The referral process begins with an initial conversation between the potential client or referrer and the coordinator of the service. The client attends four assessment sessions, lasting between twenty minutes and an hour depending on the type of client and their needs.

At the beginning of the assessment, the reasons for referral are considered, alongside any other treatment and educational approaches, past and current. Some thought is also given to the timing of the referral within the context of the client’s life. Wheeler and colleagues (2005) state that in music therapy assessments, music therapists “need to build an understanding of the client that helps […] contextualise [their] music therapy assessment and subsequent goals of treatment” (p. 30). Entering into a potential therapy process requires practical and financial commitment from the client, referrer and/or carer for it to work, so this needs to be explored carefully in this initial meeting.

The purpose of the assessment is for the client and me to try out using live, improvised music expressively and to see if this seems potentially helpful in addressing the client’s needs. It is also important to explore ways of relating to each other and to see if it might be possible to build a trusting working relationship. It is an opportunity to notice the client’s strengths and needs (Talmage & Molyneux, 2014), respond musically and verbally to acknowledge and support these, and to determine the ways in which music therapy may be appropriate for them. Clients’ and referrers’ personal experiences of music, what it means to them, and how they perceive it as a therapeutic medium also have a part to play, and this can also be explored as part of the assessment.

The assessment format may not be exactly the same for each client. There is no single standard assessment method for music therapy in the UK (Churchill, 2015) and this is perhaps due to the necessarily individual nature of each client-therapist relationship. As part of her research into evaluation and assessment methods, Churchill (2012) has observed that when “therapists did use a formal process and tool, (they) found it necessary to continually adapt for best practice, with different approaches required according to reasons of referral” (p. 209).

The assessment is the opportunity for the interface between the client’s or referrer’s expectations and the expectations and recommendations of the therapist to be explored and negotiated. The therapist and client must be realistic about both the potential benefits and what is likely–or indeed unlikely–to be possible within the given time frame. I have found it increasingly necessary to be explicit about this, to encourage the client and/or referrer to prioritise their desired outcomes and to use the assessment to establish whether or not music therapy is the best way to achieve these outcomes. Reaching the initial conclusion of an assessment can be challenging, since there may be limits to how well a client and therapist will know each other at the end of an assessment. It is important to acknowledge that the assessment cannot be exhaustive in this regard.

The music therapy approach I use is tailored to each client, but broadly speaking employs a model of improvised music making in which the therapist and client both take an active part. The beginning and ending of the session may be marked with a familiar song or activity for some clients, providing familiarity, predictably and reassurance as well as establishing and maintaining the boundaries of time of the session.

Sloboda (1997) writes that “the professional training of music therapists stresses the role of improvisation in allowing individuals to express their emotional state, and to enter into an interactive dialogue with the therapist” (p. 121). I see my role as one of listening and responding to the client as they present themself musically and non-musically. It is helpful for the client to “be” without any rigid agenda and for me to see how they respond to this opportunity, to “free associate” musically and with their words, movements and other behaviours (Darnley-Smith & Patey, 2003, p. 71). Pavlicevic (1997) describes shared improvisation in music therapy in this kind of approach:

In my approach, the relationship is central to the therapeutic process (Association of Professional Music Therapists, 1990; Winnicott, 1982) and I make use of theories that draw parallels between early relationships and music (Stern, 1977) and the importance of early relationships (Winnicott, 1982). Such theories focus on the first relationship a baby has with their primary carer. The pre-verbal and intuitive nature of a parent-child relationship lends itself as a model for relating in music therapy with clients of all ages. In shared music making, I can attune to my clients, using my music to support them moment-to-moment, person-to-person in a way which is unique to our therapeutic relationship. I will now consider the beginning of the referral process for clients and referrers.

In my experience, clients from the community come to music therapy with very mixed background knowledge and understanding. The amount of research that clients and referrers do about music therapy–online or from leaflets, for example–varies. Doing a quick, general online search, as prospective clients and referrers might, I found a range of official websites, such as BAMT¹ (British Association of Music Therapy), Nordoff-Robbins² and The Music Therapy Charity,³ which all gave similar explanations of music therapy and its benefits. My search also showed a range of information from a variety of other sources, countries and covering many different approaches.

