Assignment 1: Issues with Criminal Justice

ORIGINAL PAPER

Timing of Change in Criminal Offending Around Entrance into Parenthood: Gender and Cross-Country Comparisons for At-Risk Individuals

Mioara Zoutewelle-Terovan1 • Torbjorn Skardhamar2

Published online: 21 January 2016 � The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract Objectives This article examines the timing of change in criminal offending relative to entrance into parenthood, in light of four competing theoretical frameworks (social control,

routine activities, strain and cognitive transformation). Moreover, it analyzes whether

criminal developments over time are gender- or country-specific.

Methods Using samples of men and women at risk of offending in the Netherlands and Norway, this study investigates monthly changes in offending probabilities around the time

of first birth (5 years before, 5 years after). The implemented smoothing splines technique

allowed for a flexible exploration of changes in offending probabilities for both pre-

childbirth and post-childbirth periods.

Results The results show that the probabilities to offend decline ahead of childbirth for all individuals analyzed. The post-childbirth period is characterized by increases in

offending probabilities. However, in these overall trends, the exact timing and magnitude

of change differs by gender and country of residence.

Conclusions The results offer partial support for the cognitive transformation hypothesis because offending rates decline before childbirth. The post-childbirth period converges

with assumptions of the strain theory (for males in particular) because offending proba-

bilities increase in this period. Additional analysis investigating changes in property

offending shows that economic strain does not explain the upward trend of the overall

offending after childbirth.

Keywords Life-course � Parenthood � Criminal offending � Timing of change � Competing hypotheses

& Mioara Zoutewelle-Terovan [email protected]

1 Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI), P.O. Box 11650, 2502 AR The Hague, The Netherlands

2 Research Department, Statistics Norway, Oslo, Norway

123

J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722 DOI 10.1007/s10940-015-9272-7

Introduction

The highly influential theory of age-graded social control (Sampson and Laub 1993; Laub

and Sampson 2003) suggests that adult transitions have the potential to modify a criminal

trajectory toward desistance. Of the family-related transitions, marriage received the most

attention (e.g. Sampson et al. 2006; King et al. 2007; Bersani et al. 2009; Theobald and

Farrington 2009). Although less empirically studied, other transitions such as becoming a

parent are reported as being potentially equally important (Laub and Sampson 2003,

p. 135). However, few empirical studies have analyzed the transition to parenthood (Edin

et al. 2004; Giordano et al. 2002; Savolainen 2009; Monsbakken et al. 2013; De Goede

et al. 2011).

The effect of parenthood on crime is expected to work through mechanisms similar to

those of marriage because becoming a parent has broad consequences on family life,

leisure activities, and perception of self, leading toward a conventional lifestyle (Laub and

Sampson 2003). Conversely, parenthood might also lead to increased economic respon-

sibilities that can represent a source of stress that can stimulate engagement in crime

(Broidy and Agnew 1997). More specifically, increased economic responsibilities and

needs could be considered incentives for illegal earnings in the context of limited law-

abiding alternatives.

Previous research has shown gender differences in the effects of family-related tran-

sitions on crime (Rhule-Louie and McMahon 2007; Zoutewelle-Terovan et al. 2012). To a

limited extent, the literature suggests that gender differences also apply to the parenthood-

offending relationship (Graham and Bowling 1995; Giordano et al. 2002; De Goede et al.

2011). Although modern society is characterized by less gender inequality in the division

of domestic labor (including child-rearing activities), a certain level of inequality continues

to exist between genders (Feeney 2001). Hence, parenthood might have a stronger influ-

ence on females, who often remain the primary caregivers for children.

Existing theoretical frameworks explaining the effects of parenthood on crime also

assumed context universality. However, inconsistent empirical results shown in various

studies (Blokland and Nieuwbeerta 2005; Giordano et al. 2002; Savolainen 2009; Uggen

and Kruttschnitt 1998) raise two important questions: are there contextual differences, or

are the dissimilarities related to differences in samples and methods. In other words,

understanding whether theories apply differently in various social contexts is important. To

answer such questions properly, one needs cross-national comparisons using similar

designs and methods of investigation across countries.

In this study, we analyze changes in criminal trajectories in relation to entrance into

parenthood. Moreover, using data from the Netherlands and Norway, our comparative

design addresses whether the conclusions hold in two different social contexts. The ana-

lytic approach focuses on the timing of change around entrance into parenthood as has

previously been done for marriage (Laub et al. 1998; Duncan et al. 2006; Lyngstad and

Skardhamar 2013) and employment (Skardhamar and Savolainen 2014). We aim to answer

the following research questions:

RQ1 How does the likelihood of offending change after the birth of the first child compared with the pre-childbirth period?

RQ2 Are the trends in offending around entrance into parenthood different for males and females?

