Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study examined whether father-child contact before imprisonment and child visits during imprisonment were associated with recidivism among 874 fathers released from Dutch prisons. Although child visits during imprisonment were not linked to recidivism after adjusting for background factors, pre-prison father-child contact was associated with lower recidivism 12 months post release. Fathers who had pre-prison contact with their children, received visits during incarceration, or both, were generally less likely to recidivate than fathers with no pre-prison contact and no visits. However, these associations varied depending on the follow-up period and the severity of the offense. The findings underscore the importance of considering both pre- and during-imprisonment father-child contact in understanding post-release outcomes and developing policies that support successful reintegration.

Keywords

parental incarceration prisoner reentry recidivism reintegration social bonds incarceration prison

Strong father-child relationships are considered an important protective factor against recidivism among fathers after release from prison (Boonstoppel, 2019; Lösel et al., 2012; Venema et al., 2023; Visher, 2013). Imprisonment often strains father-child relationships, as fathers’ physical separation from their families and limited opportunities to maintain contact undermine family bonds (Dyer et al., 2012; Turney, 2023; Venema et al., 2022). This strain not only disrupts relationships during imprisonment but also exacerbates challenges of family reunification after release (Keller et al., 2022; Muentner & Charles, 2023). Research suggests that maintaining parent-child contact during imprisonment can ease the transition back into family life after release (Charles et al., 2021; Visher, 2013), potentially reducing the likelihood of recidivism.

Despite the fact that promoting father-child visits to reduce recidivism is a central goal of many prison-based family intervention programs, few empirical studies have examined the specific relationship between child visits and recidivism. While the broader relationship between prison visits and recidivism has been extensively studied (Cochran, 2019; Mitchell et al., 2016), the relationship between child visits and recidivism remains largely unexplored. This study aims to address that gap. Furthermore, we explore the role of pre-prison father-child contact, as prior research suggests it is a critical confounding factor in the relationship between in-prison visits and recidivism (Atkin-Plunk & Armstrong, 2018). Pre-existing contact not only affects the likelihood and quality of in-prison visits and fathers’ emotional responses to imprisonment (Berghuis et al., 2021; Sharratt, 2014; Venema et al., 2022), but may also directly be linked to recidivism (Atkin-Plunk & Armstrong, 2018).

This study contributes to the literature on visits and recidivism in two key ways. First, by focusing specifically on the relationship between child visits and recidivism. Second, by examining how the pattern of father-child contact from before imprisonment to in-prison child visits relates to recidivism among formerly incarcerated fathers. We use child visits as a key indicator of father-child contact during imprisonment, as it is the only form of face-to-face contact during imprisonment and is most strongly associated with father-child contact after release (Charles et al., 2023). Using high-quality registered data, we measure recidivism at three time points (6, 12, and 24 months after release) across three levels of severity (any, severe, and very severe recidivism). We further contribute to the literature by focusing on the Netherlands, contrasting with much of the literature that primarily relies on data from the United States. Our study draws on data from the Life in Custody study (van Ginneken et al., 2018), which includes information on parent-child visits, pre-prison parent-child contact, and registered reconvictions for 874 fathers released from Dutch prisons.

Background

Child Visits and Recidivism

A starting point for understanding the relationship between child visits and recidivism lies in broader theories on social bonds. The social bonds that constitute individuals’ social capital play a critical role in criminal behavior, as strong interpersonal ties are assumed to inhibit criminal behavior (Hirschi, 1969). Among these social bonds, parent-child relationships hold particular significance, as they foster conformity and reduce the likelihood of criminal activity (Edin et al., 2004). Active parental involvement can reduce criminal activity by providing structured daily routines, feelings of connectedness, increased social support, supervision, and parental obligations, while regular parenting tasks also leave less time and opportunity for criminal behavior (Boonstoppel, 2019). Child visits in prison reinforce these social bonds.

In addition to reinforcing social bonds, child visits can support desistance through processes of identity transformation. Embracing the parental role can foster a prosocial identity that supports desistance from crime (Giordano et al., 2002). By embracing the role of caregiver, individuals internalize conventional norms and responsibilities that are difficult to reconcile with criminal behavior. This identity transformation counteracts the effects of stigmatizing criminal labels by offering a “hook for change” (Bernburg, 2019; Giordano et al., 2002). Parent-child interactions and involvement in child care strengthen individuals’ parental identity, which can deter individuals from engaging in criminal activity after release from prison (Boonstoppel, 2019; Dyer, 2005). For imprisoned parents and their families, visits represent one of the few available moments to recreate a sense of family life (Tasca, Mulvey, et al., 2016). This can, in turn, support imprisoned parents’ parental identity (Dyer, 2005), potentially reducing recidivism.

Child visits can further reduce the emotional strain of incarceration by providing familial support, which general strain theory identifies as crucial in preventing criminal behavior (Agnew & Brezina, 2019). Such visits can alleviate the distress caused by parent-child separation, which many fathers in prison describe as the most severe deprivation strain—one linked to increased mental health problems during incarceration (Reef & Dirkzwager, 2019). More broadly, visits (not limited to those from children) have been associated with improved wellbeing in the general prison population (De Claire & Dixon, 2017). Thus, child visits can potentially mitigate the criminogenic effects of the emotional strain caused by imprisonment, which can, in turn, reduce recidivism.

Although various theoretical perspectives suggest multiple pathways through which child visits influence recidivism, empirical evidence remains mixed. Research on prison visits more broadly—not limited to child visits—has yielded inconclusive results. A systematic review found that in-prison visits were associated with a 26% decrease in recidivism (Mitchell et al., 2016). Other studies have attempted to isolate the independent effect of prison visits on recidivism by using rigorous causal designs, such as propensity score matching and instrumental variable designs. These studies have not provided conclusive answers, with research findings including both significant (Mears et al., 2012; Otsu, 2021) and non-significant (Andersen et al., 2021; Cochran et al., 2020; Lee, 2019) recidivism-reducing effects of in-prison visits. The inconsistent findings on the relationship between prison visits and recidivism stem from variations in visiting characteristics, recidivism measures, and sample characteristics (Berghuis et al., 2024; Tasca, Wright, et al., 2016).