It is evident from these sources that music therapy is portrayed as many different things online. It can take on various forms depending on the approach, techniques and stance of the therapist and their context. A search could be informative or misleading depending on its relevance to the potential client or referrer and how they interpret what they find.

Video footage of music therapy practice, now widely available online (Judd, 2013; Nordoff-Robbins, n.d.; Oldfield, 2014) is a powerful tool, showing the benefits of music therapy in action. It provides a snapshot of the therapist’s approach and the desirable outcome, but the limitations of this may not be obvious to the viewer. Wheeler (2015) comments on the pitfalls of video footage of music therapy sessions and how they might be misinterpreted:

If music therapists share clips online, portraying a client’s responses of enjoyment and fun like this, are they setting up the expectation that significant moments in therapy occur all the time? Are the challenges faced by the clients and therapists downplayed as the viewer is swept away emotionally by a ‘magic moment?’ A short extract from one session, for example, is part of a process possibly spanning several months. The ‘magic moment’ needs its context in order to be fully appreciated. Might having improved general wellbeing as an outcome of music therapy be undervalued if expectations are of ‘magic?’

Another consideration in exploring clients’ and referrers’ expectations is their own depth of understanding of the needs to be addressed. Transactional analysis psychotherapist Sills (2006) writes about different types of contracts for different clients and needs. She identifies that some clients may be unaware of some of the issues that are affecting them, and that these may only come to light as the therapy process unfolds. When asking clients and referrers to articulate their expectations, I have found that these expectations are not always clear. Referrers might speak of an enjoyment of musical experiences for the client, and the hope that this will be motivating for them. However, they often need my help to establish what the motivation generated through the musical experiences will be for and what changes they want to see in the client’s wellbeing and daily life. Even when referrers describe their expectations clearly, it is often the case that other needs for the client may emerge through the assessment process. There will still be much work to be done in exploring these in depth within the context of the therapeutic relationship.

I have taken many community referrals which have been straightforward. Either the reasons for referral were clear and positive changes were observed, or it was clear both to me and the client or referrer that music therapy was not likely to be a helpful intervention for them. However, I have occasionally found that disappointment and apparent disillusionment about negative responses to therapy has led to endings which have felt untimely, and which could possibly have been avoided had expectations and understanding about what might happen been different. For example, I have found with a few parents that if their child has become distressed in the first session or early on in the assessment, this has not appeared to resonate with what has sometimes seemed to be an expectation that music therapy would be instantly fun and easy. Even when my interventions to address difficult behaviours or emotional outbursts have been successful, occasionally the mismatch between what was expected and what has happened has led to the parent’s decision to discontinue music therapy sessions, sometimes even before the end of the assessment.

Much is written on the practice of music therapy in terms of its different models, approaches with various client populations (Bruscia, 1991, 2014; Bunt & Stige 2014; Darnley-Smith & Patey, 2003; Wheeler et al., 2015) and how music therapists communicate with their clients and other professionals (Procter, 2017; Twyford & Watson, 2008). However, there appears to be a gap in the literature around the expectations of clients and referrers at the time of referral.

In the literature, some therapists consider how their referrers and clients experience, understand and interpret music therapy treatment. Annesley (2014) highlights the issue of an “institutional fantasy” – an expectation that a therapist working in a school will “fix” a child, in ways that may be idealistic (p. 41). He acknowledges the understandably strong desire of teachers to see improvements in pupils’ behaviour. This desire can lead to the therapist being invited to “keep (the child) all day” or to address specific problems in sessions (p. 42). Roman (2016) explores the challenges faced by a therapist working in a school when “positive progress and […] predictable outcomes” are expected (p. 20). For example, she describes how such expectations can affect how actual outcomes are perceived. This in turn, can influence decisions about future funding for music therapy.

Hibben’s (1999) book, Inside Music Therapy: Client Experiences gives a direct voice to clients and how they see their treatment. The expectations of the clients are often described in the story of their therapy. For example, one parent shares her anxiety about how the therapist might view her child’s behaviour (Jones & Oldfield, 1999). In another chapter, a teenager expresses his resistance to the idea of “therapy,” in contrast to his surprise at how well he was able to express himself in his sessions (Friedberg and Obstbaum, 1999). These insights into clients’ and referrers’ anxieties and misgivings about the experience of music therapy are helpful to consider when taking new referrals.

