that the facility where youth showed 

these additional gains had steadily reduced the use 

of involuntary room confinements and physical 

restraints in the year preceding the residency, 

while the use of these measures was markedly 

higher at the second facility over the same period.

These results suggest that it is possible to use the 

creation, rehearsal, and performance of choral 

music to create a distinctive microenvironment 

that fosters positive and mutually supportive 

behavior even within the high-stress, uncertain 

environment of secure detention facilities. 

Potentially, the choirs created ecologies where it 

was both adaptive and safe to let go of isolated, 

vigilant, or aggressive behaviors, and try out 

mutuality, engagement, and the vulnerability of 

creating and performing in public. At the same 

time, the variability in results across facilities 

underscores how sensitive these outcomes are to 

the institutional contexts in which they occur. 

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | 3

Data demonstrated 

that staff reports 

of young people’s 

externalizing behaviors 

were significantly 

lower following 

the residency 

at both facilities 

(β = -9.59, p < .001).
Thus, there is compelling preliminary evidence 

for the possible role that ensemble music-making 

can play in creating environments where positive 

behavioral change is 

possible, safe, and attractive 

for young people. But these 

findings are provisional. 

Given the artists’ and 

staff’s goals to involve all 

interested residents, the 

evaluation did not include 

randomized assignments 

to control and treatment 

groups. In addition, given 

that residents volunteered, 

the participants may not 

be fully representative 

of the population of young people who enter 

secure detention facilities. The program lasted 

two weeks and the final measurements of young 

people’s behavior were coincident with the end of 

the program. Given these and other limitations, 

we cannot argue conclusively that young people’s 

musical experiences caused the observed changes 

in their behavior or that the experience had lasting 

impact. 

At the same time, this work opens up a set of issues 

that cultural organizations, researchers, and 

their partners in public agencies face in building 

a stronger evidential base for the potential role of 

arts-based youth programs in the juvenile justice 

system. We need to:

• Harvest and apply what projects like this 

choral residency tell us about the features 

of compelling and effective programs for 

incarcerated youth. What is the role of a 

charismatic artistic leader? What role did the 

young choral mentors play? Did it matter that 

they “were only two or three decisions away” 

from the young people they were teaching? 

How important was the aspirational and 

culturally relevant content of the songs? Only 

if young people are attracted and persist can 

programs have an effect. Only if staff and 

peers respect the work and support it in “offhours” does a program have its full impact. 

• Improve the quality of education in the 

juvenile justice system through the inclusion 

of the arts. Impoverished education ranks 

high among the factors that deter youth 

development in the juvenile justice system 

(Southern Educational Foundation, 2014). The 

relatively high rates of residency completion 

suggest that the active, participatory nature 

of the performing arts, and the expressive 

opportunities embodied in all art forms, 

attract and sustain young people who 

may have a checkered history with formal 

instruction. This speaks to the need for arts 

and arts-integrated instruction in on-site 

schools and tutoring programs for students 

in the correctional system. Potentially, these 

experiences could be used to establish a new 

or renewed sense of academic or artistic 

identity.

• Create pathways in arts programs that begin 

in detention, bridge to probation, and continue 

in the schools and communities that young 

people re-enter. Only if there are continuous 

and attractive opportunities do young people 

experience enough dosage and duration that 

it is reasonable to ask whether sustained arts 

engagement can help young people reach goals 

like surviving to adulthood, graduating from 

high school, or not re-offending.

Second, as a research community, we need to:

• Address the frequent tensions between 

supporting youth development and pursuing 

rigorous research design. For instance, how 

can we resolve the conflict between serving 

a maximum number of young people, all of 

whom want or need to participate, and the 

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | 4

The choirs created 

ecologies where it 

was both adaptive 

and safe to let go of 

isolated, vigilant, or 

aggressive behaviors, 

and try out mutuality, 

engagement, and 

the vulnerability 

of creating and 

performing in public.
random assignment to treatment and control 

groups required for testing a program’s 

effectiveness? 

• Challenge the emphasis on deficit-based 

measures in tracking youth behavior and 

the effectiveness of staff and programs. It is 

important to know whether fighting, acting 

out, and self-harm decline. But it is equally 

important to understand whether positive 

social relations, help-seeking, collaboration, 

and constructive extra-curricular activity 

increase during such experiences, and if 

subjects persist in pursuing them.

• Finally, we have to move beyond investigating 

short-term interventions to increasingly 

longitudinal inquiry. We know at-risk youth 

best in moments of crisis like arrest and 

sentencing. But we know much less about 

what deters risky behavior, what allows a 

young person to seek help or new skills while 

in detention, or what skills and relationships 

make it possible for a young person to re-enter 

her community, return to school, and never 

return to the correctional system.

Dennis Saleebey, a long-time proponent of 

strength-based social interventions, wrote, “Every 

individual, family, and community has an array of 

capacities and skills, talents and gifts, wiles and 

wisdom that, in the end, are the bricks and mortar 

of change” (2000, p. 127).

In that spirit, the work reported here suggests that 

activities like ensemble music-making may allow 

youth to discover and act on their strengths. As one 

choir member admitted, 

“I had fear in my heart, 

but I had to sing through 

it.” Correspondingly, 

it is time for cultural 

organizations and 

researchers to match that 

bravery by developing 

robust strength-based programs, along with the 

research designs and measures that will help to 

articulate if, why, and under what conditions the 

arts recognize, build, and sustain young people’s 

talents and resources.

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | 5

One choir member 

admitted, “I had 

fear in my heart, 

but I had to sing 

through it.”
I. Setting the Context: 

Contemporary Juvenile Justice

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // I. SETTING THE CONTEXT: CONTEMPORARY JUVENILE JUSTICE | 6
A. The Need for Reform 

There are more than two million youth in US 

juvenile corrections, 95% of whom have been 

detained or arrested for non-violent crime. In 

fact, the United States 

incarcerates more youth 

than any other developed 

nation (Sickmund, 2010) 

and for longer periods of 

time (Gopnik, 2012), with 

no evidence that these 

efforts at correction make 

a difference. Despite this 

investment in a youth 

correctional system, there 

is a growing recognition 

that spending time in 

the justice system fails 

to provide young people 

with the skills they 

need for making more 

productive life choices. 

Tragically, approximately 

75% are re-arrested 

within a year, with 

estimates suggesting they 

may have committed as many as 12 offenses in 

that period, damaging persons, property, and 

the communities they re-enter, as well as their 

own futures (vanPoortvliet, Joy, & Nevill, 2010). 

Just as troubling is the evidence that youth who 

have been detained are more likely to become 

increasingly involved in juvenile and adult justice 

systems (Bernburg & Krohn, 2003; Huizinga, 

Schumann, Ehret, & Elliot, 2003; Sampson & 

Laub, 1997; Survey, Huizinga, Esbensen, & Weiher, 

1991; Vitaro, Tremblay, & Bukowski, 2001). In 

direct relation to the amount of time they spend 

in the correctional system, most youth experience 

increasingly serious negative consequences, 

including persistent substance abuse, mental 

health issues, and difficulty completing high 

school or training programs, making it hard for 

them to ever thrive as older adolescents or adults 

(New York State Paterson Task Force, 2009). 

Moreover, given that a disproportionate number of 

incarcerated youth are young people of color, such 

consequences amplify the pre-existing stresses 

of poverty, exposure to violence, and racism that 

many of these young men and women encounter 

(OJJDP, 2008, n. d., a and b; Sickmund et al., 2011). 

In short, a young person’s involvement with the 

current juvenile justice system leaves them more 

vulnerable, rather than stronger.

For more than a century, advocates have sought 

alternatives to incarceration as the dominant 

response to delinquency, working to establish 

prevention and diversion programs. Additionally, 

advocates have worked to ensure that when a 

young person must be placed with the city or state, 

the placement programs provide an opportunity 

for young people to access services, gain skills, 

and then re-enter their communities as quickly 

as possible, while still maintaining public safety. 

At this time, many states and municipalities are 

engaged in major attempts to reform their juvenile 

justice systems to reflect positive youth justice 

principles that stress youth development and 

rehabilitation over punishment (Butts, Bazemore, & 

Meroe, 2010; New York City, 2014; Schwartz, 2000). 

In direct relation 

to the amount of 

time they spend 

in the correctional 

system, most youth 

experience increasingly 

serious negative 

consequences, 

including persistent 

substance abuse, 

mental health 

issues, and difficulty 

completing high 

school or training 

programs, making 

it hard for them to 

ever thrive as older 

adolescents or adults

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // I. SETTING THE CONTEXT: CONTEMPORARY JUVENILE JUSTICE | 7
B. Reform Towards What?

A Strength-Based Approach

Historically, the study of human behavior has been 

dominated by efforts to identify and cure disease and 

difficulty, with a focus on diagnosis, intervention, 

and the restoration of “normal” health (Seligman & 

Csikzentmihalyi, 2000). Recently, researchers and 

practitioners have argued that this view, while it 

identifies needs and develops treatments, leaves out 

the entire positive hemisphere of human behavior, 

notably the ways in which hope, motivation, 

aspiration, effort, or positive effects shape human 

development and require understanding and 

propagation. Research on individuals who survive 

traumatic stress (e.g., extreme poverty, family mental 

illness, or abuse) has demonstrated the powerful 

protective effect that internal processes (e.g., positive 

affect, or future orientation) and external systems 

(e.g., trusting relationships) can have on restoring 

mental health (Rutter, 2008; Ungar, 2004). From this 

body of work, a strength- or asset-based approach to 

changing patterns of human behavior has emerged. 

As articulated by Saleebey (2000):

... everybody (no exceptions here) has 

external and internal assets, competencies, 

and resources. These may be a realized part 

of a person’s life or they may be inchoate—

unrealized and unused ... Every individual, 

family, and community has an array of 

capacities and skills, talents and gifts, wiles 

and wisdom that, in the end are the bricks and 

mortar of change (p. 127).