Studies specifically focusing on father-child contact during imprisonment consistently report positive associations with the quality of family relationships and broader indicators of post-release adjustment. Specifically, such contact is linked to stronger father-child relationships and greater father involvement after release (Charles et al., 2021; La Vigne et al., 2005; Visher, 2013; Western & Smith, 2018). Among various forms of contact, child visits have been most consistently associated with continued post-release involvement (Charles et al., 2023). In turn, positive father-child relationships and sustained father involvement after release are associated with reduced substance use, fewer mental health problems, and lower rates of reoffending (Liu & Miller, 2023; Lösel et al., 2012; Venema et al., 2023; Visher, 2013).

Although these studies suggest that child visits support post-release adjustment, research directly examining the relationship between child visits and recidivism is limited and has provided mixed results. One study found that parents who maintained any form of contact, including visits, with their children during imprisonment were less likely to return to prison (Bahr et al., 2005), while another reported the opposite—namely, that more frequent child visits were associated with increased recidivism, potentially due to emotional strain or the frustration of being unable to fulfill the parental role from prison (Bales & Mears, 2008). Still others find no significant association at all (Duwe & Clark, 2013; Lee, 2019). Taken together, these mixed findings suggest that the relationship between child visits and recidivism is not straightforward.

Pre-Prison Father-Child Contact

One possible explanation for these inconsistent findings is that father-child contact prior to imprisonment tends to receive limited attention in the literature, even though it plays a crucial role (Cochran, 2019). The existing literature identifies five key ways in which pre-prison father-child contact shapes the relationship between child visits and recidivism. First, it can directly reduce recidivism by reflecting stronger social bonds prior to incarceration (Atkin-Plunk & Armstrong, 2018). Second, it strongly predicts the frequency of child visits during imprisonment (Berghuis et al., 2021). Failing to control for pre-prison father-child contact can thus lead to spurious associations between visiting and recidivism. Third, it shapes not only how often visits occur but also their quality (Sharratt, 2014), as stronger pre-prison bonds may enable more meaningful interactions that support a prosocial paternal identity and reduce recidivism. Fourth, the disruption of close father-child relationships is associated with significant emotional strain (Turney, 2023; Turney & Wildeman, 2013), which negatively affects post-release outcomes. Finally, changes in contact across imprisonment—such as maintaining, losing, initiating, or lacking contact altogether (Dennison et al., 2014; Dennison & Smallbone, 2015)—each carry distinct implications for recidivism. Together, these considerations underscore the importance of examining pre-prison contact alongside child visits.

Dutch Context

This study is set in the Netherlands, which provides an interesting national context given its low imprisonment rate, mild penal climate, and the high prevalence of relatively short prison sentences. To illustrate, in 2024, the Netherlands had an imprisonment rate of 54 per 100,000 individuals (Aebi & Cocco, 2025). In 2021, 70% of individuals were sentenced to 3 months or less in prison, and only 10% were sentenced to more than a year in prison (Meijer et al., 2022). In the Netherlands, recidivism rates among individuals released from prison have remained stable over the past decade, with 47% convicted of a new crime within 2 years of release (Berghuis, 2023). About half of the Dutch prison population is estimated to be a parent of minor children (Appelman et al., 2021). Given the substantial differences in prison climate and criminal justice policies between the United States and the Netherlands, it remains uncertain whether findings from U.S.-based research on child visits and recidivism are applicable to the Dutch context. This highlights the importance of conducting research in other jurisdictions, including the Netherlands.

Visiting policies in Dutch prisons are important to consider, as they shape the conditions under which father-child contact occurs during imprisonment. In the Netherlands, all incarcerated individuals are legally entitled to one hour of visits per week, though specific regulations can vary by prison regime. The data in this study included various types of prison regimes: pre-trial detention (for those awaiting sentencing), regular regimes (for convicted individuals), police custody (short-term detention following arrest), regime for individuals with persistent offending behavior (for individuals with repeated offenses, with a maximum sentence of 2 years), extra care units (for those deemed vulnerable due to mental health issues or the nature of their crime), and open regimes (allowing individuals to work outside prison during the day).

Dutch prisons use a reward system to promote desirable behavior in prison and motivate behavior change among those who have been convicted (e.g., not in pre-trial detention; Elbers et al., 2021). Compliant behavior is rewarded with additional activities, more time out of the cell, and an extra hour of visits per week. Most visits are contact visits held in a designated visiting room, where people in prison and visitors are typically seated on opposite sides of a waist-high barrier, allowing for face-to-face interaction without obstruction, while the exchange of items is visibly restricted. Physical contact is limited to a hug or kiss at the beginning and end of the visit. Children under 12 must be accompanied by an adult, and up to three visitors are allowed (not including very young children). Most prisons provide some child-friendly materials such as toys or drawing supplies, though the quality and availability of these facilities vary. For individuals serving sentences of 6 months or longer, family visits can take place in a private room. Other forms of family contact include telephone and mail communication. With some exceptions, video calls were not widely available at the time of data collection.

Method

We used data from the Dutch Prison Visitation Study, part of the Life in Custody study, which includes information on parenthood status, visits, and pre-prison social contacts. The Life in Custody study is a nationwide survey study that periodically measures the quality of life in all 26 prisons in the Netherlands (see van Ginneken et al., 2018 for a detailed description). The data used in this study were collected between January and May 2019. All people residing in Dutch prisons at the time of data collection (both pre-trial and convicted, all security levels) were approached at their cell and invited to voluntarily participate in the study. Of the 7,594 people who could be approached, 24% could not be contacted due to factors such as release or transfer, appointments, psychological complaints, stay in an isolation cell, or language barriers. Of the 5,757 individuals contacted, 4,350 (76%) participated in the study. Reasons for not participating in the research included a lack of interest, time constraints, distrust in the study, or being close to release. After providing informed consent, participants were asked to complete a paper-and-pencil questionnaire, which was collected by the researchers within 1 or 2 days. When individuals participated in the survey, they were asked permission to link their survey data to administrative data, including sentence characteristics, criminal history, and registered convictions after release. The 237 individuals that did not give permission were not included in the data used in this study.

Several steps were taken to select our analytic sample of imprisoned fathers with valid data on the variables of interest. First, to link survey data with recidivism data, we selected participants who were released from prison before December 31, 2019, the reference date for calculating recidivism (n = 2,135). Second, we selected men from the data (n = 1,966). Third, we selected those men who reported to have biological or non-biological children (n = 1,052). Fourth, we selected cases with valid information on the main independent variables of interest; child visits and contact with children before imprisonment (n = 886). Last, we excluded 12 individuals who reported to receive daily visits from all types of individuals that were included in the survey (partner, children, parents, siblings, other family members, and friends), as their answers were not considered to be credible. As a result, the final sample consisted of 874 participants.

