Abstract
Studies have examined the potential benefits and risks of alternative forms of detention, such as house arrest, for adults but, despite its growing use, little research has examined the implications of house arrest for juveniles. The current research examined the experience of 14 adolescents under house arrest. Six main themes were identified in the narratives of the participants: the experience of detention, daily schedule and utilization of time, emotions and self-reflection, relationships with peers, relation to parents and supervisor(s), and contact with professionals. Findings emphasized the potential developmental dangers of house arrest at the critical stage of adolescence. Yet, analysis also showed that the period of house arrest has the potential to be a period of positive changes, and can be used for successful rehabilitation.
The issue of incarceration among juveniles has become an increasingly important issue around the world. In Israel, in 2015, 43% of all decisions made by the juvenile court concerned the detention and incarceration of minors (Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Services, 2016). In addition, in recent years, due to understandings of the potential dangers and consequences to the individual as a result of incarceration (Crewe, 2011; Irwin & Owen, 2005; Johnson & McGunigall-Smith, 2008; Sykes, 1958), as well as the many resources that detention and holding facilities require, many countries are now choosing to exchange stays in state institutions for alternatives within the community (Nellis, Beyens, & Kaminski, 2013). However, although several researchers have addressed the effects that alternative forms of detention and imprisonment have had on adults (Deuchar, 2011; Gainey & Payne, 2000; Payne & Gainey, 1998; Vanhaelemeesch, Vander-Beken, & Vandevelde, 2013), there is still a lack of empirical research into the experience and effects that alternative forms of detention may have on minors. Adolescence is a specific and critical developmental stage (Erikson, 1950; McAnarney, 2013) in which the experience of detention and/or its alternatives may affect normative developmental processes. Policy decisions regarding alternative forms of detention for adolescents need to be based on understandings of the impact of the form of alternative detention on this vulnerable population. This study is the first study to describe the unique experiences and impact that house arrest, one of the most common forms of alternative detention, has on adolescents.
Imprisonment, Arrest, and Their Effects
Sykes (1958) was the first to coin the term “pains of imprisonment”—as a general title that includes all the subjective and objective hardships faced by the prisoners over the course of their incarceration. He describes five separate categories of “pains”: the deprivation of liberty, the deprivation of goods and services, the deprivation of heterosexual relationships, the deprivation of autonomy, and the deprivation of security. Other researchers have described additional negative facets of imprisonment: boredom, unemployment, loss of contact with reality, hallucinations, attempts at self-harm (Gibbs, 1982), loss of life skills, extreme loneliness, humiliation, impaired sense of self, violation of sexual identity (Irwin & Owen, 2005), and feelings of stress and anxiety alongside other psychological difficulties (Crewe, 2011). Other studies have described the effect of imprisonment on the prisoner’s relationship with his family (La Vigne, Naser, Brooks, & Castro, 2005) and the process of acclimatization to incarceration (Dhami, Ayton, & Loewenstein, 2007).
In addition, the growing number of prisoners creates economic difficulties for the state, due to high costs of building new prisons, operating prisons, caring for the needs of prisoners, and employing professional staff members (Nellis et al., 2013). Even detainees who have not yet been convicted experience many difficulties such as coping with the initial shock of detention, maintaining their social connections and personal security, retaining employment over the long period of detention (Gibbs, 1982), and managing anxieties and adjustment issues (Payne & Gainey, 1998). To alleviate the possible damages of the detention period and to save on economic costs, there is an ever-growing use of community-based alternatives, such as house arrest (Nellis et al., 2013; Payne & Gainey, 2004).
Studies examining the experiences of those under house arrest found that prolonged stays at home under restrictive conditions have mostly negative consequences (Deuchar, 2011; Gainey & Payne, 2000; Payne & Gainey, 1998; Vanhaelemeesch et al., 2013). Payne and Gainey (1998) found that even under alternative forms of detention, most of the detainees reported feelings similar to Sykes’ (1958) “Pains of Imprisonment,” except for a compromised sense of personal security. Gainey and Payne (2000) further defined four more categories of negative effects seen in those under house arrest: economic hardship (high fees incurred for participating in the house arrest program compared with a stay in a traditional institution where the government bears the cost of incarceration), negative effects on family members, the difficulty of watching others lead a normal lifestyle, and physical discomfort (such as that conferred by electronic monitoring devices, which are worn around the ankle).
Other studies have found both positive and negative aspects of alternative forms of detention or house arrest. The negative aspects include difficulty sleeping, damaged relationships with family members and friends (Thomas, 1989), and feelings of stress among those under supervision, which can lead to further criminal offenses (Deuchar, 2011; Payne & Gainey, 1998). The positive aspects have included the prevention of socialization with “hardened” criminals in prison (Payne & Gainey, 1998), the maintenance of a healthy family life, continuing with regular work, allowance for more intensive supervision and surveillance by the authorities, and enabling integration into a more normative lifestyle (Gainey & Payne, 2000; Payne & Gainey, 2004; Vanhaelemeesch et al., 2013). Although there are those who think that house arrest is a lighter and less significant punishment, it is clear from the reports of the incarcerated themselves that for the vast majority of them, the time during which they were detained at home was experienced as a grave punishment (Payne & Gainey, 1998; Vanhaelemeesch et al., 2013).