The allied field of positive youth development 

(Benson & Pittman, 2001; Pittman, Irby, & Ferber, 

2001) takes a strength-based and resilienceoriented perspective on adolescent behavior. This 

approach stresses how the years between 12 and 24 

can be a time when individual young people realize 

their talents and competencies and cultivate their 

ability to attach to and empathize with others if they 

experience positive connections with pro-social 

adults, continuous learning, and engagement in 

tasks related to community leadership and adult 

responsibilities. In addition, this perspective raises 

questions about conventional indices of adolescent 

health that focus chiefly on declining pregnancy, 

crime, and suicide rates, and calls for positive 

measures of development, especially for youth 

who are viewed as dangerous or “deviant”—such 

as court-involved young people. Historically, the 

measures of their success or development have 

been deficit-focused: fewer infractions in custody, 

not being re-arrested, or staying free. While no one 

debates the importance of reducing destructive 

behaviors, the exclusive focus on a deficit model 

leaves positive change unmapped. Partially as 

a result, there are few guidelines for supporting 

incarcerated young people’s development towards 

an adult future (Griffin, 2012; National Research 

Council, 2013.). In many situations, court-mandated 

detentions or sentences place young people into 

holding patterns or worse. In a reforming system, 

the question has to become, “How do young people 

in detention or prison get the resources they 

particularly need to grow and change?” Translated 

into juvenile justice terms, this approach would lead 

to a set of practices that:

• Recognize that youth are frequently placed at 

risk by circumstances over which they have 

no control and to which they will return. A 

major focus of their time in the system has to 

be the development of strategies that help them 

and people close to them be agents for better 

outcomes.

• Acknowledge that youth are still developing, 

and have the right to emotional, social, 

academic, and life-skills support that will give 

them the skills to make different life choices.

• Identify the assets, talents, and aspirations 

that can anchor young people’s future lives 

and potentially outweigh their past behaviors 

and current problems.

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // I. SETTING THE CONTEXT: CONTEMPORARY JUVENILE JUSTICE | 8
• Align education, elective programs, staff 

training, and work with families to have 

positive effects.

However, principles are not enough. As advocates 

for more positive forms of youth justice design 

and implement reforms, they must prove that the 

rehabilitative approaches they endorse, and the 

interventions that support those approaches, are 

feasible and effective. In short, if reform is to be 

sustained and supported, it requires strong and 

convincing evidence that it works. 

C. Music as a Strategy: The 

Promise and the Limitations 

Arts programs have a long history in justice 

systems as tools of and partners in rehabilitation 

(Djurichkovic, 2011; 

Johnson, Keen, & 

Pritchard, 2011), based on 

the premise that “the arts 

can play an important 

part in changing 

individual, institutional, 

and social circumstances 

which sponsor criminal 

behavior” (Hughes, 

2005, p. 9). Research 

shows that incarcerated adults who participate 

in arts programs exhibit: 1) positive changes in 

self-esteem and confidence (Miles & Clarke, 2006), 

2) increases in self-control and reductions in 

impulsive behavior (Clawson & Coolbaugh, 2001; 

Hillman & Warner, 2004; Miles & Clarke, 2006; 

Ross, Fabiano, & Ross, 1988), and 3) increases in 

ability to manage interpersonal conflict resulting 

in concomitant decreases in the levels of prison 

violence (Durland, 1996; Manen, 1991; Piazza, 1997; 

Szekely, 1983). 

A complementary set of studies shows that arts 

programs are also effective with adolescents, 

leading to similar changes in both internal states 

and external behaviors including: 1) improvements 

in self-esteem based on higher levels of engagement 

and achievement (Clawson & Coolbaugh, 2001; 

Cox & Gelsthorpe, 2008; Lovett, 2000; Silha, 1995; 

Vasudevan, Stageman, Rodriguez, Fernandez, 

& Dattatreyan, 2010; Wilson & Logan, 2006), 2) 

greater self-control (Center for the Study of Art 

and Community, 2007; Clawson & Coolbaugh, 

2001; Lovelace, 2003; Reiss, Quayle, Brett, & Meux, 

1998; Silha, 1995; Wilson, Atherton, & Caulfield, 

2009), and 3) increased interpersonal skills 

(Arts Council England, 2006; Baker & Homan, 

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // I. SETTING THE CONTEXT: CONTEMPORARY JUVENILE JUSTICE | 9

“The arts can play

an important part 

in changing individual, 

institutional, and 

social circumstances 

which sponsor 

criminal behavior” 

(Hughes, 2005).
2007; Hughes, 2005; Lovett, 2000). Composing, 

rehearsing, and performing are associated with 

gains in mutuality or an openness to constructive 

interpersonal exchange and social bonding 

(Putnam, 2000), allowing participants to practice 

and refine the skills of interpersonal interaction 

(Anderson & Overy, 2010) and conflict resolution in 

favor of larger shared goals like putting on a great 

performance or making a recording. In sum, prior 

research suggests that ensemble musical activity 

can support the development of key emotional and 

social skills, which in turn may change the nature 

of social interactions and possibly even “lower the 

temperature” in correctional facilities, allowing 

staff and participants alike the chance to focus 

on developing and acknowledging youths’ assets 

rather than deficits, and on the growth of internal 

control and responsibility rather than coercion 

and punishment (Anderson & Overy, 2010; Ezell 

& Levy, 2003; Hillman & Warner, 2004; Watson, 

Bisesi, Tanamly, & Mai, 2003). 

At the same time, caution is merited. Many of the 

studies of music in prisons have small sample 

sizes comprising interested volunteers, rely 

largely on qualitative measures (particularly selfreport data), and have not had the resources or 

the institutional partnerships to include control 

populations, or long-term follow-ups to test how 

robust observed changes were. Thus, compelling as 

the personal stories are from participants, artists, 

and staff, the results fall short of what public 

agencies require in order to recognize programs 

or strategies as evidence-based and thus, worth 

supporting with public dollars or applying widely 

in programs designed to rehabilitate young people. 

Therefore, the purpose of the current study is to 

build on the current literature about the potential 

effects of music in juvenile justice by evaluating 

an intensive choral program for larger numbers of 

youth in secure detention using a pre- and postresidency mixed methods design that features both 

quantitative and qualitative measures, some drawn 

from the existing youth development literature 

and some of them designed to capture the unique 

outcomes of this work. As a result, the evaluation 

results can speak to whether participation in 

this kind of musical residency can affect a range 

of outcomes for young people: their sustained 

participation, their work towards high school 

credit, their behavior, and their self-concept.

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // I. SETTING THE CONTEXT: CONTEMPORARY JUVENILE JUSTICE | 10
II. The Project

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // II. THE PROJECT | 11
A. The Setting: The Larger 

System and Secure 

Detention Facilities

Nationally, the juvenile justice system still serves 

significant numbers of youth in non-secure group 

homes, youth under 18 in secure detention awaiting 

trial, and those ages 18–24 in youth divisions of 

adult prisons. It is a system working to overcome the 

prison-like practices that were deemed appropriate 

once the concept of youth “super predators” 

(DiIulio, 1995) entered the national discourse 

(Fagan, 2010; Wolf & Wolf, 2012). Every day, staff 

balance the need for public and personal safety 

with the effort to create environments where young 

people are not only held, but also helped (Butts, 

Bazemore, & Meroe, 2010; Griffin, 2012).

Like many cities and states, New York City is 

working to reform its juvenile justice system. In 

2010, the city’s standalone Department of Juvenile 

Justice was integrated into the Administration for 

Children’s Services (ACS), the city’s agency also 

responsible for providing child welfare and early 

care and education services. This new division 

within ACS, called the Division of Youth and Family 

Justice, was created to provide services that are 

informed by supportive and developmental, rather 

than adult correctional frameworks. The division 

facilitates long-term planning for the young people 

and their families with a focus on placing youth 

on the path toward school, work, and successful 

adulthood through a continuum of services and 

programs. Other reforms include the development 

and use of a risk-assessment tool that provides 

decision-makers with scientifically validated 

information about which youth they can safely 

release back into the community and who they 

should detain. The city has expanded the range of 

alternatives-to-detention for youth, reducing the 

numbers of youth placed out-of-home. In addition, 

through the Close to Home Initiative launched in 

2012, New York City youth who have committed a 

delinquent act are placed in supportive residences in 

or close to their communities, rather than in distant 

upstate facilities.

In New York City, secure detention is composed 

of the custodial venues that hold adolescents who 

have been arrested for crimes before their 16th 

birthday. Additionally, it may be used to house youth 

awaiting adjudication up until their 18th birthday. 

Youth may be remanded to secure detention, either 

because of the risk they pose to public safety or 

the substantial probability the youth won’t appear 

in court. Given their function, these facilities 

concentrate some of the most troubled youth in 

the city. Many of the young people who enter these 

facilities have complex personal histories that 

predate their arrests: school failure, mental health 

diagnoses, and abuse that are the by-product of 

conditions of poverty, poor schools, unemployment, 

and racism in their neighborhoods. Even so, the 

young people detained at these facilities have very 

different involvement with delinquency and crime: 

some have been caught up in impulsive acts, others 

have robbed convenience stores or sold drugs, and 

still others have planned and committed violent 

crimes. For some this is the first time they have been 

arrested, others have a long history in the juvenile 

justice system. 

These facilities provide individual rooms, common 

spaces, an on-site school, a gym and yard, a 

cafeteria, a clinic, and family-visiting facilities. 