Fathers included in our analytic sample differed somewhat from the full sample of imprisoned fathers who were released from prison on several accounts. Fathers in our analytic sample were significantly less likely to have recidivated 24 months after release (50.4% in the full sample of imprisoned fathers released from prison versus 41.5% in the analytic sample), more likely to be born in the Netherlands (70.9% versus 87.9%), more likely to be interviewed in police custody (11.3% versus 17.2%), slightly older (M = 37.7 versus M = 40.4 years), and more likely to be first-time imprisoned (41.1% versus 53.1%). These differences between the analytic and full sample warrant caution in generalizing research findings.

Measures

Dependent Variables

The main dependent variables used in this study were recidivism measures obtained from officially registered data provided by the Research and Data Center (WODC) of the Ministry of Justice and Security. Following an operationalization similar to that of Berghuis et al. (2022), the dependent variables indicated whether individuals were reconvicted for an offense six, 12 and 24 months after release from prison (0 = no reconviction, 1 = reconvicted) for any offense (all offenses, including less serious offenses such as theft or vandalism). In additional analyses, we differentiated between serious offenses (with a maximum prison sentence of 4 years or more), and very serious offenses (with a maximum prison sentence of 8 years or more).

Independent Variables

We included three main independent variables: (a) child visits during imprisonment, (b) pre-prison father-child contact, and (c) the pattern of pre-prison father-child contact to in-prison child visits across both periods.

Child visits were measured based on participants’ self-reported frequency of visits from any of their children in the 3 months prior to data collection. When individuals were imprisoned for less than 3 months at the time of the data collection, the question referred to the time period since the individuals’ entry into the current prison. Pre-prison father-child contact was based on participants’ responses to the question: “In the last three months before imprisonment, how often did you have contact with your child(ren)?.” Importantly, the phrasing of this item does not differentiate between different forms of father-child contact, and may include a variety of interactions, including in-person contact, telephone calls, mail correspondence, and/or digital communication. Both variables were originally measured on a four-point scale: never, monthly, weekly, and daily.¹ Both measures were dichotomized to better reflect meaningful differences in recidivism outcomes. The variable child visits was dichotomized 0 = not visited by child[ren], and 1 = visited by child[ren]. Pre-prison father-child contact was dichotomized to 0 = no pre-prison father-child contact and 1 = pre-prison father-child contact in the three months prior to incarceration.

Finally, a measure of the pattern of pre-prison father-child contact to in-prison child visits was constructed by combining the dichotomized variables for pre-prison father-child contact and child visits. This resulted in four categories: (a) no contact before imprisonment and not visited during imprisonment, hereafter labeled no contact, (b) contact before imprisonment and visited during imprisonment, labeled stable contact, (c) contact before imprisonment but not visited during imprisonment, labeled reduced contact, and (d) no contact before imprisonment but visited during imprisonment, labeled increased contact. To enhance readability, we use short labels for the four categories throughout the manuscript. These labels are intended as shorthand rather than literal descriptions. For example, “no contact” does not necessarily imply the total absence of communication, as other forms such as phone calls may still have taken place. It is further important to reiterate that pre-prison contact refers to any form of father-child interaction, whereas in-prison contact refers exclusively to face-to-face visits. Other forms of in-prison father-child contact, specifically telephone and mail contact, were included separately as control variables (see below).

Control Variables

To better isolate the association between father-child contact before and during imprisonment and recidivism, several control variables were included. The first set of control variables captured measures related to family social bonds. As our primary measure of father-child contact during imprisonment refers exclusively to face-to-face visits, other forms of father-child contact were included as controls in the analyses, including telephone contact with children in the past 3 months (self-reported; 0 = no telephone contact, 1 = monthly, weekly, or daily telephone contact), and received letters or e-mails from children in the past 3 months (self-reported; 0 = no mails/letters, 1 = monthly, weekly, or daily mails/letters). These were included to help differentiate child visits from other forms of father–child contact during imprisonment. In addition, partner status (self-reported; 0 = no partner, 1 = partner, not cohabiting or married prior to imprisonment, 2 = partner, cohabiting or married prior to imprisonment) was included to account for the potential gatekeeping role of caregivers, who often have a key role in whether and how children maintain contact with their incarcerated parent (Arditti et al., 2021).

The second set of control variables included criminal background characteristics, including index offense (registered data; 1 = violent crime [including sex crimes], 2 = property, 3 = drugs, 4 = other crimes [including traffic offenses, disruption of public order, and light aggression]), prison regime (registered data; 1 = prison, 2 = pre-trial detention, 3 = regime for individuals with persistent offending behavior, 4 = extra care, 5 = police custody, and 6 = open regime), total length of sentence (registered data, difference between start and end date imprisonment; measured in months), and imprisonment history in the last five years (registered data; 0 = first-time imprisonment, 1 = one previous imprisonment, 2 = two or more previous imprisonments).

The third set of control variables related to sociodemographic background characteristics, including educational attainment (self-reported; 0 = primary, 1 = secondary, 2 = tertiary), nationality (registered data; 0 = not born in the Netherlands, 1 = born in the Netherlands), and fathers’ age in years (registered data).

Analytic Strategy

Four sets of logistic regression analyses were estimated using different main independent variables: (a) child visits, (b) pre-prison father-child contact, (c) both child visits and pre-prison father-child contact in a single model, and (d) patterns of pre-prison father-child contact to in-prison child visits. We estimated additional models to explore associations between different measures of recidivism severity. All models included controls for the family, criminal, and sociodemographic characteristics listed above. In all models, missing data were handled by using multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE) to avoid selection bias due to missing values. In total, 78% of cases had complete data on all independent variables (the number of observations per variable is listed in Table 1). We used all variables included in the analytic model in the imputation procedure to estimate the missing values of the independent variables. We constructed 20 datasets with full information that were used to calculate pooled estimates. The results of the models using MICE were substantively similar to those obtained using listwise deletion. Therefore, the models using MICE are presented in the following section. All analyses were conducted using Stata 16.0 (StataCorp, 2019).