Minors, throughout the period of detention in prison, have been found to face a significant potential for harm to their well-being including suicide attempts and attempts at self-harm, threats from fellow inmates, cognitive difficulties, and problems with adjustment (Shemesh-Didi & Israel-Shalom, 2015). In Israel, as in many countries, there are several alternatives to classical detention for minors who are undergoing criminal proceedings, a major one being the use of house arrest (Hovav & Achdot, 2014). Yet, few studies have been conducted with adolescents under house arrest, to understand the implications of this alternative form of detention on minors. Exceptions of note are Deuchar’s (2011) and Weisburd’s (2015) pivotal studies on the use of electronic monitoring (EM) on minors under detention, both of whom noted the negative impact of EM on the young people. However, such studies have focused on the role of EM in detention of minors. The focus of the current study is house arrest for minors, without the use of EM, but rather under adult supervision, in general of a family member. In Israel, the use of EM for minors is limited, allowing us to explore whether, in contrast with the studies of Deuchar (2011) and Weisburd (2015), to what extent house arrest, in and of itself, without EM, can be a potentially developmentally enhancing or limiting experience.
Detention and House Arrest During Adolescence
Adolescence is a critical developmental period (Arnett, 1999) that bridges the gap between childhood and adulthood, during which a number of changes take place in several realms: biological, cognitive, and behavioral (McAnarney, 2013). In addition, the adolescent is developing his or her value system, and engaged in building an identity (Erickson, 1968) and his or her self-esteem (Kaplan & Sadock, 2007). The process of adolescence involves a move away from reliance on parental figures (Blos, 1962) and the increasing importance of the social arena in the development of a personal, social, and sexual identity. Although there are very few studies that focus on detention during adolescence in general, and house arrest in particular, it seems very important to better understand what incarceration or alternative forms of detention might mean during this very sensitive age. House arrest is a period during which the adolescent is at home, in many cases without any contact with his or her friends, dependent on his or her parents, and without a normative school framework. Yet, the implications of house arrest on the developmental process of adolescence have not yet been examined.
Criminal Youth in Israel and House Arrest
In Israel, the legal system is considered to be more therapeutically than punishment oriented for minors. Figures from the Ministry for Child and Adolescent Services (www.molsa.gov.il) in 2014 reported that only 4% of minors were given prison sentences, the rest being given alternatives such as therapeutic orders or referred to probation officers. In the court proceedings, probation officers submit recommendations on treatment or punishment to the judge (Elisha & Braver, 2015). In particular, in Israel, the use of electronic monitoring is less common, especially for minors. The latest data that were published indicate that during July 2017, only 361 people were under surveillance of electronic monitoring in Israel. Yet, no data, specific for minors are published. 1 Shoham, Yehosha-Stern, and Efodi (2015) reported that most of the electronic monitoring is used for licensed-released adult prisoners. As an alternative, most of the minors at house arrest need to be under the supervision of one of their parents or another adult, such as a grown up sibling. In case there is a violation of the house arrest rules, the supervisor can find himself under criminal procedure. Although little has been discussed in the literature, this clearly can put pressure on the adults involved, as not only must they bear responsibility for the behavior of the minor under arrest but also it can lead to limitations on the adults’ ability to fulfill normative roles in both work and social contexts and place heavy emotional and physical burdens on the adult, child, and the relationship between them.
This study is one of the first studies to examine the unique ways in which adolescents experience house arrest and to consider whether or not house arrest has unique implications for adolescents who have not been reported in previous studies. In the research, we emphasized the effect of house arrest under human supervision, as opposed to EM. The research questions focused on the following:
Method
A qualitative study, based on phenomenological principles, included semistructured interviews with young males prior to trial under house arrest. Qualitative methodology refers to phenomenon as holistic (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994) and focuses on understanding the meaning of a particular event (in this case, house arrest) in the eyes of those involved in the event. The information is obtained from primary sources through in-depth interviews of participants (Moustakas, 1994). The purpose of in-depth interviews is to understand the experience the interviewer undergoes and to give the interviewer the opportunity to understand what the interviewee attributes to the experience (Seidman, 1991).
Population
The study involved 14 males aged 15 to 20 years (average age = 17.2 years) under house arrest prior to trial. Thirteen of the boys were under house arrest at the time of the interviews for most of the day. The remaining participants had been released from house arrest 2 months prior (following 9 months of house arrest). At the time the interviews were conducted, all of the boys had been under house arrest for a period of up to 10 months of detention (an average detention time of 114.5 days). For nine boys, this was their first criminal offense. Five boys had been involved in other criminal activity prior to the current arrest. The main offense for seven boys was violent crime, six other boys were charged with a main offense related to property, and another was charged with drug trafficking. All participants participated in the study voluntarily.
Previous research has highlighted the role of socioeconomic status in the process of rehabilitation of minors. Weisburd (2015) suggests that poverty can lower the success of rehabilitation of criminal youth. In the current research, we interviewed offenders from a wide range of socioeconomic environments: Some of the participants lived in old apartments in crumbling buildings in low socio-economic neighborhoods, yet others lived in new apartment buildings, and two interviewees lived in private houses with small swimming pools. The interviewees represented both a wide range of economic backgrounds and a wide variation in the size of the space in which they were confined, and the opportunities that this gave them for movement. Interestingly, we saw no relationship between the sizes of the houses and their economic background with their responses in the interviews.