Program coordinators provide as many support 

services as budget and staff allow: counseling, 

athletic programs, religious services, and as many 

extracurricular activities as partner organizations 

or volunteers offer. Regardless of these support 

services, secure detention is an enforced stay in a 

closed facility with strict surveillance, uniforms, 

and restricted movement (e.g., hands behind your 

back when you move single file from one part of 

the facility to another). Young men and women 

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // II. THE PROJECT | 12
who may have longstanding beefs or gang rivalries 

with other residents see each other daily making 

darting attention, vigilance, and mutual mistrust 

adaptive behaviors. Telephone calls and family 

visits are regulated and some families find it 

challenging to organize time with their children, 

making weekends and holidays difficult when onsite schools are not in session and residents know 

that their peers and families are busy. 

Secure detention is a world shaped by uncertainty. 

In the processing phase, young people wait to 

hear about whether they will be released, held, 

or transferred; longer-term residents wait for 

their cases to be heard and then for judges’ 

decisions; and as residents approach their 18th 

birthday, they wait to learn which adult jail they 

will be transferred to. While the average stay was 

approximately 29 days at the time of the project, 

individual residents might be “inside” for as 

short as one night or as long as several years if 

their cases are not resolved quickly. Given these 

realities, a pressing question for policy makers, 

staff, and advocates alike is “How could the 

prevailing framework and the daily practices in 

secure detention focus on helping young people 

to think about their choices, take responsibility 

for their behavior, trust and work with others, and 

experience possibility and accomplishment?” 

B. Implementing a 

Strength-Based Approach:

The Musical Connections 

Songwriting and 

Choral Performance

Drawing on strength-based approaches to juvenile 

justice and supported by major city and state efforts 

to rethink juvenile justice, Carnegie Hall’s Weill 

Music Institute has supported songwriting and 

choral workshops in New York City’s two secure 

detention facilities since 2009. As the partnership 

matured, these workshops 

evolved: youth were 

able to use equipment 

to practice and record 

their songs, youth were 

offered one half credit 

for an elective on their 

high school transcript, 

family members were 

invited to the concerts, 

and youth performed in 

street clothes instead of 

detention uniforms. 

In the 2012–2013 

season the program 

expanded again, 

becoming a 12-session, two-week choral project 

that was open on a voluntary basis to as many as 

25–30 participants at each facility. This change in 

format and scope represented a substantial rise 

in mutual trust. Staff members at secure venues 

are understandably careful about convening large 

groups of both young men and young women in 

semi-structured activities like musical rehearsals. 

The sheer size of the participant group (nearly a 

third to a half of the total number of residents at the 

time) meant that the project included young people 

from a range of behavior modification levels that the 

facility staff use to hold residents accountable and 

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // II. THE PROJECT | 13

Drawing on strengthbased approaches to 

juvenile justice and 

supported by major 

city and state efforts to 

rethink juvenile justice, 

Carnegie Hall’s Weill 

Music Institute has 

supported songwriting 

and choral workshops 

in New York City’s 

two secure detention 

facilities since 2009.
motivate them to improve. Facilities staff opened up 

participation by announcing the program ahead of 

time and urging interested young people to sign up 

for the program. As compared to earlier residencies, 

interest and the willingness to sign a behavioral 

contract, not high behavioral ratings, were the only 

criteria to enter. 

Chantel Wright, the founder and director of the 

Songs of Solomon choir in Harlem, was the artistic 

leader of both residencies. She was assisted by six 

of the senior members of her choir, young New 

Yorkers from neighborhoods and backgrounds 

similar to those of the residents. As one mentor 

noted, “It is good for us to be the ones here; we are 

just two or three decisions away from the young 

people, we know it and they know it.” The mentors 

acted as models (e.g., anchoring the pitch matching 

in rehearsals, following directions quickly, and 

jumping into the choreography of a song). The 

repertoire featured songs focused on the human 

capacity for resilience (e.g., R. Kelly’s “The 

World’s Greatest,” Stevie Wonder’s “City,” and the 

traditional tune “This Little Light of Mine”) and 

the possibility of social change driven by personal 

responsibility and mutual support (e.g., 

“Wake Up Everybody”):

Figure 2: Excerpted Lyrics from “Wake Up Everybody” by 

John Whitehead, Gene McFadden, and Victor Carstarphen

In addition, two teaching artists from Musical 

Connections helped residents to compose original 

songs that grew out of and gave voice to their 

experiences as young people facing their pasts and 

wondering about their futures. These songwriting 

sessions were an opportunity for learning some of 

the basics of composition, as well as a chance for 

young people to reflect on their own histories and 

aspirations. 

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // II. THE PROJECT | 14

CARNEGIE HALL CONTRACT

Choral Project with Chantel Wright and Songs of Solomon

I, ____________________________________, a resident at Horizon Juvenile Center,

agree to the terms and conditions listed below. I understand that if I violate these

terms and conditions, I will not participate in the Carnegie Hall Choral Project.

I WILL FOLLOW STAFF DIRECTIVES

I WILL LEAD POSITIVELY

I WILL GET ALONG WITH PEERS AND STAFF

I WILL DEMONSTRATE SOUND JUDGMENT

I WILL RESPECT PROPERTY

I WILL BE TRUTHFUL AND HONEST

I WILL RESPECT MYSELF

I WILL RESPECT OTHERS

I WILL CONTROL MY TEMPER

I WILL FOLLOW ALL SCHOOL & HALL RULES

NO PHYSICAL ALTERCATIONS OR ASSAULTS

___________________________ ______________________________

RESIDENT DATE DYFJ STAFF DATE

Summary of Choral Project

Participants will join a choir led by Chantel Wright, a Carnegie Hall artist and

director and founder of the youth choir Songs of Solomon. Youth from Songs of

Solomon will join throughout the project as musical and peer role models.

Rehearsal sessions will introduce the nuts and bolts of singing and show

participants how to demonstrate self-expression and accountability while learning

African, gospel, and contemporary songs, some remixed with participant

contributions. A final concert will be performed for families, and staff and staff

from the facility with a reception to follow. A creative extension led by Carnegie

Hall Teaching Artists will invite participants to compose a group song in a

gospel/inspirational tradition to perform on a concert, while learning the

historical and cultural background of African American song taken from Carnegie

Hall’s American Roots curriculum. Participants will be eligible for one half of

elective school credit based on project’s total 29.5 hours.

HORIZON JUVENILE CENTER

Wake up everybody, no more sleepin’ in bed

No more backward thinkin’, time for thinkin’ ahead

The world has changed so very much

From what it used to be

There is so much hatred, war, and poverty

Wake up all the teachers; time to teach a new way

Maybe then they’ll listen to what you have to say

They’re the ones who’s comin’ up and the world 

is in their hands

When you teach the children, teach them the very 

best you can

[CHORUS]

The world won’t get no better,

If we just let it be

The world won’t get no better, 

We gotta change it yeah, just you and me

Figure 1: Residents’ Contract for Participation
The choir sessions were characterized by high and 

explicit expectations for personal conduct (e.g., eye 

contact and greetings when entering the rehearsal 

space, no low-slung pants, focused attention, and 

making an effort). 

“There is just one thing in your 

life that you have absolute 

control over and that is your 

own behavior—what you do and 

how you respond to others. Take 

control of how you behave and 

you have the technology of change 

in your hands. The world can be 

yours. Refuse to take control and 

you are at the mercy of impulses.”

—Choir Director Chantel Wright 

to choir participants 

There was an equal insistence on 

mutual support and respect for one 

another (e.g., a call for no laughing and 

mocking when boys whose voices had 

not changed yet were assigned to tenor 

parts). The musical standards were 

equally high (e.g., diction and vocal 

range exercises, and repeated work on 

the dynamics and choreography for 

specific songs). 

“This is not about a group of kids 

who made mistakes getting to put 

on a show. Oh no. We are not going 

to perform unless what we can 

do is excellent. This is about you 

recognizing that if you work hard, 

what you produce is excellence.”

—Choir Director Chantel Wright 

to choir participants 

In recognition of the artistic seriousness of the work, 

the residency closed with a final, full-band rehearsal, 

featuring additional professional musicians, a 

concert performance for the entire facility, and a 

performance and reception to which residents could 

invite their families. Thus, more explicitly than ever, 

the choral projects were designed to translate the 

broad principles of a strength-based approach into 

concrete, replicable practices. 

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // II. THE PROJECT | 15

Figure 3: Original Song and Lyrics Composed by Workshop Participants with Teaching 

Artist Claudia Friedlander

{

{

{

{

{

Can't let my dreams go No I got - ta chase it

q=180

If I keep try - in I know I'm gon - na make it

3

My heart's all in it that's the ded - i - ca - tion

5

Can't let my dreams go know I got - ta chase it

7

°

¢

TM

TM

°

¢

TM

TM

ü

†

TM

TM

ü

†

TM

TM

9

4

4

4

4

&#

Can't Let My Dreams Go

/

&#

/

&#

/

&#

/

&# ∑ ∑

/

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

œ ‰ œ

j œ œ Œ œ œ Œ

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

œ ‰ œ

j œ œ Œ œ œ Œ

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

œ ‰ œ

j œ œ Œ œ œ Œ

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

œ ‰ œ

j œ œ Œ œ œ Œ

œ ‰ œ

j œ œ Œ œ œ Œ
III. The Design of the 

Evaluation Study

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // III. THE DESIGN OF THE EVALUATION STUDY | 16
Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // III. THE DESIGN OF THE EVALUATION STUDY | 17

Based on earlier research and the structure of the 

residency, evaluators designed an evaluation study 

focused on the following questions:

• How well can an externally developed music 

program translate the broad principles of a 

strength-based approach to youth development 

and carry it out in the environment of secure 

detention facilities?

• Can participation in a short but intensive ensemblebased choral music program improve incarcerated 

adolescents’ behavior? Specifically, can these 

experiences promote positive peer-to-peer 

behavior, the frequency of engaged and constructive 

behaviors, and participants’ sense of self?