696 J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722

123

RQ3 Do the trends for males and females differ across social contexts in the Netherlands and Norway?

Theoretical Background

According to the age-graded theory of social control (Sampson and Laub 1993, p. 8; Laub

and Sampson 2003, p. 135), becoming a parent represents a transformative event in which

social bonds discourage engagement in crime. Many of the same mechanisms that make

other life-course transitions potential turning points might also apply to the transition to

parenthood, effectively cutting off the past from the present. For example, the parental role

is associated with a set of non-criminal expectations from the network (family, peers, and

social institutions), and, even more strongly than for marriage, this social network might be

more critical to offending. In addition, parenting offers an opportunity to transform one’s

identity and has the potential to promote a non-criminal lifestyle.

From the perspective of routine activities theory, a direct influence of parenthood on

offending occurs due to drastic changes in the daily routines associated with child-rearing

activities and other parental responsibilities. In essence, by increasing the amount of time

spent within the family, previous lifestyles and circumstances promoting offending

diminish or disappear (Cohen and Felson 1979; Horney et al. 1995). Regardless of whether

parental roles lead to a change in one’s sense of self or represent a matter of time budget,

these changes have the potential to restrain individuals from crime (Osgood et al. 1996;

Warr 1998). Although the quantitative analysis of Sampson and Laub (2003) did not

provide support for the effects of parenthood on offending, the narratives of the Glueck’s

men pointed to dire changes in criminal behavior due to becoming a parent. Because

parental activities generally seem to be associated with drastic changes in daily routines,

particularly within the first years of parenthood (Osgood and Lee 1993), a more abrupt shift

in offending after childbirth can be hypothesized.

The cognitive transformation theory (Giordano et al. 2002) highlights internal indi-

vidual transformations occurring prior to the transition as determinants of desistance and

considers parenthood a hook for change, influencing a more abrupt transformation in an

already existing desistance trend. For the cognitive transformation theorists, parenthood is

viewed as having the potential to activate change, but this potential only exists if the

parents are already motivated to adopt change in their life. In other words, entering a pro-

social pathway prior to becoming a parent produces in part a systematic selection into

parenthood.

Similar to the cognitive transformation theory, the maturation framework (Maruna

2001) invokes emotional and cognitive transformations as determinants of desistance.

Specifically, in the process of becoming adults, individuals move away from criminal

behavior because it is considered inconsistent with adult status (Massoglia and Uggen

2010). However, in this view, causal associations between family events and crime are

dismissed because individuals do not engage in family roles (e.g., spouse and parent)

unless they have undergone the self-transformation (Maruna 2001; Paternoster and

Bushway 2009). In other words, parenthood is considered a consequence of desistance

rather than a determinant of it.

Although the majority of criminological theories explaining the influence of parenthood

on offending highlight a negative association, strain theory (Agnew 1992; 2006)

hypothesizes a potential inverse relationship. More specifically, negative relationships and

J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722 697

123

situations constitute sources of strain, and individuals respond to this strain through

criminal acts (Lilly et al. 2002). Furthermore, parenthood introduces a particular type of

strain—economic strain—often associating crime with financial needs (Wakefield and

Uggen 2004; Shannon and Abrams 2007). Because financial hardship is common among

disadvantaged groups (e.g., high-risk individuals) and children require additional resour-

ces, the increased need for necessities (food, housing, and day care) could stimulate

involvement in crime, particularly in property crime.

Each of the above-mentioned theories suggests a negative relationship between par-

enthood and crime with the exception of strain theory, which opens the possibility of an

opposite effect. However, the theories differ in defining the moment when the change

occurs relative to the time of the transition. Deriving from these theories, we suggest five

different ideal–typical average trajectories of criminal behavior related to the transition to

parenthood. These hypothetical and stylized trends are illustrated in Fig. 1. First, according

to the turning point hypothesis, entrance into parenthood causes a direct change in

offending leading toward cessation of crime. This change is gradual but set in motion by

the transition (Laub et al. 1998). Second, changes in routine activities define a major shift

toward desistance immediately after childbirth. Third, the hook for change hypothesis

suggests that the desistance process starts before the transition to parenthood, and we

expect additional decline post-birth. Fourth, the maturation hypothesis describes desistance

as preceding the transition to parenthood, with no other post-transition changes. Fifth,

parental strain hypothesis describes a gradual increase in crime after childbirth. Describing

the empirical patterns in the data are thus one basis for discussing to what extent each

theory is consistent with the data. Thus, the trajectories in Fig. 1 are theoretical hypothesis

to be checked.