The Interviews
The study included in-depth, semistructured interviews. Each interview lasted between 1 to 2 hr and took place in the home where the young person was in custody. Interviews were recorded and then later transcribed. The interviews began with an open question: “Tell me how it is for you to be under house arrest?” This was then followed up by additional questions, including the following: “What thoughts have been going through your head during the arrest?” “Has the relationship with your parents changed since the beginning of your house arrest?” “How do you cope with difficulties?” “What can help you meet the conditions of house arrest?” The interviews ended with the question, “Do you have plans for the future?”
Procedures
The research was carried out in collaboration with the probation officers responsible for detained youth and a leading organization for youth at risk in central Israel. The probation officers and therapeutic workers approached the boys they had contact with and offered them to participate in the study, emphasizing that participation was of their own free will, and that the information they shared would not be passed on to the probation service or other bodies of authority. Details of those who agreed to participate were passed on to the researchers. Seven boys were referred to the study by the probation officers and six additional boys were referred by therapeutic workers from the youth at risk units. Another boy took part via referral from another boy who participated in the study. The interviews were conducted by the first author, who has been accompanying minors under house arrest, for several years. The atmosphere during the interviews was generally relaxed. Most of the boys were glad for the opportunity to express themselves and share their experience with others. At the end of the interview, the boys were asked how they felt about their participation in the study, and most of them shared that it was a positive experience. Some of them expressed a wish to continue meeting.
Reliability of the Study
The study was approved by the university ethics committee. Signed informed consent was gained from each participant. Each participant was given the opportunity to withdraw from the study at any time. In cases where the child was below the age of 18 years, one of the parents was also required to sign their consent to the son’s participation. Lincoln and Guba (1985) present four criteria for evaluating qualitative research and establishing its trustworthiness: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. To address all these points, the researcher interviewed the participants in their own homes and the interviews continued until a point of “saturation” (Bowen, 2008). As part of the process of examining the reliability of the study, the main findings were presented to the probation officers from the juvenile probation service to obtain feedback on the themes and categories that emerged from the study. All analysis was carried out with fictional names.
Analysis of the Interviews
Interviews were analyzed via categorical analysis (Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, & Zilber, 1998). According to this approach, the text is searched for central themes that appear in the text, and each theme is analyzed, explored, and defined in its own right. The analysis was performed in several stages. First, the researchers read all the interviews several times until they identified recurring and central themes from the interviews of the boys. After initial identification and conceptualization of the data, the researchers and another judge discussed the essence of the categories to reach consensus on key categories within each theme. Additional reading led to further definition of themes and identification of themes within each interview.
Findings
In the analysis of the interviews with the 14 participants, six main themes were identified (see Table 1): the experience of detention and its difficulties, daily schedule and utilization of time, emotions and self-reflection, relationships with peers, relation to parents and supervisor(s), and contact with a therapeutic worker and the probation service.
The Major Themes.
The Experience of Detention and Its Difficulties (14 Participants 2 )
It’s not easy, this house arrest. I want to see a Judge sit at home like this all day, and let’s see if he doesn’t go crazy from it. (Ethan) I’m not someone who shows it, but it’s hard. It’s a strange feeling. I’ve never been in such a situation. Everything is open to me, there is nothing that’s locking me in. I could go out and do what I want. I hold myself back because of the police. Believe me, it’s a hard feeling . . . I miss freedom. You have to have freedom in order to have all the best things in the world. (Alex)
“Not an easy time,” “Very difficult,” “Frustrating”—these are just some of the terms that the boys used to describe their time under house arrest. All the boys reported the period of detention as a period of great difficulty. Eight boys said explicitly that from their point of view, the house arrest was a punishment inflicted on them, and two boys noted that their time under house arrest was a more severe punishment than arrest in a detention center. Three boys stated that they perceived the arrest as a form of atonement and correction following the offense they committed. All the boys reported that their primary difficulty was staying in one place without being able to come and go as they pleased. Subdivided into subcategories, the boys reported specific difficulties (detailed in separate sections below): difficulty staying home, dependence, loss of autonomy, and violation of privacy.
Difficulty staying home
I’m not lacking anything, I feel like I’m in a luxury apartment, The only thing I don’t have is my freedom. (Daniel) Restraining is harder. You can see the door, it’s your house, and you know you cannot get out. (Ethan)
The dissonance between being able to move freely at home but not being able to walk out of the door constitutes a great psychological difficulty for the boys. The difficulty exists regardless of the size of the home or the possibilities of employment. Three boys noted that if they had electronic monitoring, it would have made it easier for them, because external supervision would make it easier for them to cope with the temptation to leave the house and because it would have made it easier for their supervisor. The boys discuss the pressure of feeling that they have to rely on themselves to stop themselves leaving their house (internal boundaries) at an age at which young people are dependent on parental or authority figures to provide a framework, structure, and boundaries. Here, they have to stop themselves from leaving the house. As the boys themselves raise, in many ways, external boundaries would be easier.