Table 1:

Descriptive Statistics (N = 874)

Variable	N	Total sample(M [SD] or %)	% Any recidivism6 months after release	Difference(p-value)	% Any recidivism 12 months after release	Difference(p-value)	% Any recidivism 24 months after release	Difference(p-value)
Child visits	874			.018*		.048*		.157
Yes		46.9%	17.8%		28.1%		39.0%
No		53.1%	24.5%		34.3%		43.8%
Pre-prison father-child contact	874			.074		.015*		.148
Yes		82.4%	20.1%		29.6%		40.4%
No		17.6%	26.6%		39.6%		46.8%
Pattern of pre-prison father-child contact to in-prison child visits	874			.083		.061		.318
Stable contact		46.1%	17.9%		28.0%		38.7%
No contact		16.8%	27.2%		40.1%		46.3%
Reduced contact		36.3%	23.0%		31.6%		42.6%
Increased contact		0.8%	14.3%		28.6%		57.1%
Telephone contact with child(ren)	866			.295		.347		.391
Yes		73.7%	20.4%		30.4%		40.6%
No		26.3%	23.7%		33.8%		43.9%
Mail contact with child(ren)	825			.791		.852		.980
Yes		36.1%	20.5%		30.9%		41.4%
No		63.9%	21.3%		31.5%		41.3%
Partner status	833			.024*		.095		.017*
No partner		30.4%	25.7%		33.2%		43.5%
Partner, not cohabiting or married		26.2%	23.9%		35.8%		48.2%
Partner, cohabiting or married		43.5%	17.1%		27.6%		36.5%
Index offense	834			<.001***		<.001***		<.001***
Violent crime		29.3%	22.6%		31.6%		39.8%
Property		32.1%	31.3%		45.5%		60.5%
Drugs		24.7%	8.3%		14.1%		23.3%
Other		13.9%	20.0%		30.2%		38.8%
Prison regime	874			.005**		<.001***		<.001***
Prison		31.7%	17.3%		25.6%		37.2%
Pre-trial detention		35.4%	27.2%		37.5%		47.3%
Regime for individuals with persistent offending behavior		3.4%	20.0%		33.3%		53.3%
Extra care		6.5%	14.0%		21.1%		29.8%
Police custody		17.2%	24.0%		39.3%		50.0%
Open regime		5.8%	7.8%		11.8%		11.8%
Total length of sentence (in months)	872	23.3 (33.0)	16.5 (17.5)^a	.002**	17.5 (18.7)^a	<.001***	18.9 (20.7)^a	<.001***
Imprisonment history in last 5 years	872			<.001***		<.001***		<.001***
First-time imprisonment		54.1%	9.5%		16.7%		22.7%
One previous imprisonment		19.5%	24.1%		37.1%		52.4%
Two or more previous imprisonment		26.4%	43.5%		57.4%		72.6%
Educational attainment	817			.027*		.003**		<.001***
Primary		51.3%	24.1%		35.8%		48.0%
Secondary		34.5%	19.9%		28.7%		37.2%
Tertiary		14.2%	12.9%		19.8%		28.5%
Nationality	825			.857		.712		.738
Dutch		87.9%	21.0%		31.2%		41.2%
Non-Dutch		12.1%	21.8%		33.0%		43.0%
Age (in years)	874	40.4 (11.4)	37.5 (9.7)^a	<.001***	37.0 (9.7)^a	<.001***	37.1 (9.8)^a	<.001***

Note. Sample sizes differ slightly per variable due to missing values. Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. The p-values are based on χ² tests for nominal variables and two-sided t-tests for continuous variables.

Mean and standard deviation for participants who recidivated.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents descriptive and bivariate statistics for all variables, stratified by recidivism at 6, 12, and 24 months post release. In the analytic sample, 21.3% recidivated within 6 months, 31.4% within 12 months, and 41.5% within 24 months after release. For serious recidivism (not shown in the table), the rates were 18.1%, 27.6%, and 36.3%, respectively, while very serious recidivism occurred in 2.8%, 4.5%, and 7.1% of the sample over the same time periods. About half of all fathers reported being visited by their children (46.9%), and the majority (84.4%) reported contact with their children before imprisonment. In terms of contact patterns, stable contact was the most common pattern of pre-prison father-child contact to in-prison child visits (46.1%), followed by reduced contact (36.3%) and no contact (16.8%), with increased contact (0.8%) being a rare category.

Bivariate analyses showed that several measures of father-child contact were associated with recidivism. Six months after release, 17.8% of fathers who were visited by their children recidivated, compared to 24.5% of fathers who were not visited (p = .018). At 12 months, the likelihood of recidivating was 28.1% for those who were visited by their children and 34.3% for those who were not (p = .048). At 24 months, these differences were not significant. Pre-prison father-child contact was associated with lower recidivism at 12 months after release; 29.6% of fathers who reported pre-prison father-child contact recidivated, compared to 39.6% of fathers with no contact (p = .015). The pattern of father-child contact from before to during imprisonment was not significantly associated with recidivism in bivariate analyses.

For serious recidivism, bivariate associations with child visits and pre-prison father–child contact showed a similar pattern, except that change in father–child contact was significantly associated with recidivism at 6 months (p = .02; not shown in table). In this analysis, the stable contact group had the lowest likelihood of recidivism, whereas the no contact group had the highest. Although the increased contact group showed 0% recidivism, the small number of cases in this category prevents drawing firm conclusions. No statistically significant bivariate associations were found between measures of father-child contact and very serious recidivism.

Several control variables were associated with recidivism in the bivariate analyses. Among the family social bond variables, telephone and mail contact with children during imprisonment were not significantly related to any recidivism outcome. Partner status was significantly associated with recidivism at 6 and 24 months only (p-values = .024 and .017, respectively). Within the set of criminal background characteristics, index offense, prison regime, sentence duration, and prior imprisonment history were consistently associated with all recidivism outcomes (p-values ranging from .005 to <.001). Among the sociodemographic variables, educational attainment, and age were associated with all measures of recidivism (p-values ranging from .027 to <.001).

Logistic Regression Analyses

As shown in Table 2, child visits were not significantly associated with recidivism after accounting for control variables. For parsimony, the results for control variables are not shown in Table 2; see Supplemental Table S1 (available in the online version of this article) for the coefficients of these variables. While pre-prison father-child contact was not associated with recidivism at 6 and 24 months after release, it was associated with a decreased likelihood of recidivism at 12 months after release, both before and after accounting for child visits (b = −0.63, odds ratio [OR] = 0.53, p = .019 and b = −0.61, OR = 0.54, p = .023, respectively).