Although theories describing the linkage between parenthood and crime do not

explicitly address the possibility of gender inequality, distinctive gender-based assumed

parental roles might be considered a prerequisite for differences in offending between

males and females. The natural predestination of women for pregnancy, birth and

breastfeeding offers them a central place in the early life of children. Despite fathers’

increased involvement in childcare over the past decades, women remain primary care-

givers (Zimmerman et al. 2001). Consequently, mothers will encounter more-drastic

changes in daily routines (Cowdery and Knudson-Martin 2005; Kruttschnitt 1996). Given

that the father tends to represent the main breadwinner, financial strain might be exacer-

bated for males, and this strain may be reflected in increases in offending that provide

financial gains such as property offenses (Broidy and Agnew 1997). Overall, the theoretical

criminal trajectories drawn in Fig. 1 are expected to show a steeper decline for females

when following the desistance hypotheses (turning point, routine activities, hook for

change, and maturation), whereas the trajectory reflecting parental strain might be char-

acteristic for males.

Empirical Background

Parenthood and Desistance: A Controversial Relationship

Qualitative studies are rife with stories evoking parenthood as a catalyst for change for

both males (Laub and Sampson 2003; Edin et al. 2004; Shannon and Abrams 2007) and

females (Giordano et al. 2002; Edin and Kefalas 2005). Nevertheless, quantitative

698 J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722

123

approaches to the interviewed respondents often did not confirm that parenthood actually

leads to an embracement of conventional adult roles (Sampson and Laub 1993; Giordano

et al. 2011). To date it remains unclear whether quantitative and qualitative studies test

different aspects of the parenthood-crime relationship or whether they test similar aspects,

but qualitative approaches make unsuitable use of a retrospective view on motivations

toward changes in behavior (Kreager et al. 2010).

Several quantitative studies conclude that parenthood reduces offending. In a sample of

Finnish recidivist men, Savolainen (2009) found that becoming a father was associated

with a 15 % reduction in (re)offending. Findings for high-risk men were confirmed by

Zoutewelle-Terovan et al. (2012) in the Netherlands, where fatherhood reduced the rate of

offending by 33 %. Similarly, results on a convicted sample in the Netherlands (De Goede

et al. 2011) showed that first time fatherhood reduces the likelihood of offending by 25 %.

For females, Kreager et al. (2010) found that both pregnancy and motherhood reduced

overall delinquent behavior and stealing. Similarly, Uggen and Kruttschnitt (1998) con-

cluded that mothers were less likely to engage in illegal earning activities.

A different group of studies offered support for the hypothesis that time spent engaged

in parental activities is directly linked to changes in offending. In a cross-sectional study,

Graham and Bowling (1995) found that females spending most nights at home were three

times more likely to desist compared with their counterparts, developing evening activities

outside the house. Moreover, for females, desistance was abrupt and directly related to

childbearing. The study conducted by Kerr et al. (2011) for males also showed that fathers

co-residing with their children the levels of self-reported crime are lower.

Other scholars invoked context effects when describing the parenthood-offending

relationship. For males, fatherhood had stronger crime-inhibiting effects when their chil-

dren were born within a marital relationship (Savolainen 2009), when fathers ensured high-

quality relationships with their children (Ganem and Agnew 2007), and financial strain and

lack of social capital did not affect fathers (Giordano et al. 2011). For females, parenthood

inhibited offending when they were involved in daily childrearing (Yule et al. 2014),

shared a common household with the biological father, displayed ‘‘wantedness’’ of the

pregnancy (Giordano et al. 2011), did not suffer from disadvantageous socioeconomic

conditions (Edin and Kefalas 2005) and had high-quality relationships with their children

cr im

in al

o ff

en d

in g

entrance into parenthood

strain

turning point

routine activities

hook for change

maturation

Fig. 1 Theoretical trends of criminal offending

J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722 699

123

(Ganem and Agnew 2007). Such context effects might sustain an ongoing desistance

process or serve as an opportunity for change for those already motivated to desist

(Giordano et al. 2011).

A different group of studies found no association between parenthood and offending

(Wakefield and Uggen 2004; Blokland and Nieuwbeerta 2005). Such results were con-

firmed when analyzing both males (Sampson and Laub 1993; Graham and Bowling 1995)

and females (Giordano et al. 2002; Zoutewelle-Terovan et al. 2012; De Goede et al. 2011).

Parental Strain and Criminogenic Choices

Scholars such as Ross and Huber (1985) argued that families with children show increased

economic strain compared with childless families. A translation of parental strain into

criminal activities might occur particularly for disadvantaged individuals experiencing

financial hardship (Daly 1998; Giordano et al. 2011), difficult intimate relationships

(Graham and Bowling 1995), difficult children (Corman et al. 2011), or limited social

support (Giordano et al. 2011). Importantly, high-risk samples are more likely to be

exposed to such disadvantages.