Dependence, loss of autonomy, and violation of privacy
Six youth noted that house arrest made them feel helpless and dependent on others in three ways: “financial” dependence—the inability to work and earn money, “material” dependence—the inability to get things outside the house (cigarettes, food), and “technical” dependence—the need to be accompanied by other people throughout the day. The detained youth also depends on his family and various professionals (a lawyer, a probation officer) who will assist him during the various stages of criminal proceedings. For some, being under supervision all day results in a damaged sense of privacy and keeps them from attending social gatherings.
I am a burden on my parents, I have to ask them for money for cigarettes . . . Since I was 13 I haven’t asked them for money. (Ian) It’s the hardest thing—that I’m with my grandfather everywhere, I’m not used to it, I’m independent, mature, I do everything on my own . . . Suddenly one day it’s all changed. (Noah)
Daily Schedule and Utilization of Time (14 Participants)
House arrest is full of time to think, but also community service work, which is also a sort of punishment. You have time to think about what you did, but you also have busy work in your hands. As long as you’re doing something, it doesn’t drive you crazy. (Isaiah)
The courts can limit the ability for a minor under house arrest to leave the confines of the home. In this study, two boys were under full house arrest (without permission to leave the home at all during the course of the day); nine were under partial house arrest, with permission granted to leave the house for school, work, and for “fresh air” (for 1-4 hr each day); one boy was granted leave to a day center for recovering drug addicts; one was under nighttime house arrest only; and one final participant had finished his term before taking part in the study, at which point, he was under no restrictions whatsoever. In relation to the daily schedule of each youth under house arrest, two groups were formed based on their responses: those with an organized daily schedule and those with a “chaotic” daily schedule.
Organized
This group was made up of six boys who reported waking hours (primarily) during the day and set sleeping hours at night. A basic picture of their lives showed that this group went to bed at night (the average time being midnight) and arose in the morning (the average time for waking was 7:00 a.m.), early relative to boys in the second group. Boys in this group got up every morning for a set task—be it work, school, or therapy. When they returned home, their schedule was also more clear-cut than those in the second group. The boys in this group had permission to leave their homes, and they organized their daily schedules around the time that they spent outside the home . . . At first I was under full house arrest and could not leave my home. Night was morning, morning was night . . . There is nothing to do, why do you need a set schedule?! Either way I was at home. As soon as I started going into the day center my priorities were set. (Ian)
Chaotic
However, in contrast to the group who had an organized schedule, there was a second group of boys who described a chaotic and disorganized daily schedule. This group was made up of eight boys who did not manage to set a consistent and productive day-to-day schedule for themselves. These boys reported that they slept during daytime hours and were awake most hours of the night (average bedtime was around 3:30 a.m. and average waking time was 11:30 a.m.). In this group, there were two boys under full house arrest, and six with permission to leave the home for school or “fresh air” during the day. The boys who had permission to go out for various reasons noted that they did not always manage to get up and organized in time for school. It should be noted, though, that these boys reported problems with regular school attendance even prior to arrest. Some of the boys reported that they preferred to be awake at night because their friends were only available to connect with them late in the day.
I did make a schedule for myself, but I don’t follow it. I’ve got no reason to. I’ll anyways do what I need to do throughout the day, it doesn’t matter when. (Isaiah) Before I was put under house arrest, I would go to school, sleep at night, go to school, come back, sleep another four or so hours, and go to work. Sleeping used to rejuvenate me. Now I can’t sleep in the evening, I have a hard time getting to sleep. I can’t manage to pass the night. Maybe it’s because in Abu Kabir (detention institution) they counted you two times a night, which woke you up. I don’t think about Abu Kabir when I go to sleep here, but I still can’t manage to fall asleep. Maybe this has just become habit for me. (Ethan)
Utilization of time
Ten boys indicated that they kept themselves busy with digital media: watching television, listening to music, and using the computer. Five boys said that friends came to visit them or they called their friends to speak with them. Three boys indicated that they slept more during house arrest than before their arrest. Three boys said that they dedicated part of their time to chores around the house: cleaning, preparing food, and so forth. Two boys indicated that they used their time for sports or exercise inside the house. Two boys said they used part of their time for homework.