• Can engaging a significant proportion of residents 

in ensemble music-making affect the behavioral 

climate in secure juvenile facilities? Specifically, 

given the high proportion of youth participating, 

will facilities’ incident data show a more positive 

and productive overall climate, as compared 

to a comparable two-week period prior to the 

residency?

The following section details how a strength-based 

approach was also applied to the design and conduct of 

the evaluation.

A. The Participants

All of the young people in the choirs had been accused of 

crimes that merit detainment, either because of the risk 

they pose to public safety or the substantial probability 

the youth won’t appear in court. In total, the residencies 

served N = 54 youth, 25 of whom were at Facility A and 

29 of whom were at Facility B. These numbers represent 

approximately one third of the total population in each 

facility at the time. Thus, the choirs included residents 

at a range of behavioral levels to which staff assign them. 

Participation was voluntary and open to all interested 

residents, recognizing that interest may be one of the 

most fundamental assets young people have, and that 

engaging in a voluntary program may be a first step to 

change. The program had high retention rates for an 

elective 12-session program: at Facility A, 1 participant 

was transferred home, 7 of the 25 participants dropped 

out during the course of the residency, leaving 17 who 

completed the experience. At Facility B, of the 29 

participants, 1 did not show, 1 was removed for a serious 

incident, and 3 dropped out, leaving 24 who completed 

the residency. 

As shown in the table on page 18, 20 of program 

participants (37.0%) were female and 34 (63.0%) were 

male. At Facility A, 7 (28.0%) participants were female 

and 18 (72.0%) were male, while at Facility B, 13 (44.8%) 

were female and 16 (55.2%) were male. The difference 

in gender distribution by facility was not statistically 

significant (χ2

 (1) = 1.63, p = .202). The average age of 

participants was 14.98 years (SD = .812), with a range from 

14 to 17 years old. There was no significant difference 

in the age of children at Facility A (M = 14.92, SD = .759) 

and B (M = 15.03, SD = .865). Thus, demographically, 

participating youth at the two facilities were similar. 
Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // III. THE DESIGN OF THE EVALUATION STUDY | 18

B. Data Collection1 

Researchers used four clusters of measures focused 

on: 1) participants’ conduct, 2) the formation of 

social networks, 3) added effort and engagement, 

and 4) changes in sense of self. The conduct and 

network measures were administered according 

to a pre-intervention / post-intervention schedule, 

testing the hypothesis that ensemble music-making 

can support young people in taking responsibility 

for their behavior and in working together 

effectively. In addition, using facility-level data on 

the incidence of behavioral incidents prior to and 

during the workshops, it was possible to test the 

hypothesis that such large-scale choral projects can 

affect the overall climate in a secure facility. 

These quantitative measures were enriched by 

qualitative data drawn from participants’ journal 

entries and reflection sessions involving staff and 

participants. These latter data were used to shed light 

on how the experience of ensemble music-making 

led to additional effort and engagement as well as 

participants’ sense of undergoing personal changes. 

To ensure confidentiality, data were assembled 

using numerical identifiers to which none of the 

evaluators had the key.

C. The Measures

In an effort to understand the effects of the choral 

residencies, as well as the processes that underlie 

those effects, evaluators employed a mixed methods 

design that used both quantitative and qualitative 

measures. The measures addressed the growth of 

a selected set of strengths that the residency was 

designed to amplify.

Measures of Taking Responsibility for 

Personal Conduct

• Ratings of residents’ externalizing behaviors: 

Prior to the first session, staff members 

familiar with participants completed three 

scales drawn from Teacher-Report, SchoolAge Version of the Child Behavior Checklist 

(CBCL) (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001)2

: the 

attention problems scale, the rule-breaking 

behavior scale, and the aggressive behavior 

scale. That same staff member also completed 

these same subscales in the week immediately 

following the music residency.

1 All data collection was based on an MOU between the Administration 

for Children’s Services and Carnegie Hall that respects the 

confidentiality of individual subjects and staff.

2 The CBCL is a commonly used standardized measure of behavior 

that has been validated for use with diverse populations.

Facility A Facility B Overall

Gender n Percent n Percent N Percent

Female 7 28.0 13 44.8 20 37.0

Male 18 72.0 16 55.2 34 63.0

Age M SD M SD M SD

14.9 0.759 15.0 0.865 15.0 0.812

Attendance M SD M SD M SD

71.1% 29.6% 64.2% 21.5% 67.4% 25.6%

School Credit M SD M SD M SD

63.0% 49.5% 86.0% 35.1% 75.0% 43.4%

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for Participants Disaggregated by Facility
Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // III. THE DESIGN OF THE EVALUATION STUDY | 19

• Behavioral observations: For 5-minute intervals, 

a trained observer tracked the frequency of: 1) 

engaged, pro-social behavior (ranging from mild 

instances such as making room for someone in a 

circle to stronger instances such as working with 

another resident on their performance/lyrics), 

and 2) disengaged or conflictual behavior (ranging 

from mild instances like grabbing someone’s 

pencil to stronger instances like name-calling or 

fighting). Each participant was observed for two 

intervals during the opening two sessions (pre-) 

and the final rehearsals (post-).

Measures of Social Networks (or Ensemble 

Behaviors)

• Eco-maps of potential musical relationships: In 

the first session and final rehearsal, participants 

filled in a diagram in which they indicated who in 

the room could be a resource in several aspects 

of music-making (e.g., lyrics, beats, performing, 

listening, giving ideas) (Vera Institute, n. d.).

• Time diaries of voluntary musical activity 

collaboration: As a part of the journals they kept, 

young people reported how much time they spent 

in elective musical activities with other people 

(e.g., writing lyrics, rehearsing, listening to music, 

thinking about the upcoming performance) 

(Carpenter, Huston & Spera, 1989). They supplied 

this information for a designated evening and 

over the weekend between the two weeks of the 

residency.

Measures of Additional Effort and Engagement

• Persistence to completion of music residency: 

This entailed regular attendance at sessions 

and completion of a digital learning portfolio, 

including a reflection journal.

• Earning high school credit: This entailed regular 

attendance, turning in a set of required written 

journal assignments, and completing a digital 

portfolio.

• Time diaries of voluntary musical activity (effort): 

Young people’s time diaries were also coded as a 

measure of the added effort and engagement that 

residents voluntarily put into their preparations 

for the performance. 

Measures of Residents’ Sense of Change

• Written reflections: Each participant completed 

a diagram showing how they experienced 

themselves “in” and “out” of music. These were 

coded for the areas of difference (e.g., emotional 

state, identity, etc.).

• Reflection discussion: Following each residency, 

participants met with musicians to reflect on 

their experience. Recordings of these sessions 

were coded for major themes.

Measure of Facility Incidents

ACS research staff examined the individual behavioral 

incident data for each participant from each of the two 

facilities during the two weeks prior to the residency 

and the two weeks of the residency. 

Additional qualitative measures employed in this 

evaluation are described below:

• Musical history: At the outset of the residency, 

youth filled out a profile of their past musical 

experiences.

• Session notes: These were running records of 

events kept by evaluators and trained Carnegie 

Hall staff.

• Lyrics and melodies from the songs that residents 

wrote.

The overall effort was to: 1) design a set of measures 

that focused on the development of young people’s 

assets, and 2) collect data that, in and of themselves, 

might underscore young people’s new capabilities and 

possibilities (e.g., inventories of participants’ earlier 

musical history, personal journals and reflections).
IV. Findings

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // IV. FINDINGS | 20
Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // IV. FINDINGS | 21

A. Evidence of What 

Young People Bring

To work from a strength-based perspective, a 

program’s practices have to focus on the assets 

that young people bring coupled with strategies 

for underscoring and building those assets. As 

mentioned above, young people joined the residencies 

voluntarily. So, as a foundation, each of the 

participants brought the energy and interest to enroll 

in an extra-curricular program that would take up 

their evenings for two weeks running. 

In the opening session, participants completed a 

sketch of their musical worlds. Of the 33 participants 

responding to where they made music, 30 (90.9%) 

indicated that their musical experiences included 

live music in homes, congregations, studios, and 

elsewhere. Of the 34 participants answering items 

about their creative activities, 

22 (64.7%) had performed 

music previously and one (2.9%) 

had played and performed 

previously. Only a third of 

the participants (11 or 32.4%) 

indicated they had no previous 

active musical experience. These 

patterns of participation were 

common across the two facilities, 

with no noteworthy differences 

in the distribution of these responses.3

 

When asked about the presence of others in their 

musical lives, approximately the same number of 

participants answered. Across both facilities, young 

people identified family members as being active 

in their musical lives—speaking to the role that 

music plays in their homes, neighborhoods, and 

congregations. Across all participants, responses 

about peers and community members were 

significantly correlated (r (32) = .540, p = .001), but 

responses to other items were not. However, the 

distribution of answers varied significantly by facility. 

Residents in Facility A reported higher levels for items 

about peers (χ2 (1) = 5.20, p = .023) and community 

members’ involvement (χ2

 (1) = 10.8, p = .001), and this 

variation approached significance for items about 

family members’ involvement (p = .122). 

These data enforce a key point: the young 

participants had active musical histories. Not only 

did they joke and riff off of hip-hop music during 

sessions; many of them also knew the choruses 

and messages of faith-based songs from their 

congregations. Participants varied in the depth 

and breadth of their musical experiences, but the 

majority of them had made live music in their 

families—singing, recording, or playing instruments. 

Whatever their current legal status, the young people 

brought musical interests and assets to the choir.