Table 2:

Logistic Regression Analysis on the Influence of Child Visits, Pre-Prison Father-Child Contact, and Patterns of Pre-Prison Father-Child Contact to In-Prison Child Visits on Any Recidivism at Three Follow-up Periods (N = 874)

	Any recidivism
	6 months	12 months	24 months
Predictor	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)
Child visits only
Child visits	-0.33(0.23)	-0.18(0.20)	-0.02(0.20)
Pre-prison father-child contact only
Pre-prison father-child contact	-0.40(0.29)	-0.63* (0.27)	-0.28(0.27)
Child visits and pre-prison father-child contact
Child visits	-0.31(0.23)	-0.14(0.21)	0.04(0.20)
Pre-prison father-child contact	-0.36(0.29)	-0.61* (0.27)	-0.28(0.27)
Pattern of pre-prison father-child contact to in-prison child visits
No contact (ref.)	—	—	—
Stable contact	-0.75* (0.36)	-0.84* (0.33)	-0.25(0.33)
Reduced contact	-0.48(0.31)	-0.75**(0.29)	-0.29(0.29)
Increased contact	-1.58(1.17)	-1.42(0.95)	-0.08(0.91)

Note. All models controlled for telephone contact with children in the past 3 months, received letters or e-mails from children in the past 3 months, partner status, index offense, prison regime, total length of sentence, imprisonment history in the last 5 years, educational attainment, nationality, and fathers’ age. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation by chained equations. The results were substantively similar when using listwise deletion (N = 685).

p < .05. **p < .01.

The pattern of pre-prison father-child contact to in-prison child visits was significantly associated with recidivism after accounting for the control variables, though the associations varied across follow-up periods. Overall, the findings suggest that father-child contact before, during, or across both periods is associated with a lower likelihood of recidivism among formerly incarcerated fathers. Compared to fathers in the no contact group, those in the stable contact group were less likely to recidivate at 6 and 12 months (b = -0.75, OR = 0.47, p = .038 and b = -0.84, OR = 0.43, p = .011, respectively), but not at 24 months after release. Fathers in the reduced contact group were less likely to recidivate than those in the no contact group at 12 months (b = -0.75, OR = 0.47, p = .009), but not at 6 and 24 months. Finally, fathers in the increased contact group did not differ from those in the no contact group in their likelihood of recidivism at any follow-up point (p > .05), although this finding must be interpreted cautiously due to the very small size of the group. The predicted probabilities of any recidivism for the four patterns of pre-prison father-child contact to in-prison child visits at 6, 12, and 24 months are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1:

Predicted Probabilities of Recidivism for the Four Patterns of Pre-Prison Father-Child Contact to in-Prison Child Visits at 6, 12, and 24 Months

Overall, the associations for serious recidivism were similar to those found for any recidivism. By contrast, analyses using very serious recidivism as the outcome (see Supplemental Table S2 [available in the online version of this article]) yielded no significant associations with any measure of father–child contact.²

Control Variables

Among the control variables related to family social bonds, telephone contact was associated with increased chances of recidivism at 12 months (b = 0.57, OR = 0.57, p = .036). However, as this association was not found in the sensitivity analyses, we interpret this finding with caution. Mail contact with children was not significantly associated with any measure of recidivism (see Supplemental Table S1). While cohabiting or married fathers showed significantly lower recidivism at 6 months post release, this association was not observed at 12 or 24 months. Within the set of criminal background characteristics, imprisonment history and index offense demonstrated consistent and significant associations with all recidivism outcomes. Regarding sociodemographic characteristics, age was a consistent predictor of recidivism, with older fathers being less likely to recidivate at all follow-up periods.

Discussion

Existing research on the relationship between child visits and post-release recidivism is limited and has yielded inconclusive results. This study contributes to the literature by examining the association between child visits and multiple recidivism outcomes. In addition, it examined patterns of father-child contact, linking pre-prison father-child contact with in-prison child visits. Drawing on data from the Life in Custody study, we analyzed these relationships among 874 fathers released from Dutch prisons, using a combination of survey and administrative data.

First, we found that the bivariate association between child visits and a reduced likelihood of recidivism did not remain statistically significant after controlling for covariates related to fathers’ family, criminal, and sociodemographic background characteristics. This is an important finding, as many previous studies on the association between in-prison visits and recidivism have not sufficiently accounted for relevant background factors (Cochran, 2019). Our findings align with studies finding no association between child visits and recidivism after adjusting for relevant background factors (Duwe & Clark, 2013; Lee, 2019). Differences in findings across studies likely reflect variation in how extensively background factors are controlled for. A systematic review of 16 studies concluded that visits are generally associated with lower recidivism, although effect sizes tend to be smaller in studies using multivariate analyses (Mitchell et al., 2016). Importantly, we found no evidence supporting increased recidivism among fathers visited by their children (see for example Bales & Mears, 2008). Second, our findings indicated that pre-prison father-child contact was a predictor of recidivism at 12 months, supporting earlier research suggesting that pre-prison social bonds are associated with post-release outcomes (Atkin-Plunk & Armstrong, 2018). Although this association was not observed at 6 or 24 months in the main analyses, an alternative specification of pre-prison father-child contact showed a significant association at 24 months: fathers with weekly or daily pre-prison contact were less likely to recidivate than those with no or monthly contact.

Third, patterns of pre-prison father-child contact before imprisonment to in-prison child visits were associated with recidivism, though the associations varied by follow-up period. This approach highlights the importance of considering family contact as a trajectory rather than viewing in-prison visits as an isolated variable, as is relatively common in existing literature on in-prison visits and recidivism. Specifically, fathers who had contact with their children before imprisonment, were visited by their children during imprisonment, or both, were less likely to recidivate compared to those who had no contact with their children before imprisonment and were not visited by their children during their time in prison. While the associations differed across time points at which recidivism was measured, findings were robust to an alternative model specification.