I didn’t know what it meant to sit at home before. I never sat at home more than five minutes at a time. Now? I wait to finish up at the day center, go home, sit, watch TV . . . This changed things for me, it opened me up to different things. I’m suddenly sitting and reading books. (Ian) I feel like, heavy. I don’t get out of bed. It’s like I got used to this kind of life. Bedroom, living room, bathroom. Nothing else . . . I wake up at 4pm, shower, computer, Sony Playstation, TV, friends come, and that’s how it is until the morning. Go to bed around 5am. Don’t fall asleep. (Joe)
Emotions and Self-Reflection (12 Participants)
When I can forget about things I’m in a good mood, until I remember where I am and then I sink . . . I get mad at everyone . . . It’s hard that I got into this situation. (Isaiah)
One of the effects that house arrest had on the young people in the study involved changes in their overall mood and mood swings. Nine boys reported various negative emotions that accompanied their period of detention: sadness, anger, frustration, despair, feelings of guilt for the harm they had done to their parents, loss of concentration, low frustration threshold, and more. However, eight boys reported that while under house arrest, they underwent a process of change and learning: This is the school of life . . . I learned a lot of things . . . What it is to be in this neighborhood, how to act with friends, who my real friends are. (David)
Among the positive effects that the boys noted they experienced under house arrest were rapid maturation, greater restraint and self-control, a broader worldview (not just preoccupation with “nonsense”), and more. Some of the positive processes the boys underwent came from therapeutic work that was done with them during their period of detention (by probation officers or therapeutic services in the community), and not from the enforced time spent sitting at home. Ten teenagers noted that house arrest was a turning point in their lives. House arrest gave them time to rethink their behavior and their way of life. Three boys stated explicitly that following their experience, they had decided to stop their criminal behavior: From my perspective, it’s like it woke me up. It allowed me to understand that it’s just not worth it, this other side, that even though I thought I was okay and living a normal life, I was still doing a crime. (Ian) I don’t want to go over my past mistakes. I know very well who I am, I didn’t become an angel. I will do all that’s in my power not to get involved. Really, I’ll try. (Alex)
Relationships With Peers (12 Participants)
Because my school was far away, I didn’t have any friends who lived nearby . . . Two friends called me, but I only saw their face after I hadn’t seen them for a month. (Adam) For the first month and a half, a group would go in and out . . . they would come, spend time with me for an hour, an hour and a half, and then go out and have fun . . . It would break me. (Alex)
The relationship with other adolescents during the period of their incarceration came up a number of times for most participants during interviews. Visits at home, phone conversations, social networks, all served as tools for the boys to keep in touch with their friends. The participants reported that they turned to friends for various reasons: to share their hardships, to receive support during their incarceration, to “pass the time,” and to feel as if they were continuing to live a normal life. Sometimes, friends served as a connection between them and the outside world. However, lack of contact with peers and the inability to join in “their” activities generated feelings of isolation among the detained youth, and intensified their negative emotions such as the feeling they were being punished and increased levels of frustration. Eight boys noted that during school vacations, these difficulties increased, because they felt even more acutely the gap between their limited life and the freedoms their friends experienced. Three boys said they were disappointed by their friends’ behavior, and felt a lack of support, exploitation, and even betrayal: Once you’re under house arrest, they don’t need you at all . . . When you’re on the outside, they need you, they’re your friends, but when you’re inside they don’t care. (Aaron)
Relation to Parents and Supervisor(s) (13 Participants)
The relationship with my mom is a bit worse off. Lots of fights, lots of arguments . . . When I’m anxious, she’s anxious too. All day I’ve got friends over, it’s noisy at night, and she gets angry. My relationship with Dad is better. I have more to talk with him about. He talks to me about life. In the past, when he came home, I wasn’t necessarily home, or on the computer. Now when he gets back, even if I’m with friends, I go and sit with him for about fifteen minutes. (Max)
The incarcerated youth needs to be under adult supervision. In this study, the primary supervisor (the adult who was most of the time responsible for supervising the detainee) for seven boys was the mother. Two boys were under primary supervision by their sisters, and the rest of the boys were supervised by their fathers, grandfathers, grandmothers, or one who was under house arrest without an associated supervisor. The boys’ time with the supervisor forms an intense interaction between the youth and adult, which did not exist before. Eleven boys reported that during house arrest, their relationship with their parents improved. One boy noted that the relationship with his parents had deteriorated, and one boy reported that his relationship with his parents had not changed during house arrest. The boys who reported a better relationship with their parents mentioned several factors. Some reported that prior to arrest, they had very little time with their parents, and after arrest they were able to spend more time together. Other boys reported that, after staying so long with their parents, they (the parents) “discovered” positive traits in the boys that they had not been aware of before, leading to a more positive parental attitude toward them. Some of the boys reported an improvement in the relationship following the support and assistance provided to them by their parents during the period of detention. Other boys reported that until their arrest, they took their parents for granted, and that changed during their detention.
Before I was under house arrest, they would always preach at me. Before that they would just ignore me, so I would sit in my room. Today, I hang out with them in the living room . . . suddenly my parents say “Wow, he’s funny.” I’ve gained my family. (Ian)
However, the boys also related to the stressors on the relationship with their parents. The factors cited by the boys as damaging their relationship with their parents included strict behavioral rules imposed on them by the parents and the inability to join in family activities outside the home—a feeling of distance and separation from the rest of the family unit.
Three of the boys were under primary supervision by someone other than their parent: One boy was in the house with his grandmother, one was with his sister, and one was supervised by his sister in his parents’ home. One boy reported that the relationship between himself and his supervisor had worsened during his arrest, one reported that the relationship remained unchanged, and another reported that the relationship had improved. Two boys noted that unlike parents, with whom there is a constant relationship, supervisors who were not parents had less contact and less acquaintance with them prior to arrest, which led to friction and difficulties during detention. In the boys’ words, the need for privacy and personal space from the supervisor arose, regardless of the concern the supervisor showed them. In the interviews with the boys, there was no connection shown between the level of contact with the supervisor prior to detention and the level of contact during detention. There are cases in which the relationship improved, deteriorated, or remained unchanged.