Percent of

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Facility A Facility B 

respondents

indicating people 

were a part of their 

musical life

Peers 

Family Members 

Community Members 

Figure 4: Participants’ Musical Worlds

3 Here and throughout the findings, the N for each measure varies depending on how many young people were present during a given session and 

how many of them chose to respond. (The issue of missing data is taken up in the technical appendix that accompanies this paper).
B. Evidence of Effort and 

Engagement: Persistence, 

School Credit, Informal 

Music Activity, and 

Musical Contributions

One immediate indicator of growth, particularly in 

projects that are voluntary, is whether or not young 

people attend regularly. On average, participants 

attended 67.4% of sessions (these values ranged 

from 8.0% to 100%, with a SD = 25.6%), persisting 

across personal ups and downs, and as the 

challenge and risk of performing rises. There 

was no difference in the proportion of sessions 

attended by facility (p = .329). 

This project provided a second 

indicator of youth engagement: 

doing the necessary work 

to earn high school credit 

for the residency (which 

included regular attendance 

and participation, as well as 

the completion of a personal 

journal containing short 

reflections on the individual 

sessions). Seventy-five percent of participants 

earned high school credit (SD = 43.4%). Sixty-three 

percent of participants at Facility A completed the 

program (SD = 49.5%), while 86% of participants 

at Facility B did so (SD = 35.1%). This difference in 

rates of completion by program was statistically 

significant (t (51) = 2.04, p = .047). 

As a part of their journaling, young people recorded 

the amount of independent time they spent working 

on their music outside of the formal choral sessions. 

This might include private rehearsing or work with 

peers and staff on their new compositions or the 

quality of their performance. Of the 37 participants 

providing a response, young people indicated that 

they engaged in 2.65 musical activities on average 

(SD = 1.65), though responses ranged from 1 to 9 

and were positively skewed (G1 = 1.85, SE = .388). 

Participants at Facility A (M = 2.00, SD = .966) 

reported fewer types of activity, on average, than did 

participants at Facility B (M = 3.14, SD = 1.91, t (35) = 

2.19, p = .035). Sixty-one percent of the participants 

responding (N = 36 or 61.1%) reported that they 

spent 1 to 2 hours between rehearsals engaged in 

voluntary musical activities related to the choir 

outside of the formal sessions. More than 20% of 

participants (22.2%) reported engaging in music for 

3 to 4 hours outside sessions, while another 16.7% 

reported engaging in music more than 4 hours. 

Although the distribution of responses did not vary 

significantly by facility, a much larger proportion 

of students at Facility B (35.0%) reported engaging 

in music 3 to 4 hours than did students at Facility 

A (6.3%). Yet at Facility A, 25% of youth reported 

working more than 4 hours.

The level of musical contributions (e.g., singing 

solos, rapping in small groups, composing new 

verses, etc.) was scored for 48 participants. 

Most of these (70.8%) participated in the 

program, but made no additional contributions. 

Small numbers of participants—all from the 

Facility A—made additional modest (n = 3) or 

moderate (n = 2) contributions. However, 18.8% 

of participants made major contributions, drawn 

in an approximately even fashion from across the 

facilities. Here there were no significant differences 

in the pattern of responses by facility. 

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // IV. FINDINGS | 22

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

Facility A Facility B 

Percent of facilityrespondents 

1 to 2 hrs 

3 to 4 hrs 

More than 4 hrs 

Figure 5: Engagement in Musical Activities Outside of Formal Sessions 
C. Evidence of Mutuality: 

Collaboration and 

Views of Others

As a part of their time journals, participants 

recorded with whom they worked during their 

voluntary free-time musical activity. Unlike 

rehearsals or classes, in this informal setting, the 

choice to work solo and collaboratively was entirely 

up to individuals. This makes it a telling indicator of 

whether musical activity promotes shared work. As 

shown in Figure 6, at both facilities, approximately 

one-third (30.6%) of the 36 respondents indicated 

that they worked solo. But two thirds of participants 

reported that during their own free time they chose 

to work on their music with others: a second third 

(36.1%) reported working with peers as well as 

solo, and the final third (33.3%) indicated that they 

worked solo, with peers, and with staff. For the 37 

participants providing data, the average number of 

people involved in free-time music-making was 2.56 

(SD = 1.34), though responses ranged from 0 to 5. 

There were no differences as a function of facility. 

Thus, for two-thirds of the participants across 

facilities, music provided a setting in which they 

elected to work with others. 

Both at the outset and at the conclusion of the 

residency, youth completed an eco-map, a diagram 

showing how many others in the group of peers they 

saw as being able to help them in various aspects 

of music making (e.g., songwriting, composing, 

performing, and producing). The resulting 

sketch displays the range of human resources 

the participant believes she or he has to draw on. 

Figures 7a and 7b below exemplify how a young 

person’s sense of musical networks shifts over time.

 

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // IV. FINDINGS | 23

Solo Only

31%

Solo and Peers 

36% 

Solo, Peers,

 and Staff 

33% 

Figure 6: Musical Collaboration During Free Time 

Figure 7b: Post–Eco-Maps from Same Individual Participant

Figure 7a: Pre–Eco-Maps from an Individual Participant
Figure 8 shows how participants’ views of their 

peers as fellow musicians change at Facilities A and 

B from the beginning to the close of the residency 

(with the solid bars depicting the average ratings, 

and the vertical lines representing the dispersion 

of their responses). Interestingly, residents in 

Facility A began with higher estimates of their 

peers as potential musical collaborators, but lost 

that optimism across the course of the residency. 

By contrast, at Facility B, youth’s estimates of their 

peers as collaborators rose to much higher levels.

D. Evidence of Changes in 

Personal Conduct

Trained observers collected running records of 

individual participants’: 1) pro-social engagement 

(ranging from mild instances such as making room 

for someone in a circle to stronger instances such as 

working with another resident on their performance/

lyrics), and 2) disengaged or conflictual behavior 

(ranging from mild instances like ignoring requests 

to stronger instances like name-calling, talking 

back, or leaving the rehearsal). Two such records 

were collected in the first two days of the music 

residency (Time 1) and two additional records were 

collected in the closing two days of the residency 

(Time 2).4

 There was no significant effect for prosocial or engaged behaviors across Time 1 and Time 2. 

However, as shown in Figure 9, across both facilities, 

disengagement or conflict behavior declined. However, 

only at Facility B was this decline statistically 

significant (as indicated by the significant interaction 

effect between time and facility in predicting 

antisocial behaviors (β = -1.52, SE = .586, p = .011). 

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // IV. FINDINGS | 24

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

Facility A Facility B 

People participants view

as possible collaborators

Time 1 

Time 2 

0 

0.5 

1 

1.5 

2 

2.5 

3 

Facility A Facility B 

Number of Observed

Antisocial Behaviors

Time 1 

Time 2 

Figure 8: Participants’ View of Peer Networks of Potential Musical Collaborators

Figure 9: Observed Disengagement or Conflict Behaviors

4 Raters scored these records independently, achieving an inter-rater reliability of 87%. Disagreements were resolved through discussion and rescoring.
 E. Evidence of Changes 

in Participants’

Externalizing Behaviors

Staff scores for young people on the pre– and post–

Child Behavior Checklist also showed significant 

patterns of change over time. At both facilities, 

total externalizing—or acting out—behaviors were 

lower after the music residency than prior to it.5

 As 

shown in Figure 10, there was a significant main 

effect of time on CBCL (β = -9.59, SE = 2.27, p < 

.001) that was robust with respect to gender, age, 

and facility, indicating that, on average, staff scored 

participants as exhibiting approximately 10 points 

fewer externalizing behaviors after the program. 

Importantly, this is not due to the attrition of 

students with the most severe externalizing 

behaviors between the pre- and post-assessments: 

the lower level of post-residency CBCL data is 

unrelated to pre-residency CBCL scores (p = 

.228). Finally, in this case, there was no significant 

interaction effect between time and facility. 

F. Evidence of a Changed 

Sense of Self 

At the close of the residency, youth completed 

a short reflection about how they experienced 

themselves “in” and “out” of music. Workshop 

leaders asked them to write a simple list or even a 

short poem, choosing words to capture “who you are 

and what you are like when you are making music 

and when you are not.”

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // IV. FINDINGS | 25

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

Facility A Facility B 

Rating of Externalizing

Behaviors

Time 1 

Time 2 

Figure 10: Staff Ratings of Participants’ Externalizing Behaviors

Figure 11: Example of Participant’s “In and Out of 

Music” Comments

5 In this case, the total of externalizing behaviors, as indexed by the CBCL, was higher at Facility B than at Facility A post-residency (t (34) = 2.53, 

p = .016), indicating how variable, even volatile, patterns of behavior can be in secure detention facilities.
Participants’ statements open a window on the 

internal experiences of ensemble music-making 

that may underlie the changes in young people’s 

behavior. Participants suggest that while “in” music 

they have a different sense of themselves as part of 

a larger group where they can be openly engaged, 

focused, and energetic.

Young people’s reflections were scored using four 

thematic categories of change (emotional state, level 

of engagement, sense of achievement, and selfesteem).6

 Scored instances were examined for the 

total number of positive changes associated with 

music minus any negative 

change. On average, 

participants reported 

positive change associated 

with making music in 1.26 

domains, though values 

ranged from -1 (indicating 

negative overall change) 

to 3. Nearly half (47.0%) 

of the 34 participants who 

responded reported positive changes in two or 

more dimensions of self-concept. There were no 

differences by facility. 

These data were enriched by comments young 

people made in their reflection session when they 

spoke about how they had changed during the two 

weeks of singing:

“I had fear in my heart, but I had to sing through it.”

“I gained a little bit of discipline; it made me work at it.”

“I had a reason to step up.”

“I felt famous.”

Regarding the experience of performing, young 

people also describe their changing selves in the 

presence of others, both peers and family:

“We was tight. I was proud of my friends for 

finishing.”