Bruce and High (2012) have explored how a child’s music therapy was understood and interpreted by the child’s parent and by other professionals in a school setting. For example, in the case study Bruce and High present, the occupational therapist and the physiotherapist state that music therapy was addressing their targets with the child. In contrast to this overlap, the teacher comments that the music therapy group is a “therapy bubble where educational targets do not come in and everyone can just be” (p. 72). Sometimes, music therapy might be perceived as overlapping with other disciplines in its objectives and at others it might be seen to be offering something different. This is another helpful point for consideration at the time of referral.

In addition, musical and instrumental improvisation is a vital component of my assessment process, clients and referrers may have questions and assumptions around this. Pavlicevic (1997) considers the client’s experience of improvising with their therapist:

Reflecting on these different perspectives from clients, referrers and therapists, my focus at the beginning of a new referral should be to help the client and/or referrer to share what they want to change for the client through music therapy. I also need to consider what their anxieties about the process might be, what their experience of music is, and how we can work with that in a way that benefits them. This leads me to conclude that meticulous attention should be given to the client’s understanding and initial experience of music therapy, both in terms of the information they are given before it begins and, in particular, during the assessment stage.

The case studies I will now present examine the relationship between client expectations and what I have been able to offer in music therapy. In all three cases, challenges were faced by the client, referrer and therapist. These included a difference between the expected benefits of music therapy and what I (and music therapy) could offer, responses in sessions that suggested that the client was struggling with the experience and a lack of music. All of these issues may have led to some clients or referrers concluding that music therapy was not for them. The questions I wish to consider are:

I have reflected on what these clients and referrers seemed to expect and how this affected the way I worked with them. The starting point for our work in all of the cases was a specific outcome. For Oliver it was a desire for Oliver to feel calm, for Jim, improvement in his speech and expressive language and for Jodie, a closer bond with her mother which could in turn help her to feel more able to cope with the challenges of school life. The alignment of these initial referral reasons and my music therapy approach could be seen as pivotal to the decisions made at the end of the assessment. In all of the cases, at the end of the assessment, the clients, referrers and I agreed that it was realistic to expect improvement in the area that concerned them the most. With Jim and Oliver, this shared understanding may have provided the reassurance and trust needed for me to recommend other areas of focus. I felt in a strong position to communicate that the main referral reason for both clients was just one possible benefit of the therapy process and to encourage exploration of others. With Jodie, during the assessment the engagement and commitment from Tracy seemed to indicate that it would be realistic to expect outcomes in line with the reasons for referral. It was only as the process unfolded and this commitment was tested that it became apparent that this was not the case. This is an example of how a lack of alignment between the expectations and perceptions of the referrer, the client, and in this case the carer as well, can affect the potential for the therapy to achieve the desired outcomes of the referral. It also demonstrates that plans made at the end of an assessment may not unfold as expected, even if the evidence from the assessment suggests otherwise.

It is understandable for clients and referrers to want to see and experience beneficial outcomes in music therapy. However, when a resistive or disinterested response, particularly in the initial sessions, leads to the client’s or referrer’s assumption that music therapy is not suitable for the client, it can be a challenge to help the client or referrer to remain open to the idea that music therapy could be of benefit. Wheeler et. al. (2005) identify that assessing suitability of music therapy is “context bound”:

For me as a music therapist and for some referrers like Ann, the notion that sessions do not always go as expected and that behaviours are an indicator of the client’s emotional state, is understood. However, in my experience, for clients and for referrers in particular, it would seem that sometimes it is not clear. The challenge here lies in helping the referrer to think about the client’s response in terms of the client’s needs rather than assuming that music therapy will not be appropriate for them. I must always be aware that a referrer knows the client much better than I do at the assessment stage and I must listen to their concerns. At the same time, however, I must consider the referrer’s emotional experience of the client. Particularly if they are a close family member, their view of the client may not be objective. Indeed, their own emotional vulnerability around the client and their struggles bears careful consideration. For example, Bicknell (1983) describes how a parent experiences emotions including grief, loss, denial, guilt and anger initially and throughout the life of their child with a disability.