Contact With a Therapeutic Worker and Probation Services (13 Participants)
I’m scared of her. She makes certain things easier for me, she has the tools to help, but I keep a distance from her. (Isaiah)
All the participants in this study were in contact with probation services. On top of that, six boys were in touch with an additional community therapeutic worker—a social worker or educational worker. Seven boys described the probation officer in positive terms, two boys in negative terms, and four boys did not have an opinion on the matter. In the positive descriptions of the probation officer, they regarded her positively because she recommended to the court to ease detention conditions, and helped improve them (the possibility of leaving for more hours of “fresh air,” permission to go to work during incarceration). Five boys positively noted their conversations with probation officers, the interest they took in their situation, the attentiveness and empathy they showed, their ability to share the difficulties with them, and the experience of some of the officers, and the ability to provide them with tools and methods to cope with the boredom and unpleasant feelings that arose during detention. However, some of the boys did stress that their attitude toward their officer was ambivalent and sometimes cautious.
She’s not exactly someone that you can talk about everything with. You say hi and bye. (Jacob)
For some of the boys, the probation officer was not perceived as a therapeutic worker who came to help them, but rather as a judicial figure, who was there to criticize their actions. Three boys said that they perceived the probation officer as insensitive, and that she did not understand their difficulties and needs. Two boys stated that they had asked for assistance and aid from the probation officer in dealing with their criminal behavior, but did not receive a response. Another boy noted that 71 days had passed since he began his house arrest before the first meeting with the probation officer. In addition, two boys were taking part in a therapeutic group under the auspices of the probation services. The two boys said that they were passive in the group and did not share much about themselves, and mainly listened to the stories of other participants in the group. Neither of them felt that the group was making a significant contribution toward their lives.
The Probation Officer helps me, she talks to me, gives me suggestions on what to do, helps me with the sentence. She writes that my outlook is positive, which is like a good thing . . . She gives me ideas like in general, to help pass the time. (Max) My personal opinion of the Probation Officer is very cold, they are more likely to side with the law than to consider you as a person. They don’t approach you . . . they talk more about the outcome and why you did it, and what your problem is without trying to understand why or how. (Ian)
Four boys reported having a positive relationship with their community therapeutic worker, who was not a probation officer. The three boys who were in contact with a social worker viewed them as people who cared for them personally, supported them, listened to them, and that they were able to open up to and share with on topics that they did not share with other people. They gave them tools to deal with problematic behavior and the difficulties they had before entering the center.
It’s clear that my talks with him helped me. He is the only one I speak to. With him, it’s really about the problems. I didn’t speak with the Probation Officer, but with him, I talked. (Gabriel)
Overview of the Findings
An analysis of the youth’s interviews reveals two very different potential and actual experiences of house arrest. In the first case, the period of detention could be seen as a period of rethinking their behavior and way of life that led them to the situation, an opportunity to learn, creating an organized agenda and strengthening contact with parents and family members. For this group, meaningful contact with a case worker enabled the forming of a therapeutic relationship in which they felt supported and which allowed them to work through their difficult feelings. The second case is characterized by a chaotic period of detention without a clear agenda and boundaries, experienced by the boys as a waste of time, without new learning and experience, with friction and quarrels with family members and supervisors, and feelings of loneliness and frustration from “missing out” on social contact. They are the boys who “burnt away half the day in sleep” (Alex) and, for whom, we would like to suggest the experience of house arrest can be a highly detrimental developmental experience or “developmental arrest.” It is important to note that for all the boys from both groups, the period of detention was experienced as a period of suffering and punishment but the findings suggest that the nature of the experience can vary significantly between individuals.
Discussion
This study describes the experiences of minors under house arrest through in-depth interviews with 14 detained youth under house arrest. It is one of the first studies to address the issue despite the growing use of alternative forms of detention around the world. The study found six main themes that characterize youth under house arrest: the experience of detention and its difficulties, daily schedule and time utilization, emotions and self-reflection, relationships with peers, relationships with parents and supervisor(s), and contact with therapeutic workers and probation services. In the discussion, we would like to touch on some of the main issues that emerged from these findings, and try to understand the meaning of house arrest in the life course of juveniles and early adults.
The primary hardship of house arrest, described in several studies, is the limitation to the participants’ freedom (Gainey & Payne, 2000; Payne & Gainey, 1998; Vanhaelemeesch et al., 2013). The loss of freedom generates feelings of suffering and having been punished, even though the detained individual remains at home (Deuchar, 2011). Payne and Gainey (1998) distinguished the concept of “the watching others effect” as a unique difficulty experienced by detainees who see other people doing things that they cannot do. This was also reported by Nellis (2009) and corroborated in this study. Participants in this study reported that difficulties increased during breaks from school, when their friends go out more often, whereas they (the detained) must remain at home. Beyond the “watching others effect,” some participants noted the difficulty of staying home for long stretches of time, and the temptation to leave the house, especially when there is no external factor preventing them from doing so. This difficulty was also identified in previous studies (Gainey & Payne, 2000; Martin, Hanrahan, & Bowers, 2009; Payne & Gainey, 1998).