“Someone I had a beef with said it was big.”

“My mother said she saw a different person.”

The choir mentors witnessed these changes session 

by session. One of them described what he saw as a 

cycle of consequences:

“When they see and hear their families 

celebrating the good that they are doing, that 

celebration causes them to blossom. It is like 

the façade that they put up of toughness and 

defensiveness falls away as they are being 

celebrated. Just that feeling, the recognition 

of the good in you, kind of causes you to open 

up and give a little more and new possibilities 

begin all over again.”

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // IV. FINDINGS | 26

Nearly half (47.0%) of 

the 34 participants 

who responded 

reported positive 

changes in two or 

more dimensions of 

self-concept. 

6 Two trained raters independently scored the reflections for theme and whether the change was in a positive or negative direction, achieving a level of 

84% reliability, and resolving disagreements through discussion.
G. Evidence of Impact at the

Two Facilities: Understanding

the Contextual Nature 

of Change

As discussed, the choral residences were 

implemented in two secure detention facilities 

(Facility A and Facility B), one in November 2012 

and one in January 2013. While the facilities serve 

similar numbers of youth with similar histories 

and demographics, in many ways the impact of the 

program was greater at Facility B. At Facility B, 

more participants persisted from start to finish. 

Moreover, they had statistically higher rates of 

earning high school credit (t (51) = 2.04, p = .047), 

built stronger social networks around music 

(β = 19.1, p = .002), and exhibited lower levels of 

disengaged or disruptive behaviors (β = -1.73, 

p < .001). Though this was an unanticipated finding, 

potentially it speaks to the conditions under which 

musical interventions can have maximum impact. 

Upon examining historical data for the two 

facilities, it was clear that each had a distinctive 

history prior to the time of the residencies (Quarter 

2, FY 2012 through Quarter 2, FY 2013). Using 

the data that ACS collects on incidents in the 

system, Figures 12–14 below display the number 

of incidents by facility for the year leading up to 

the residencies, which occurred in Quarter 2 of FY 

2013 (Administration for Children’s Services, 2014). 

Trends were similar for incidents per population. 

As Figures 12 and 13 indicate, Facility A had a 

history of overall higher frequencies of the use of 

restraints and room confinement. These strategies, 

while sometimes necessary, represent a pattern 

of staff choices in responding to what they see as 

dangerous behavior in residents. By contrast, at 

Facility B, there were lower rates of both physical 

restraint and room confinement, suggesting either a 

less challenging population or a more controlled or 

negotiated approach to acting-out behaviors. As the 

figures indicate, later in FY 2012, through concerted 

attention to staffing and program improvements, 

Facility A saw a steady decline in physical restraints, 

and a more gradual decline in room confinements. 

But this trajectory was only just taking hold at 

Facility A at the time of the residencies. Data in each 

figure are reported in terms of the average daily 

population (ADP) at each facility. 

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // IV. FINDINGS | 27

Figure 12: Frequency of Physical Restraints at the Two Participating Facilities
Figure 14 shows the incidence of fights and injuries at 

the two facilities for the same period. While Facility A

shows a higher incidence in Quarters 2 and 3 of 

2012, that is followed by an overall steady decline 

through the first quarter of FY 2013. During the 

same period, Facility B shows a more erratic pattern 

of incidents over time, illustrating how volatile the 

climate of secure detention can be, even as staff 

work to implement developmentally appropriate and 

supportive behavior-management strategies. 

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // IV. FINDINGS | 28

Figures 13: Frequency of Room Confinements at the Two Participating Facilities

Figure 14: Frequency of Fights and Injuries at the Two Participating Facilities
To understand these patterns better, researchers 

interviewed staff at both facilities for their insights. 

As part of a group discussion, ACS staff shared 

their efforts to change the climate at Facility A by 

creating a number of new staff positions. While 

an important investment in the long term, an 

immediate consequence was that a number of the 

adults at Facility A were new to the musical residency 

program and still learning how to help young people 

meet the high behavioral and social expectations the 

choir presented. By comparison, at Facility B, many 

key staff had worked with the program in previous 

years, knew what to expect, and could actively 

help participants to set goals for themselves, work 

on their music in free time, persist even when the 

demands of solos or choreography made youth feel 

vulnerable, and encourage young people to reach 

out to their families to attend the final concert. 

While these are post-hoc descriptions, these on-theground observations point to the kind of partnership 

between facility and program that may enhance 

impact: a climate where youth can let down their 

guard, staff who know and respect the program and 

who step forward to support it 24/7.

H. Evidence of the Effects of the 

Residencies on Facilities Data

One additional hypothesis going into the evaluation 

was that given the numbers of residents involved 

and positive effects on individual behavior, the 

overall frequency of reported incidents (e.g., 

the use of restraints and room confinements, 

fights, and injuries) would decline relative to preresidency levels. However, when these data were 

compared for participants for two-week periods 

prior to and during the residency, there were no 

discernable differences. In both periods, very few 

participants were involved in assaults, altercations, 

or were placed in restraints or assigned to room 

confinement. While these data are an important 

indication of the change at the two facilities, they 

do not show any impact from the residencies. 

Conceivably, the most challenging youth chose 

not to participate in the residency. Alternatively, 

these broad measures of disruption are not 

sensitive to more subtle declines in acting out that 

observational and staff-report measures capture. 

Whatever the case, these findings point out that 

currently facilities (and the 

youth in them) are monitored 

chiefly through these broad 

measures of response to 

disruption. If juvenile justice 

facilities are to adopt a youth 

development framework, 

then young people, staff, and 

organizations that partner 

with the system need a set of 

system-level measures that 

index positive developments 

as well. The choral residency 

suggests a number of possible 

indicators: the number of 

young people who participate 

in elective opportunities, 

complete those opportunities, make special 

contributions, or earn high school credits through 

programs. Such strength-based measures could help 

to create an institutional climate that acknowledges 

strengths and positive growth. 

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // IV. FINDINGS | 29

If juvenile justice 

facilities are to 

adopt a youth 

development 

framework, then 

young people, staff, 

and organizations 

that partner with 

the system need 

a set of systemlevel measures 

that index positive 

developments. 
V. Discussion and Implications

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // V. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS | 30
Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // V. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS | 31

Using a set of quantitative and qualitative measures, 

this evaluation study focused on charting changes 

in young people during a two-week choral residency 

that was designed to acknowledge and build their 

strengths. The results show:

• There is initial evidence that a high-quality, 

high-demand musical residency can affect 

residents’ levels of acting-out behaviors, 

across two different facilities. 

• There is equally important evidence for an 

interaction between facility and the effects 

on young people’s behaviors. In the facility 

with a calmer history and a longer association 

with the musical program there is additional 

evidence of statistically significant effects 

on residents’ levels of engagement, social 

networks, and personal conduct.

A. Limitations of the Study

However, it is important to be cautious. Given 

the goals of the program to involve all interested 

residents, the evaluation did not include 

randomized assignment to control groups. While 

the participants at Facilities A and B are matched 

for age and gender, they may vary in their past 

histories, the physical and mental health needs they 

have, the seriousness of their offenses, and other 

variables. While it is clear that the two facilities had 

different incident histories, it is not clear why that 

is, and thus, what factors make the effects of the two 

residencies as different as they are. 

Accordingly, we cannot argue conclusively that 

it was young peoples’ musical experiences that 

caused the observed changes in their behavior 

or that it was the climate at the two facilities (as 

compared to differences in populations, practices, 

or staff training) that is responsible for the varying 

pattern of outcomes. Instead, we argue that the 

findings demonstrate that it is both possible and 

productive to design strength-based programs and 

evaluations in settings like secure detention that 

have long been characterized by an emphasis on 

control, correction, and the suppression of negative 

behaviors. 

At the same time, the evaluation points to a critical 

interaction between participants, program, and 

contexts. Far from being passive, youth actively 

calibrate their behavior in response to what will 

help them survive and thrive in a given context 

(Bertanlanffy, 1969). In this sense, what occurred in 

Facility B in the context of supportive climate and 

staffing shows that a choral residency can create a 

distinctive micro-environment where it is adaptive, 

even rewarding, to make an effort, collaborate, 

take positive risks, and to forego other isolating, 

disengaged, or vigilant behaviors. As a result, 

residents appear to take control of their acting out, 

persist, earn high school credit, and experience 

changes in themselves and how others see them.
Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // V. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS | 32

B. Implications for Future 

Work at the Intersection of 

Juvenile Justice and the Arts

While preliminary, these results have much to say 

about how we build effective programs that can 

support the reform of juvenile justice and how we 

build the evidence for strength-based approaches to 

juvenile justice. Where programs are concerned, we 

need to:

• Harvest and apply what projects like this 

choral residency tell us about the features 

of compelling and effective programs for 

incarcerated youth. What is the role of a 

charismatic artistic leader? What role did the 

young choral mentors play? Did it matter that 

they “were only two or three decisions away” 

from the young people they were teaching? 

How important was the aspirational and 

culturally relevant content of the songs? Only 

if young people are attracted and persist can 

programs have an effect. Only if staff and 

peers respect the work and support it in “offhours” does a program have its full impact. 

• Improve the quality of education in the 

juvenile justice system through the arts. 

Impoverished education ranks high among 

the factors that deter youth development 

in the juvenile justice system (Southern 

Educational Foundation, 2014). The relatively 

high rates of residency completion suggest 

that the active, participatory nature of 

the performing arts, and the expressive 

opportunities embodied in all art forms, 

attract and sustain young people who 

may have a checkered history with formal 

instruction. This speaks to the need for arts 

and arts-integrated instruction in on-site 

schools and tutoring programs for students 

in the correctional system. Potentially, these 

experiences could be used to establish a new or 

renewed sense of academic or artistic identity.