Last, our study underscores the importance of examining different measures of recidivism severity when analyzing the relationship between visits and recidivism, as they yield different results. For measures of serious recidivism, similar patterns were found compared to any recidivism. Note that the measures of any recidivism and serious recidivism overlapped to a large extent. For very serious recidivism, however, factors other than father–child contact appeared to be more relevant (analyses not shown), with imprisonment history and age being the most stable predictors. Analytically, a complicating factor in the prediction of very serious recidivism is that it is a relatively rare phenomenon. Future research that focuses on more serious types of offenses could shed additional light on the link between father-child contact and very serious recidivism.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

While this study provides valuable insights into the relationship between father-child contact and recidivism, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, while the Life in Custody data provided a valuable opportunity to study father–child contact and recidivism, they were not specifically designed to capture fatherhood and family dynamics before, during, and after imprisonment. This limitation reflects a broader challenge in the literature on parental imprisonment, which often relies on population-based samples with extensive family-related data but limited prison-related information, or on prison-based samples with detailed imprisonment-related data but limited family-related information. In our case, the absence of data on post-release family circumstances, such as father-child co-residence or plans for co-residence, limits our ability to assess how family reintegration may shape recidivism (Thomas et al., 2022; Venema et al., 2023). Ideally, future studies also include information on theoretical mechanisms such as emotional strain, parental identity, and the strength of social bonds to allow for formal testing of explanatory pathways through mediation analyses. Unobserved factors such as mental health issues, substance use, or pro-criminal attitudes may also affect both the quality and quantity of father-child contact (Ahlin et al., 2023; Rubenstein et al., 2021; Tasca, 2018) and recidivism (Chang et al., 2015; Håkansson & Berglund, 2012). The observational nature of the data further limits causal inference. This underscores the need for longitudinal data that capture family context, contact, relationship quality, and relevant risk factors before, during, and after incarceration to better understand the associations between fatherhood, family relations, and recidivism.

Second, while the dataset contained extensive background characteristics, it lacked key family demographic characteristics and indicators of family dynamics and functioning, which shape both contact patterns and recidivism (Cochran, 2019). Missing information included the number, age, and gender of children, relationship status with the biological mother, co-residence, father’s legal status, and measures of relationship quality and (co-)parenting practices. Among these, the absence of children’s age is particularly important, as age likely shapes caregivers’ gatekeeping decisions, the form and activities of prison visits (e.g., an infant’s visit differs substantially from that of a teenager), children’s ability to engage in other forms of contact such as phone calls or letters, and the emotional experience of reunification—where younger children often display fewer doubts or resentments toward returning parents (McKay et al., 2018; Venema et al., 2022; Yocum & Nath, 2011). Future research should therefore examine children’s age as a potential moderator of the relationship between child visits and recidivism.

Third, while the dataset enabled us to capture both pre-prison and in-prison father–child contact, these measures were limited in scope. Pre-prison contact was not differentiated by mode or quality and both indicators were measured using binary variables. While this approach is common in prior research, it limits the nuance with which contact patterns can be examined. Moreover, we were unable to account for the presence or role of caregivers during visits, which may shape both the frequency and emotional quality of contact. Given the central gatekeeping role of caregivers and the fact that young children cannot visit alone, it is possible that our findings partly capture the association between caregiver visits and recidivism, rather than child visits alone. We attempted to address this by including partner relationship status in multivariate analyses, but further research could collect more detailed information on accompanying persons during visits to disentangle these patterns. In addition, it is important to acknowledge that the group of fathers who were not visited is heterogeneous. As Burns et al. (2024) note, reasons for the absence of (child) visits range from practical barriers and emotional strain to family conflict and caregiver gatekeeping, each of which may have distinct implications for post-release outcomes.

Fourth, although a key strength of this study is the use of a broad conceptualization of recidivism by employing different measures of recidivism seriousness at three different time points based on high-quality administrative data, these indicators are limited because they may underestimate actual criminal behavior and are subject to biases within the criminal justice system. Moreover, recidivism, when conceptualized as a binary variable, is an inherently limited measure of desistance, as it overlooks important dimensions of successful reintegration (Bersani et al., 2025). Future research should incorporate additional indicators of reintegration success, including, but not limited to, family relationships, parental engagement, housing stability, employment, physical and mental health, and civic participation.

Finally, while the study contributes a European perspective to a literature largely dominated by U.S.-based research, cross-national comparability is limited given substantial differences in sentencing practices, imprisonment rates, penal climate, and visiting policies. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted within the Dutch context, which is characterized by a low imprisonment rate, a relatively mild penal climate, and a high prevalence of short prison sentences. These cross-country differences underscore the need for comparative research that considers country-level and institutional factors that may influence the relationship between in-prison visits and recidivism. By drawing on data from the Netherlands, this study broadens the scope of prison visitation research by offering a European perspective. Although the specific associations between child visits and recidivism found in this study are likely to vary across national contexts, the overarching finding that family contact should be understood as part of a broader trajectory rather than treating child visits as an isolated variable is relevant across all jurisdictions.

Implications

Our study has important implications for family-focused prison programs, which often rely on the assumption that encouraging child visits reduces recidivism. The findings suggest that father-child contact before imprisonment, being visited by children during imprisonment, or both, can serve as a protective factor, given its association with lower recidivism compared to no pre-prison contact and no visits. However, the results do not provide strong evidence that promoting child visits alone will significantly reduce long-term recidivism. This does not mean that in-prison child visits should be discouraged. Rather, the key takeaway from our study is that family-focused prison programs should structurally consider family relationships and parental engagement from arrest to release, as part of a broader, prison-wide strategy in which child visits form a component. Practical strategies for achieving this could include structurally integrating family relationships and positive parenting into reintegration trajectories for all parents in prison, fostering family-friendly visiting environments, offering structured parenting programs, and structurally collaborating with organizations outside the prison walls (e.g., social support services, child welfare, child protection) to support positive family connections both inside and outside of prison.

Conclusion

This study adds to the limited literature on child visits and recidivism and provides valuable insights for the broader field. Existing research on this topic shows inconsistent findings. Our results emphasize the importance of considering pre-prison father-child contact when examining the relationship between child visits and recidivism. This approach offers a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between child visits and recidivism, which can inform the development of effective family-focused policies and interventions to support reintegration and reduce reoffending after release.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This article is written as part of the Life in Custody Study and the “Family approach in Dutch prisons” project. The Life in Custody study was funded by the Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency (DJI) and Leiden University. The “Family approach in Dutch prisons” project was funded by FNO GeestKracht. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the DJI and FNO GeestKracht. The authors wish to thank the DJI for their support with the administration of the survey.

ORCID iDs

Simon D. Venema

Babette C. M. van Hazebroek

Hanneke Palmen

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material is available in the online version of this article at

Notes

Simon D. Venema is a researcher with the Research Group on Addiction and Forensic Sciences at Hanze University of Applied Sciences. He coordinates the department of research at Addiction Care Northern Netherlands and is affiliated with the Department of Sociology at the University of Groningen. His research focuses on how problematic behaviors such as crime and addiction affect significant others, particularly families.

Babette C. M. van Hazebroek is an assistant professor at the Institute of Criminal Law & Criminology at Leiden University. Her research focuses on the development of offending behavior, particularly among justice-involved youth. She is also involved in longitudinal and register-based studies on risk and protective factors associated with offending.