Various studies have indicated the advantage of staying at home compared with serving time in correctional institutions, as this reduces the meeting and exposure of the adolescents to antisocial/criminal elements (Hucklesby, 2008, 2009; Payne & Gainey, 2004). The findings of the present study show that house arrest provides a partial solution to this. Some of the boys had moved away from centers of delinquency and had stopped their involvement in criminal activity, but some boys invited friends, still involved in criminal activity, over to their homes.
Prior research has addressed the use of electronic monitoring (Deuchar, 2011; Hucklesby, 2009; Vanhaelemeesch et al., 2013; Weisburd, 2015) and its impact on young detainees. EM is used in different ways, from a radio frequency (RF) method, that can sense whether the person is close to the transmitter or not, to more sophisticated Global Positioning System (GPS) systems that can track the person’s movements (Burrell & Gable, 2008; Cho & Bae Kim, 2013). Results of research on EM have highlighted the potential negative impact on young people. Deuchar (2011) reported an increasing use of alcohol and drugs by the detainees during their curfews. Some felt stressed, fought with their family members, used violence, and caused damage to property, out of frustration (Deuchar, 2011; Vanhaelemeesch et al., 2013). Weisburd (2015) reported that many of the youth under electronic monitoring violated their program orders, and were punished again because of their violations. Yet, in the current research, there were few self-reports describing similar actions. Some detainees mentioned having other friends visiting them and having “parties” in their own room, sometimes with alcohol. Although, as time passed, the participants said that those “parties” and alcohol use, and thinking about breaking the arrest conditions, became more and more rare.
Weisburd (2015) suggests that EM forces young people to control their own actions, in essence being their own external boundaries. Often it is too much of a challenge for them. Adolescence is a period in which young people are in need of human boundaries, in particular parental monitoring, supervision, and authority (DiClemente et al., 2001). It is the presence of involved, monitoring, and present parental figures (Stattin & Kerr, 2000) that can enable the building of internal boundaries for the young person. It may be, in line with Weisburd’s (2015) suggestion, that EM places responsibility for a developmental process on young people that they are unable to carry (especially for young people at risk).
In our research, none of the participants was under electronic monitoring during the time of interviewing. Instead, almost all of them had to be under supervision of an older family member, both during the time in the house and in their free time outside. We would like to suggest that the context of the presence of an older family member at all times, may explain some of the differences between our findings and other researchers’ findings. Despite the potential for conflict in such a scenario, the current research suggests the importance of a responsible grown up that is available to the detainees, who can give them support. It may be that the presence of an older family member allows the rehabilitation of a parental presence or authority, and takes away from the young person the need to place his own external boundaries, at a developmental period where young people are in need of external (human) boundaries.
Eleven boys in the study reported that the relationship with their parents improved during house arrest. This finding was also reported in previous studies—although in different terms. Vanhaelemeesch et al. (2013) view the stay at home with family members as a period of time that allows for the creation and restoration of positive family ties. Deuchar (2011) found that there were cases in which familial relationships were strengthened; however, there were cases in which—due to stress and tension at home—the family unit was damaged during the period of joint stay. King and Gibbs (2003) tried to explain that the nature of the relationship between the detainee and his family is enhanced during the detention period, adversely or favorably, in accordance with the nature of the relationship that preceded the arrest. Good interpersonal relationships become better and bad relationships become worse. In the present study, there was no connection found between the nature of the relationship between the detainee and his family prior to arrest and the nature of their relationship during the detention period. It appears that most of the effect on the nature of the relationship depends upon the interactions between the boy and his family. Interestingly several of the boys felt that the enforced proximity led them to finally get to know their families and vice versa.
In this study, most of the boys and their families were dealing with arrest and criminal behavior for the first time, and lacking in tools and knowledge to deal with the situation. Studies conducted in Belgium (Vanhaelemeesch et al., 2013) and in Scotland (Deuchar, 2011), where professional accompaniment is provided to those who are detained at home, found that the professionalism of attending staff members contributed to the experience of the imprisoned child and his family, both in practical matters (i.e., finding a job) and in dealing with emotional difficulties. In this study, all the boys were attended to by probation officers, and some of them also benefitted from public therapeutic services. All the boys who received public services viewed them in a positive light. Most of the boys considered the involvement of their probation officer as a good one (a number of boys noted that their positive opinions to the court caused them to view it positively), but some also experienced it as aggressive and negative. In Israel, the juvenile probation service belongs to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Services, but minors referred to it are done so by law. Its job is to help rehabilitate criminal youth; however, it also functions to ensure public safety and security. Therefore, there are often times conflicts between the desire to rehabilitate and the need to strictly enforce restrictions and the law (Elisha & Braver, 2015). The responses in this study clearly show the difference in the boys’ experience between the therapeutic branch and the elements responsible for enforcing the law.
One of the unique findings in this study is the division of the boys into two groups—those with a structured day-to-day routine and those with a chaotic daily schedule. Timor (2001) found that one of the characteristics of offenders is a lifetime characterized by lack of boundaries, lack of norms of behavior, lack of daily schedule, and more. In this study, it was found that the group with a structured agenda used their time better, and were more productive during their time under house arrest. However, the group with the chaotic agenda did not make good use of their time and mainly waited for the time to pass in any way possible. According to Timor (2001), house arrest in a “chaotic” situation may “push” the adolescent to adopt behavior that can lead to delinquency even after the arrest ends. Instead of the period of detention rehabilitating the youth and preparing him for reintegration into society after the arrest, he adopts norms of behavior that will harm him even after he is released.