• Build pathways for continued growth 

across systems. As youth re-enter their 

communities, they often return to schools 

and neighborhoods with few programs 

for creative learning and few supports for 

locating such opportunities (Vera, 2011). 

What would happen to young people’s rates 

of re-offending if there were “through-thegate” arts opportunities, where successful 

completion of training and mentoring 

programs led to wiping clean youth’s records, 

high school credit, or internships? Until there 

are more than isolated opportunities to do 

creative work, the arts as a potential force for 

sustained change will never be fully realized.

Realistically, to gain support, these programs 

will require evidence of impact. For this to occur, 

researchers working in the fields of the arts and 

juvenile justice have to: 

• Address the frequent tensions between 

supporting youth development and 

pursuing rigorous research design. For 

instance, how can we resolve the conflict 

between serving a maximum number of 

young people, all of whom want or need to 

participate, and the random assignment to 

treatment and control groups required for 

testing a program’s effectiveness? 

• Challenge the reliance on deficitbased measures and contribute to the 

development of measures of positive 

change. It was challenging to frame and 

conduct this evaluation as an investigation 

into youth development through music. Most 

widely used measures in the juvenile justice 

field reflect the deficit-and disease-based 

models, in which progress is defined as the 

decline in negative behaviors (e.g., the Child 

Behavior Checklist used in this evaluation). 

Youth in juvenile justice settings are deemed 

successful if they don’t lapse during parole, 

re-enter the system, return to drug use, or fail 
Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // V. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS | 33

high school. We have fewer tools to capture 

the presence, onset, or development of youth 

assets. Yet these types of measurement—both 

quantitative and qualitative—are necessary 

for feedback to youth and families, for 

charting the success of services and facilities, 

and for capturing the effects of programs such 

as Musical Connections. 

• Conduct finely tuned work. Given the 

increasing call for results, this pressure 

should not drive partners to working in 

settings where impact is easiest to come by. 

While Facilities A and B are the “same” type of 

juvenile justice facility and serve the “same” 

youth population, the two sites had quite 

different histories. This raises the question 

of how to “tune” programs so that they work 

well in situ. For instance, would another week, 

more collaboration with staff, and a group of 

youth leaders from inside the facility have 

amplified the effects of either residency? 

• Move beyond investigating short-term 

interventions to increasingly longitudinal 

inquiry. We know at-risk youth best in 

moments of crisis like arrest and sentencing. 

But we know much less about what deters 

risky behavior, what allows a young person to 

seek help or new skills while in detention, or 

what skills and relationships make it possible 

for a young person to re-enter her community, 

return to school, and never return to the 

correctional system. 

As the results make clear, the effects of any program 

occur at the intersection between the environment 

and the offering. The Administration for Children’s 

Services in New York City has undertaken its own 

steps to improve the climate in its secure facilities. 

ACS has:

• Implemented an intervention model that 

emphasizes relationships, structure, and deescalation techniques and minimizes the use 

of restraints and room confinements as much 

as possible.

• Enhanced and expanded recreational, cultural, 

and educational programming at each detention 

facility, partnering with a range of arts and 

youth development organizations (Voices 

UnBroken, Manhattan Theater Club, The 

Animation Project, Girl Scouts Council of 

Greater New York, Columbia University, Yoga 

for Yoga, Row New York, and others).

• Partnered with Bellevue Hospital as part of a 

federal grant to bring trauma-informed care 

and skill workshops to youth in detention. 

Exactly as youth proclaimed in the chorus of 

“Wake Up Everybody”:

The world won’t get no better,

If we just let it be

The world won’t get no better

We gotta change it, yeah, just you and me.

The reform of juvenile justice is mutual work.
VI. Conclusion

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // VI. CONCLUSION | 34

One of the songs residents performed in their final 

concert was “Unwritten” by Natasha Bedingfield. 

It was an invitation to young people to speak out, 

narrating a new chapter in their lives: 

No one else, no one else

Can speak the words on your lips

Drench yourself in words unspoken

Live your life with arms wide open

Today is where your book begins

The rest is still unwritten.

But the lyrics speak to artists, cultural institutions, 

and researchers just as clearly. The book of 

reframing juvenile justice in developmental rather 

than correctional terms remains unwritten. Public 

agencies, schools, cultural organizations, and their 

research partners have to work together “with arms 

wide open” to write those pages. 
VII. Bibliography

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY | 35

Achenbach, T. M. & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for 

the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles. Burlington, 

VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for 

Children, Youth, & Families.

Administration for Children’s Services. Retrieved 

February, 2014 from http://www.nyc.gov/html/acs/

html/statistics/statistics_links.shtml.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: 

Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, 

CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.

Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow. Mass 

incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York: 

The New Press. 

Allison, P. D. (2009). Missing data. In R. E. Millsap 

& A. Maydeu-Olivares (Eds.), The Sage handbook of 

quantitative methods in psychology, 72–89. Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.

Anderson, K. & Overy, K. (2010). Engaging Scottish 

young offenders in education through music and art. 

International Journal of Community Music, 47–64.

Arts Council England (2006). What’s the point? 

Using drama to engage young people at risk. Retrieved 

September, 2011 from http://tipp.org.uk/cms/

documents/document8.pdf. 

Baker, S. & Homan, S. (2007). Rap, Recidivism and the 

Creative Self: A Popular Music Programme for Young 

Offenders in Detention. Journal of Youth Studies, 

459–476. 

Benson, P. L., & Pittman, K. J. (2001). Trends in youth 

development: Visions, realities, and challenges. 

Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 

Bernburg, J. & Krohn, M. (2003). Labeling, life 

chances, and adult crime: The direct and indirect 

effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime 

in early adulthood. Criminology, 1287–1318. 

Bertalanffy, L. (1969). General system theory: 

Foundations, development, applications. 

New York: George Braziller.

Butts, J. A., Bazemore, G., & Meroe, A. S. (2010). 

Positive Youth Justice–Framing Justice Interventions 

Using the Concepts of Positive Youth Development. 

Washington, DC: Coalition for Juvenile Justice.

Carpenter, C. J., Huston, A. C., & Spera, L. A. U. R. 

A. (1989). Children’s use of time in their everyday 

activities during middle childhood. The ecological 

context of children’s play. Norwood, NJ: Ablex 

Publishing Corporation.

Center for the Study of Art and Community (2007). 

Evaluation of Mississippi Core Arts Program. 

1999–2007. 

Clawson, H.J., Coolbaugh, K., & United States (2001). 

The youthARTS development project. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention.

Cox, A. & Gelsthorpe, L. (2008). Beats & Bars, music 

in prisons: an evaluation. Institute of Criminology, 

University of Cambridge.

Daykin, N., De Viggiani, N., Pilkington, P., & Moriarty, 

Y. (2013). Music making for health, well-being 

and behaviour change in youth justice settings: a 

systematic review. Health promotion international, 

197–210.
Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY | 36

DiIulio, J. (1995). The coming of the super-predators. 

Weekly Standard, 23–29.

Djurichkovic, A. (2011). Art in prisons: a literature 

review of the philosophies and impacts of visual 

arts programs for correctional populations. UTS 

Shoptfront Student Series, 3, Art Access Australia, 

2011. Retrieved October, 2011 from 

http://www.shopfront.uts.edu.au.

Durland, S. (1996). Maintaining humanity: Grady 

Hillman talks about arts in correctional settings. 

High Performance, 71, 35–39.

Ezell, M., & Levy, M. (2003). An evaluation of an arts 

program for incarcerated juvenile offenders. Journal 

of Correctional Education, 108–114.

Fagan, J. (2010). The contradictions of juvenile crime 

and punishment. Daedalus 139, 43–61. 

Gopnik, A. (2012). What’s wrong with the teenage 

mind? Wall Street Journal, 1/28/12.

Griffin, P. (2012). Interview quoted in Wolf, L., & Wolf, 

D. (2012). May the Songs I Have Written Speak for Me: 

An Exploration of the Potential of Music in Juvenile 

Justice. Retrieved June, 2013 from http://wolfbrown.

com/images/articles/May_the_Songs_I_Have_

Written_Speak_for_Me.pdf. 

Hazel, N. (2008). Cross-National Comparison of Youth 

Justice, London: Youth Justice Board, 3

Hickey, M. (In preparation). Music education and the 

invisible youth: A summary of research and practices 

of music education for youth in detention centers. 

Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.

Hillman, G. & Warner, S. (2004). Arts Programs for 

Juvenile offenders in Detention and Corrections: a 

Guide to Promising Practices. J. Shute (Ed.). National 

Endowment for the Arts.

Hughes, J. (2005). Doing the Arts Justice: a review of 

literature, practice, and theory. Research into Arts 

and Criminal Justice Think Tank (REACTT), United 

Kingdom. 

Huizinga, D., Schumann, K., Ehret, B., & Elliott, 

A. (2003). The effect of juvenile justice system 

processing on subsequent delinquent and criminal 

behavior: A cross-national study. Final report to The 

National Institute of Justice, Grant, (1999IJCX0037).

Jelicic, H., Phelps, E., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). Use of 

missing data methods in longitudinal

studies: The persistence of bad practices in 

developmental psychology. Developmental

Psychology, 45, 1195–1199.

Johnson, H., Keen, S. & Pritchard, D. (2011). 

Unlocking Value: the economic benefit of the arts in 

criminal justice. New Philanthropy Capital. Report 

commissioned by Arts Alliance. Retrieved April, 

2012 from http://www.philanthropycapital.org/

publications/community/unlocking_value.aspx. 

Lovelace, A. (2003). Art Changes. Keynote speech 

at the conference The Arts of Juvenile Justice: 

Innovative Practices for Transforming Youth, Motion 

Magazine, 1/11/2003. Retrieved August, 2011 from 

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/ac04/al_artch.

html.