Hanneke Palmen is an associate professor at the Institute of Criminal Law & Criminology at Leiden University. Her research interests focus on the social context of criminal behavior and the role social relations play in people’s lives before, during, and after detention.

Paul Nieuwbeerta is professor at the Institute of Criminal Law & Criminology at Leiden University. His research focuses on seriousness of crime, criminal careers, effects of imprisonment and prison climate.

References

Aebi

M. F.

Cocco

(2025). SPACE I—2024—Council of Europe annual penal statistics: Prison populations. Council of Europe. https://wp.unil.ch/space/files/2025/07/250715_rapport-space-i-2024_compressed.pdf

Agnew

Brezina

(2019). General strain theory. In Krohn

M. D.

Hendrix

Hall

G. P.

Lizotte

A. J.

(Eds.), Handbook on crime and deviance. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research (2nd ed., pp. 145–160). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20779-3_8

Ahlin

E. M.

Derlic

Kokkalera

(2023). Examining parent-child contact practices among incarcerated parents with mental health illnesses. Crime & Delinquency, 71(4), 1153–1179. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287231155925

Andersen

L. H.

Fitzpatrick

Wildeman

(2021). How does visitation affect incarcerated persons and their families? Journal of Human Resources, 59(2), 389–415. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.0620-10951R3

Appelman

Dirkzwager

van der Laan

(2021). Kenmerken van justitiabelen: Een systematisch literatuuronderzoek [Characteristics of individuals involved in the criminal justice system: A systematic literature review]. https://nscr.nl/app/uploads/2021/03/DJI_Kenmerken-van-justitiabelen_rapport_20210104.pdf

Arditti

J. A.

McGregor

Dennison

Johnson

Besemer

(2021). Maternal mediation in the context of fathers’ incarceration and reentry. Family Relations, 70(1), 146–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12526

Atkin-Plunk

C. A.

Armstrong

G. S.

(2018). Disentangling the relationship between social ties, prison visitation, and recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(10), 1507–1526. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818772320

Bahr

Armstrong

Gibbs

Harris

Fisher

(2005). The reentry process: How parolees adjust to release from prison. Fathering, 3(3), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0303.243

Bales

W. D.

Mears

D. P.

(2008). Inmate social ties and the transition to society. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45(3), 287–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427808317574

10.

Berghuis

(2023). Recidive onder ex-gedetineerde volwassenen en jeugdigen [Recidivism among formerly incarcerated adults and juveniles]. Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Datacentrum. https://repository.wodc.nl/handle/20.500.12832/3323

11.

Berghuis

Cochran

J. C.

Nieuwbeerta

Palmen

(2024). Do prison visits have a spectrum? Visitation quality and the varying impacts for individuals’ behavior and well-being in prison. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 52(5), 671–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241291004

12.

Berghuis

Nieuwbeerta

Palmen

Sentse

van Hazebroek

van Ginneken

(2022). Visitation patterns and post-release offending: Exploring variations in the timing, rate, and consistency of prison visits. Journal of Criminal Justice, 81, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.101904

13.

Berghuis

Palmen

Nieuwbeerta

(2021). De prevalentie en determinanten van bezoek van partners, kinderen, familie en vrienden aan Nederlandse gedetineerden: De rol van sociale netwerkkenmerken en criminele geschiedenis [The prevalence and determinants of visits by partners, children, family, and friends to Dutch prisoners: The role of social network characteristics and criminal history]. Panopticon, 42(2), 129–148.

14.

Bernburg

J. G.

(2019). Labeling theory. In Krohn

M. D.

Hendrix

Hall

G. P.

Lizotte

A. J.

(Eds.), Handbook on crime and deviance. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research (2nd ed., pp. 179–196). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20779-3_10

15.

Bersani

Larroulet

Chen

Doherty

(2025). Moving beyond failure: Modeling the multidimensional conceptualization of success after prison. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 11, 260–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-025-00278-5

16.

Boonstoppel

(2019). “It’s not about me no more”: Fatherhood and mechanisms of desistance among at-risk men. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 5(3), 335–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-019-00120-9

17.

Burns

Murray

Ferguson

Moore

(2024). The experiences of men in prison who do not receive visits from family or friends: A qualitative systematic review. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 34(3), 271–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2332

18.

Chang

Larsson

Lichtenstein

Fazel

(2015). Psychiatric disorders and violent reoffending: A national cohort study of convicted prisoners in Sweden. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2(10), 891–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00234-5

19.

Charles

Frankham

Garthe

R. C.

Visher

C. A.

Kay

A. L.

(2021). Father involvement in the first year after prison: Considerations for social work. Research on Social Work Practice, 31(8), 797–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315211022806

20.

Charles

Muentner

Gottlieb

Eddy

J. M.

(2023). Parent-child contact during incarceration: Predictors of involvement among resident and nonresident parents following release from prison. Social Service Review, 97(1), 169–213. https://doi.org/10.1086/723450

21.

Cochran

J. C.

(2019). Inmate social ties, recidivism, and continuing questions about prison visitation. In Hutton

Moran

(Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of prison and the family (pp. 41–64). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12744-2_3

22.

Cochran

J. C.

Barnes

J. C.

Mears

D. P.

Bales

W. D.

(2020). Revisiting the effect of visitation on recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 37(2), 304–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1508606

23.

De Claire

Dixon

. (2017). The effects of prison visits from family members on prisoners’ well-being, prison rule breaking, and recidivism: A review of research since 1991. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 18(2), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015603209

24.

Dennison

Smallbone

(2015). ‘You can’t be much of anything from inside’: The implications of imprisoned fathers’ parental involvement and generative opportunities for children’s wellbeing. Law in Context, 32(1), 61–86. https://doi.org/10.26826/law-in-context.v32i0.73

25.

Dennison

Smallbone

Stewart

Freiberg

Teague

(2014). ‘My life is separated’: An examination of the challenges and barriers to parenting for Indigenous fathers in prison. British Journal of Criminology, 54(6), 1089–1108. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azu072

26.

Duwe

Clark

(2013). Blessed be the social tie that binds: The effects of prison visitation on offender recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403411429724

27.

Dyer

W. J.

(2005). Prison, fathers, and identity: A theory of how incarceration affects men’s paternal identity. Fathering, 3(3), 201–219. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0303.201

28.

Dyer

W. J.

Pleck

J. H.

McBride

B. A.

(2012). Imprisoned fathers and their family relationships: A 40-year review from a multi-theory view. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 4(1), 20–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2011.00111.x

29.