Weisburd (2015) wrote that electronic monitoring is not an “appropriate match for the developing adolescent brain” (p. 324). She specifies that adolescents have less control over their action and have difficulties in thinking about the future outcomes of their actions, and are more vulnerable to peer pressure. Findings of the current study highlight additional developmental issues: (a) the lack of a framework or a structure in the lives of some of the young people at a potentially turbulent developmental time (Arnett, 2000) when young people are in need of structure and routine; (b) the exaggerated dependency on parental figures during a time that should be characterized by separation and individuation (Blos, 1967); (c) the lack of external boundaries (i.e., the youth having to stop themselves from going out) during a period of time when the young person is developing his internal ego strengths and is in need of strong, clear external boundaries (Winnicott, 1971), which can be internalized and used to build internal limits; and (d) the isolation from peers and social contact at an age in which the social arena is pivotal in the processes of identity development and growth (Erikson, 1950). The findings raise crucial questions about the use of house arrest at the critical developmental period of adolescence. On one hand, the findings presented the picture of youth for whom the house arrest was, in many ways, a period of growth—the development of a routine and structure in which they learnt skills, studied, could internalize external boundaries, consolidated positive relationships with parents, and experienced a positive therapeutic figure who helped them go through an important developmental process. For other adolescents, the findings suggest what we could term as “developmental arrest” a period of stagnation and inertia, where a chaotic daily routine was accompanied by feelings of frustration and depression, loneliness and social isolation, and distrust toward authority figures. An understanding of the potential dangers of the second scenario demands a need for law enforcement bodies to consider the meaning of house arrest at such a critical developmental period.
In addition, although previous studies have examined youth in house arrest as an alternative to incarceration, the current study examined youth under detention prior to sentencing. All the boys felt that they were already being punished; yet for the law enforcement authorities, it is not a period of time taken into consideration if the young person is later sentenced (unlike detention in prison). In addition, theoretically, the detainee may be declared innocent at the end of the trial and no penalties will be imposed on him. The study raises ethical issues around detaining young people prior to sentencing, especially given the impact on the developmental processes as came up in the interviews.
Another difference between our findings and previous studies was in the area of compliance. Hucklesby (2009) interviewed offenders (minors and adults) sentenced to EM home curfew around issues of compliance or noncompliance to their curfew orders. She found several elements that influenced levels of compliance: the influence it had on their legal procedure; being monitored by the electronic monitor’s company; the offender’s motivation to keep the orders even when thinking they could “sneak out” without getting caught; fears of being harmed at home, because enemies knew where they were; and ties with other people such as family, friends, their working place—stronger ties reduced the chance of noncompliance.
Our interviews took place while the interviewees were still in the middle of their sentence, which meant they might have been afraid to tell the full truth about their actions, in particular as to whether they were keeping their arrest orders or not. Interestingly, the young people in the current study said that ties with family members was the most common reason for keeping their arrest orders. The most common explanation for compliance was the fear for their parents who were responsible for them, and the thought that their actions can hurt the rest of their surroundings. Even the fear that they would harm their own legal process was explained by not wanting to distress their parents by going to jail. None of the young people talked about feeling unsafe at home or having inner motivation for compliance. We can only hypothesize as to the reasons behind these strong familial ties. They may be a result of the time spent with family during the house arrest and increased levels of empathy that this enables (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008), or may be related to a cultural emphasis on family in Israeli society (Lavee & Katz, 2003). Interestingly, regardless of how many hours they had outside (under parental supervision), most of them talked about their wish to have more free time outside and suggested it could enhance their levels of compliance.
Conclusion and Recommendations
In recent years, more and more minors have been placed under house arrest as part of the criminal procedure. Despite the fact that the young person remains in his (or her) natural environment, his stay at home entails potential difficulties and developmental dangers. Although the findings of this study were consistent with similar findings in studies of populations of adults who were at home under supervision, detained minors have special characteristics stemming from the developmental processes they are undergoing, which require adjustment to by enforcement and rehabilitative authorities. In short, it seems that the period of house arrest can be a period of changes—the strengthening the family relationship, the cessation of nonnormative behavior, and the adoption of positive habits. However, the findings highlight the difficulty of making such changes independently, especially under the pressure that accompanies the detention, and, therefore, there is great need for professional, therapeutic, and rehabilitative care during this time. In contrast with previous studies involving young people under EM, the current study suggests that house arrest, under particular circumstances involving the presence of an adult figure, appropriate structure, activity, and therapeutic process, need not be detrimental to the young person’s well-being and can even enable the start of positive developmental processes. While focusing on house arrest without EM, findings from the current study may also be able to inform policy around arrest using EM, as many of the results found here, such as the importance of structured time, the opportunity to exploit this time for helping the young person go through a therapeutic process, and to strengthen relationships within the family, including providing parents with tools for parenting their children, and enabling the young person to be involved in positive peer interactions may be relevant in cases of EM.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author(s) received financial support from the Shnitzer fund for the editing of the paper.