Lovett, A. (2000). Arts programs for juvenile 

offenders in corrections—Why? How? So what? 

Gainesville, TX: Gainesville State School.

Manen, C.V. (1991). Drama-imagery processes as 

socialization: An interdisciplinary perspective. 

Journal of Mental Imagery, 243–293.

Miles, A. & Clarke, R. (2006). The Arts in Criminal 

Justice: A Study of Research Feasibility, Manchester: 

Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change, 

University of Manchester.

National Research Council, Bonnie, R.J., Johnson, 

R.L., Chemers, B.M., & Schuck, J. (Eds.). (2013). 

Reforming juvenile justice: a developmental approach. 

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

New York City (2014). Building on Success: Next 

Steps in New York City Detention Reform. Retrieved 

February, 2014 from http://www.nyc.gov/html/acs/

downloads/pdf/detention_reform_plan.pdf. 
Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY | 37

New York (State). Task Force on Transforming 

Juvenile Justice, & Travis, J. (2009).

Charting a new course: a blueprint for transforming 

juvenile justice in New York State.

Governor David A Paterson’s Task Force on 

Transforming Juvenile Justice. Retrieved

May, 2011 from http://www.vera.org/

download?file=2948/Charting-a-new-courseExecutive-summary-recommendations.pdf.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. (2008). Annual Report 2008. 

Retrieved September, 2011 from https://www.ncjrs. 

gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/225036.pdf.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. (a). (n.d.). Statistical Briefing Book

http://www.ojjdp. gov/ojstatbb/default.asp. 

(In use 9/2011–4/2012)

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention.(b). (n.d.). Correctional Facilities. Retrieved 

September, 2011 from http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/

progTypesCorrectional.aspx. 

Piazza, M. (1997). Members only: from the Art 

Institute of Chicago to the Cook County Juvenile 

Detention Center. New Arts Examiner 24, 32–35.

Pittman, K., Irby, M., & Ferber, T. (2001). Unfinished 

business: Further reflections on a decade of 

promoting youth development. In Trends in youth 

development. Springer US. (3–50).

Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). 

Computational tools for probing interaction effects 

in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, 

and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and 

Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and 

revival of American community. New York: Simon and 

Schuster.

Reiss, D., Quayle, M., Brett, T. & Meux, C. (1998). 

Dramatherapy for mentally disordered offenders: 

changes in levels of anger. Criminal Behaviour and 

Mental Health, 139–53.

Ross, R.R., Fabiano, E., & Ross, R. 1988. (Re)

Habilitation through education: A cognitive model for 

corrections. Journal of Correctional Education, 44–47.

Rutter, M. (2008). “Developing concepts in 

developmental psychopathology,” in J.J. Hudziak 

(ed.), Developmental psychopathology and wellness: 

Genetic and environmental influences. Washington, 

DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, 3–22.

Saleebey, D. (2000). Power in the people: Strengths 

and hope. Advances in social work, 127–136.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1997). A life-course 

theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability 

of delinquency. Developmental theories of crime and 

delinquency, 7, 133–161.

Schwartz, R. (2000). Juvenile justice and positive 

youth development. Gary Walker (Ed.) In Youth 

Development: Issues, Challenges, and Directions. 

Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures. Retrieved 

June, 2011 from http://ppv.issuelab.org/resource/

youth_development_issues_challenges_and_

directions. 

Seligman, M. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive 

psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 

5–14. 

Sickmund, M. (2010). Juveniles in residential 

placement, 1997-2008. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved June, 2011 from 

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/229379.pdf. 

Sickmund, M., Sladky, A., & Kang, W. (2011). Easy 

Access to Juvenile Court Statistics: 1985–2008. 

Online. Available from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/

ezajcs.
Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY | 38

Silha, S. (1995). Young at art: Artists working with 

youth at risk. Boise, ID: Idaho Commission of the Arts. 

Retrieved October, 2011 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/

PDFS/ED407326.pdf.

Southern Education Foundation. (2014). Just learning: 

The imperative to transform juvenile justice systems 

into effective education systems. Retrieved May, 2014 

from http://www.southerneducation.org/cmspages/

getfile.aspx?guid=b80f7aad-405d-4eeda966-

8d7a4a12f5be.

Survey, D.Y., Huizinga, D., Esbensen, F.A., and Weiher, 

A.W. (1991). Are there multiple paths to delinquency? 

Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 83–118.

Synder, H. N. & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile 

Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. 

Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office 

of Justice Programs,Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention.

Szekely, G. (1983). Art education in correctional 

settings. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services & 

Rehabilitation, 5–28.

Ungar, M. (2004). A constructionist discourse on 

resilience: Multiple contexts, multiple realities 

among at-risk children and youth. Youth and Society, 

341–365. 

van Poortvliet, M., Joy, I., & Nevill, C. (2010). Trial and 

error: Children and young people in trouble with the 

law. New Philanthropy Capital.

Vasudevan, L., Stageman, D., Rodriguez, K., 

Fernandez, E., & Dattatreyan, E. (2010). Authoring 

new narratives with youth at the intersection of the 

arts and justice. Perspectives on Urban Education, 

54–65. 

Vera Institute of Justice. (2011). A Proposal to Expand 

the Impact for Court-Involved Youth Through the Arts. 

New York, NY: Commissioned by Carnegie Hall.

Vera Institute of Justice. (n.d.) Ecograms: A tool for 

looking at social networks. 

Vitaro, F., Tremblay, R. E., & Bukowski, W. M. (2001). 

Friends, friendships and conduct disorders. Conduct 

disorders in childhood and adolescence, 346–378.

Watson, D. W., Bisesi, L., Tanamly, S., & Mai, N. 

(2003). Comprehensive Residential Education, Arts, 

and Substance Abuse Treatment (Creasat) A Model 

Treatment Program for Juvenile Offenders. Youth 

violence and juvenile justice, 388–401.

Wilson, D., Atherton, S., & Caulfield, L. (2009). Good 

Vibrations: The long-term impact of a prison-based 

music project. Prison Service Journal, 182.

Wilson, D. & Logan, M. (2006). Breaking down walls: 

the Good Vibrations Project in prison. Birmingham: 

Centre for Criminal Justice Policy and Research.

Wilson, J. (2007). Reducing juvenile recidivism in 

the United States. Roosevelt Review. Retrieved April, 

2011 from http://www.rooseveltcampusnetwork.org/

policy/reducing-juvenile-recidivism-us. 

Wolf, L., & Wolf, D. (2012). May the Songs I Have 

Written Speak for Me: An Exploration of the Potential 

of Music in Juvenile Justice. Retrieved June, 2013 from 

http://wolfbrown.com/images/articles/May_the_

Songs_I_Have_Written_Speak_for_Me.pdf. 
VIII. Technical Appendix

Our Voices Count // Wolf & Holochwost // WolfBrown // VIII. TECHNICAL APPENDIX | 39

Ratings of residents’ externalizing behaviors, 

observed prosocial and antisocial behaviors, and 

eco-maps of potential musical relationships were 

collected according to a pre-/post-residency design. 

As such, it was possible to assess change in these 

measures over time. However, systematic patterns 

of missingness on each of these measures first had 

to be assessed. Missingness of data on each of the 

post-residency measures was regressed on gender, 

age, facility, and pre-residency scores for the same 

measure (after Jelicic et al., 2009). Participants at 

Facility A were more likely to be missing data on the 

post-residency observation of antisocial behavior 

(B = -2.81 (1.17), p = .016), while older participants were 

more likely to be missing data on the post-residency 

rating of externalizing behaviors (B = 1.43 (.636), 

p = .025). However, in no case was missingness of postresidency scores on a given measure related to preresidency scores. Given their respective relationships 

with facility and gender, post-residency antisocial and 

externalizing behaviors were classified as missing at 

random (MAR).

Change in each measure was examined using a series 

of multilevel models, in which behaviors at each 

point in time (pre- and post-residency) were nested 

within participant. Models were estimated in two 

steps: first with time (coded 0 = pre-residency, 

1 = post-residency), gender, age, and facility included 

as independent variables, and then with the 

interaction of time and facility added to the model. 

Significant interaction terms were interpreted; nonsignificant interaction terms were discarded and 

the results of the prior model were interpreted. All 

models were estimated using the MIXED procedure 

in SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute, 2013), with full-information 

maximum likelihood employed to model missing data 

on the dependent variables (Alison, 2009). Significant 

interaction terms were probed according to the 

guidelines established by Aiken and West (1991) and 

the online utilities developed by Preacher, Bauer, and 

Curran (2006). 

Significant interactions between time and facility 

were observed for the number of musician-peers 

(B = 25.0 (10.1), p = .019) and observed antisocial 

behavior (B = -1.52 (.586), p = .011). These interactions 

were probed by coding facility dichotomously 

(0 = Facility A, 1 = Facility B) and calculating the 

simple slopes for musician-peers and antisocial 

behaviors over time. The simple slope for the number 

of musician-peers over time was not significantly 

different than zero for Facility A (p = .458). However, 

at Facility B the simple slope was significant and 

positive (B = 19.1 (6.26), p = .002), indicating an 

increase in the number of musician-peers reported 

by residents of this facility. A similar pattern was 

found for antisocial behaviors: at Facility A there 

was no significant change in behaviors over time 

(p = .643) but at Facility B a significant decrease in 

antisocial behaviors was observed (B = -1.73 (.387), 

p < .001). In contrast, no significant interaction 

between time and facility was observed for reported 

externalizing behaviors (p = .599). Instead, a main 

effect for time was observed such that externalizing 

behaviors decreased from the pre-residency to the 

post-residency assessment (B = -9.59 (2.27), p < .001). 

Neither main nor interaction effects were found for 

pro-social behaviors.