It seems sometimes that the referrer may be embarrassed by the client’s behaviour. Indeed, this may have been the case at times for the referrers in the case studies I have presented. For example, I wondered if Ann felt embarrassed by Oliver’s resistance to my interventions (and she expressed concern to me about this at first). However, for some referrers, rather than embrace the struggle to accept it, particularly in front of me, it may be easier to abandon music therapy or assume that it is the music therapy situation that has caused the difficult response.

It is my job to demonstrate and explain how a client’s needs could be addressed through music therapy, an area which is likely to be new or less familiar to the referrer. I also have a responsibility to be clear about what music therapy cannot address and explain this if the referrer has expectations which are not realistic. I may feel defensive if a client or referrer has misgivings about music therapy, so a conscious step should be taken to encourage dialogue about their initial impressions and how these compare with their expectations. If behavioural difficulties, for example, can be identified as “manifestations of the client’s therapeutic issues” (Wheeler et al., 2005, p. 43), as Wheeler and colleagues suggest, the assessment recommendations should explain how music therapy might address the issues. For example, if a client who has been referred for help with their anxiety is reluctant to come into the room, I might interpret this as a manifestation of their anxiety. My interventions would address this. I would start where the client is–physically, musically and emotionally. After acknowledging this musically and/or verbally, I would explore ways of supporting them to help them to feel able to come into the room.

My responses to some clients’ resistance and reluctance may not always be what referrers expect. This can be a problematic issue, particularly if good communication between the referrer and me is not established early on. Roman (2016) describes her process of understanding what might be happening for a client, but identifies the difficulties communicating this to the referrer. She describes how the referrer’s understanding of the client's behaviour (in this case, the client refusing to come to the session), is different from her own understanding. She writes about making use of her countertransference feelings to inform her interventions, explaining that although the referrer (a teacher) “accepted [her] rationale,” it was “extremely difficult for [her] to communicate why this was valuable” (p. 19). The tension and difficulty in the role of the music therapist here is sharing an opinion which is informed by theoretical concepts which are likely to be unfamiliar to the referrer.

It is important to acknowledge these challenges, but alongside this I can draw on my experience to support the client and referrer. I will not have experienced every situation before, but clients’ resistance, distress and indifference are familiar to me and I can provide reassurance that I have resources to address these responses.

There are times, however, particularly during the assessment, when it is not clear to me what is best for the client. What is needed from me when I, the client, and the referrer may all be feeling discomfort and uncertainty around meeting the client's needs through music therapy? A helpful place to start could be to acknowledge the discomfort and offer reassurance that sometimes assessments are not straightforward. I can offer a conscious acknowledgement of the difference between what the referrer or client hoped for and what is happening and offer support with this. Perhaps an active framing of the assessment as a period of ‘not knowing’ for all concerned is helpful and can be emphasised more at the time of the referral. Can I consciously and actively model openness in my own expectations that I will help the client and/or referrer to stay with the process when it is difficult?

It is just as important to create a space for ‘not knowing’ when a client responds very positively in their assessment sessions. It is encouraging, of course, to see a client express themself freely, respond to my musical support and perhaps ‘come alive’ in a way that is rare in other situations. However, this is no more a ‘quick fix’ for their difficulties than a negative response may be a contraindication for music therapy. Bearing in mind the emotional vulnerability of referrers who are close to the client, an initial positive reaction may appear to promise an unrealistically quick and easy pathway to the desired therapeutic outcomes. My job is to accept the “whole client" (Talmage & Molyneux, 2014, p. 201) and what may emerge in the therapy process and help them do the same, bearing in mind that the “whole client” and the reasons for their referral may be present and observable only to a limited degree during the assessment.

In my opinion, written or spoken words are limited in enabling the client or referrer to understand the process. This may be partly due to the difficulty of using words to explain a musical process, which will inevitably lose something of its essence in the ‘translation.’

The way in which a therapeutic relationship is built, moment to moment, in and out of the music can be just as difficult to capture and explain. Again, Sills (2006) considers what too much detailed explanation of a verbal therapeutic approach may take away from the experience:

So, there is value in enabling a client to experience without a detailed explanation of everything I am doing. At the same time I try to give enough information about what I am trying to help the client with (when necessary and not off-putting) for them to feel informed and supported. For example, with Jim, I often built in comments about what I was doing before playing music with him and then commented and reflected about it afterwards. I encouraged him and his wife to share their thoughts and ask questions if they were feeling unsure about anything. Explaining and experiencing can work together and feed into each other through the assessment process.