Edin

Nelson

T. J.

Paranal

(2004). Fatherhood and incarceration as potential turning points in the criminal careers of unskilled men. In Pattillo

Western

Weiman

(Eds.), Imprisoning America: The social effects of mass incarceration (pp. 46–75). Russell Sage Foundation.

30.

Elbers

J. M.

van Ginneken

Boone

Nieuwbeerta

Palmen

(2021). Straffen en belonen in detentie. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 63(3), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.5553/TvC/0165182X2021063003002

31.

Giordano

P. C.

Cernkovich

S. A.

Rudolph

J. L.

(2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107(4), 990–1064. https://doi.org/10.1086/343191

32.

Håkansson

Berglund

(2012). Risk factors for criminal recidivism—A prospective follow-up study in prisoners with substance abuse. BMC Psychiatry, 12(111), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-12-111

33.

Hirschi

(1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.

34.

Keller

Jones

Kelleher

Chisolm

Boch

(2022). A time to “make amends and bring pieces together”: A phenomenological study of family experiences and considerations when a parent returns home from incarceration. Health & Social Care in the Community, 30(6), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13919

35.

La Vigne

N. G.

Naser

R. L.

Brooks

L. E.

Castro

J. L

. (2005). Examining the effect of incarceration and in-prison family contact on prisoners’ family relationships. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(4), 314–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986205281727

36.

Lee

L. M.

(2019). Far from home and all alone: The impact prison visitation on recidivism. American Law and Economics Review, 21(2), 431–481. https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahz011

37.

Liu

Miller

S. L.

(2023). Reclaiming parenthood after incarceration: The nexus of determination to desist, fulfillment of parental responsibilities, and recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 50(6), 870–890. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231164965

38.

Lösel

Pugh

Markson

Souza

Lanskey

(2012). Risk and protective factors in the resettlement of imprisoned fathers with their families. University of Cambridge; Ormiston Children’s and Families Trust. https://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/system/files/documents/final-report.pdf

39.

McKay

Feinberg

Landwehr

Payne

Comfort

Lindquist

C. H.

Kennedy

E. K.

Bir

(2018). “Always having hope”: Father–child relationships after reentry from prison. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 57(2), 162–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2018.1441206

40.

Mears

D. P.

Cochran

J. C.

Siennick

S. E.

Bales

W. D.

(2012). Prison visitation and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 29(6), 888–918. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2011.583932

41.

Meijer

R. F.

Moolenaar

D. E. G.

Choenni

van den Braak

S. W.

(2022). Criminaliteit en rechtshandhaving 2021: Ontwikkelingen en samenhangen [Crime and law enforcement 2021: Trends and associations]. https://repository.wodc.nl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12832/3206/Cahier-2022-12-volledige-tekst.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

42.

Mitchell

M. M.

Spooner

Jia

Zhang

(2016). The effect of prison visitation on reentry success: A meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 47, 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.07.006

43.

Muentner

Charles

(2023). Family reunification after fathers are released from prison: Perspectives on children’s adjustment. Family Relations, 72(3), 1068–1087. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12739

44.

Otsu

(2021). Does visitation in prison reduce recidivism? https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3842711

45.

Reef

Dirkzwager

(2019). Experienced severity of imprisonment among fathers and non-fathers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29, 1659–1668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01670-8

46.

Rubenstein

B. Y.

Toman

E. L.

Cochran

J. C.

(2021). Socioeconomic barriers to child contact with incarcerated parents. Justice Quarterly, 38(4), 725–751. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1606270

47.

Sharratt

(2014). Children’s experiences of contact with imprisoned parents: A comparison between four European countries. European Journal of Criminology, 11(6), 760–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370814525936

48.

StataCorp. (2019). Stata statistical software: Release 16

49.

Tasca

(2018). The (dis)continuity of parenthood among incarcerated fathers: An analysis of caregivers’ accounts. Child Care in Practice, 24(2), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2017.1420040

50.

Tasca

Mulvey

Rodriguez

(2016). Families coming together in prison: An examination of visitation encounters. Punishment and Society, 18(4), 459–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474516642856

51.

Tasca

Wright

K. A.

Turanovic

J. J.

White

Rodriguez

(2016). Moving visitation research forward: The Arizona prison visitation project. Criminology, Criminal Justice Law, & Society, 17(1), 55–67.

52.

Thomas

Wirth

J. C.

Poehlmann-Tynan

Pate

D. J.

Jr (2022). “When she says daddy”: Black fathers’ recidivism following reentry from jail. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(6), 3518. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063518

53.

Turney

(2023). Parental incarceration and parent–youth closeness. Journal of Marriage and Family, 85(5), 1087–1109. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12919

54.

Turney

Wildeman

(2013). Redefining relationships: Explaining the countervailing consequences of paternal incarceration for parenting. American Sociological Review, 78(6), 949–979. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122413505589

55.

van Ginneken

E. F. J. C.

Palmen

Bosma

A. Q.

Nieuwbeerta

Berghuis

M. L

. (2018). The Life in Custody Study: The quality of prison life in Dutch prison regimes. Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, 4(4), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-07-2018-0020

56.

Venema

S. D.

Dirkzwager

A. J. E.

Haan

Nieuwbeerta

Blaauw

Veenstra

(2023). Fatherhood and reoffending after release from prison: The importance of co-residing with a partner and children. Crime & Delinquency, 71(5), 1462–1488. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287231193991

57.

Venema

S. D.

Haan

Blaauw

Veenstra

(2022). Paternal imprisonment and father–child relationships: A systematic review. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(4), 492–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211033636

58.

Visher

C. A.

(2013). Incarcerated fathers: Pathways from prison to home. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403411418105

59.

Western

Smith

(2018). Formerly incarcerated parents and their children. Demography, 55(3), 823–847. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0677-4

60.

Yocum

Nath

(2011). Anticipating father reentry: A qualitative study of children’s and mothers’ experiences. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50(5), 286–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2011.582930

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB

Understanding the relationship between child visits,pre-prison father-child contact,and recidivism among formerly imprisoned fathers

Abstract

Keywords

Background

Child Visits and Recidivism

Pre-Prison Father-Child Contact

Dutch Context

Method

Measures

Dependent Variables

Independent Variables

Control Variables

Analytic Strategy

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Logistic Regression Analyses

Control Variables

Discussion

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

Implications

Conclusion

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

ORCID iDs

Supplemental Material

Notes

References

Supplementary Material