Another factor crucial to the success of a music therapy process is communication with other professionals involved in the care and treatment of the client. The therapist working in isolation in the community is reliant on the cooperation of the client or referrer to liaise with other members of the team in order to ensure that their approach is informed by and not in conflict with other aspects of the client’s care and treatment. Richards (2007) identifies the problems that can occur when good communication is not possible:

The communication with the clients’ referrers and other professionals was good in the first two case studies described and both referrers assumed that my involvement and communication with the whole team would be a part of the work. I found with Jodie, that although my attendance at team review meetings was accepted, I suggested this rather than automatically being invited. I have found that this is not uncommon. Even though the necessary consent for this is sought at the beginning of the referral, it can be difficult to achieve integration into the team if it is not what clients and referrers are expecting as part of the service. Attention to this at the time of the referral is something I have come to prioritise in every assessment situation.

Encountering the assumptions of clients and referrers, which form the basis of their expectations, is an inevitable and complex part of the referral and assessment process and the therapy process as a whole. It leads me to question how to take steps to avoid missing such assumptions, which may then impact on the process.

Reflecting on these three case studies, I consider how what I have learnt now informs my practice. Jim’s case illustrates that it is possible to find a path to successful therapy even when a client’s original expectations are different from the scope of what music therapy can offer. Oliver’s case illustrates the resilience of the client and/or referrer and their readiness to weather the potential storms that a therapy process might entail. I could argue that for Ann and for Oliver, this resilience was something they both came with, but perhaps more robust support is needed for some clients, like Jodie and Tracy. This could mean space for reflection and encouragement to share their responses and ask questions if they are feeling uncomfortable or unsure about the assessment process. The assessment should include preparation for therapy as a treatment to address goals, which may be difficult at times, particularly if the client and/or referrer has expectations of fun and pleasurable experiences.

Identifying specific aims and objectives as part of the assessment and reviewing these regularly has always been embedded in my practice, but with the community referrals, sometimes reviewing the process and communication with the client and /or referrer took place somewhat informally. Currently, review meetings are built into each therapy agreement on a more frequent and formal basis. Setting up this expectation as the therapist from the beginning promotes consideration of desired outcomes that is not rushed, more mutually negotiated and understood, and more likely to be realistic and achievable.

Miller (2014) highlights the benefits of ongoing assessment in the therapy process, but identifies that it can be “an informal and internal process which may lack [ … ] clear clinical direction and which may limit communication with the client and with the other professional people involved” (p. 17). To avoid this lack of direction, she advocates a “structure and rationale to this process” which can “increase confidence for the therapist and the client” (p. 17).

Since the work I did with the clients in these case studies, in order to ensure we have a structure and a rationale to the assessment process, the team of music therapists working for the service provider that I work for make use of outcomes tools. Although tools can have limitations, such as providing a simplified picture of the progress made and failing to explain the circumstances of set-backs, (see Roman, 2016), I find these can help to provide clarity about what the therapy is for and this can help to dispel misconceptions.

I consider the ‘fit’ between client or referrer expectations and what music therapy itself, and I as the music therapist, can offer. This will be naturally closer and more aligned with some clients than others. It is not realistic to expect that I can anticipate all of the assumptions that people make about music therapy: However, I can keep an open mind to their existence and be explicit about the process in an accessible way. I can also encourage the client or referrer to pause with me and for us both to give attention to their expectations and the extent to which music therapy can meet them.

My thinking about new referrals has shifted over the years. In the earlier part of my career, I was more focused on my impressions of a client and what I felt I could offer them. I have become much more focused on the interface between the music therapy I offer and the hopes and expectations of referrers and clients. The referral form is an important starting point for an assessment, but it is a brief and relatively simplistic presentation of a client whose needs are likely to be complex. Therefore, the work of the assessment lies initially in the dialogue about the client and/or referrer’s understanding of what they are asking of me and my ability to highlight what of that, and if appropriate, what else, I think it is possible for me to deliver. The assessment is then the opportunity for the client and I to see if we can work together. For the therapy to work to its fullest potential, we need to agree on aims for the therapy, to align our expectations about the potential challenges and ensure robust methods of review and communication outside the sessions themselves. We may or may not then be working in a way that the client or referrer has originally expected.