Quantitative within-individual analyses showed that parenthood can lead to an increase

in offending. When studying individuals with an arrest history, Wakefield and Uggen

(2004) concluded that increases in illegal earnings are found only for mothers, regardless

of whether the father was present. Another study concluded that parenthood increases illicit

drug use within the next year for both males and females, but the effects were stronger for

males (Thompson and Petrovic 2009). Between-individual analysis also found that par-

enthood increases offending. In the UK, Farrington and West (1995) showed that men with

a biological child were more likely to be convicted compared with non-fathers. Addi-

tionally, men separated from their biological child or conceiving out-of-wedlock had an

increased risk of offending. Similar conclusions were extracted when analyzing adolescent

fathers (Thornberry et al. 2000). Although it was often true for females that studies could

not identify any relationship between parenthood and offending (Kreager et al. 2010;

Zoutewelle-Terovan et al. 2012), the study of Giordano et al. (2002) found a positive

relationship between parenthood and economic crime.

Other studies found no support for the assumption that parental responsibilities intro-

duce strains leading to increases in crime. Studies connecting parenthood with lower levels

of satisfaction and higher levels of stress were predominantly American. However, a

Western European study conducted in Finland (Savolainen et al. 2001) showed that cus-

todial parenthood remains unrelated to psychological well-being for females and has a

positive effect on males. In the same study, the authors find that fathers are more satisfied

with their financial situation compared with non-fathers. A different study conducted by

Yule et al. (2014) in Canada showed that, when mothering, female offenders were less

likely to earn money illegally.

Timing of Change in Criminal Trajectories

Life-course research provides ambiguous interpretations of the exact timing of change in

offending related to parenthood (before pregnancy, pregnancy related, or birth related).

One explanation is that the focus has been placed on modeling pregnancy and/or post-birth

causal effects (Kreager et al. 2010) but not specifically on changes in offending in the pre-

pregnancy/birth periods. Because theories (except for strain theory) similarly predict

700 J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722

123

decline in offending on average, the timing of change is primarily what differentiates the

predictions.

Analyzing changes in offending in the period surrounding the first childbirth, Mons-

bakken et al. (2013) concluded that for both males and females, the strongest decline in

crime occurs pre-childbirth, whereas the transition to parenthood offers the most beneficial

long-term effects for men. Because declines in the likelihood to offend occurred long

before the pregnancy, the authors’ conclusions provide stronger support for the hook for

change hypothesis. Moreover, for females, inhibition of crime seems to be related to

changes in the daily routines surrounding pregnancy and toddlerhood. Although their study

offers a good starting point in describing the timing of change in criminal trajectories, the

period (events at a yearly level) might have been somewhat too limited to highlight the

mechanisms of change, particularly around pregnancy and childbirth.

Family Formation in the Netherlands and Norway

After the 1970s, in many Western societies (such as the Netherlands and Norway), family-

life trends have become less standardized (Elzinga and Liefbroer 2007), showing increases

in unmarried cohabitation, postponement of marriage and parenthood, reductions in

teenage pregnancies, and increases in births outside a marital union (Billari and Liefbroer

2010). Although many of those demographic changes have become common, they

occurred with different magnitudes in each of the countries analyzed. Whereas the

Netherlands follows average trends related to family-formation events in Europe, Norway

is considered one of the frontrunners (Sobotka 2008; Kiernan 2004). Overall, cohabitation

and marriage among young adult couples in The Netherlands is equally divided, whereas

the Nordic countries show the highest incidence of cohabitation, with more than 70 % of

couples aged 25–34 registered as cohabiters (Kiernan 2004). Differences between the two

countries are also highlighted with respect to non-marital childbearing; whereas the

Netherlands has moved from approximately 2 % in 1970 to approximately 25 % in the

2000s, Norway has moved from approximately 8 % in 1970 to approximately 50 % in the

2000s (Kiernan 2004; Perelli-Harris et al. 2012). Concerning the average age of mother’s

first childbirth, the two countries followed relatively similar developments. In the

Netherlands, the average age of a female’s first birth was 24.3 in 1970 and 29.4 in 2010; in

Norway, females entered parenthood on average at age 23.2 in 1970 and at age 28.2 in

2010. 1

Although both are modern European societies, the Netherlands and Norway provide

different parental benefits within the social system (Thevenon 2011), and these differences

could shape distinct criminal trajectories for each country. International comparisons show

that the Netherlands has one of the least generous pregnancy and birth schemes (Gauthier

2014). For example, mothers in the Netherlands receive 16 weeks of paid maternal leave,

whereas in Norway, mothers are entitled to fully paid leave of 46 weeks, with the option of

extending the period with proportionally less pay each month. The differences for fathers

are also considerable. In the Netherlands, a man may take 2 days of paternity leave when a

child is born, whereas a father in Norway benefits from a total parental leave quota of at

least 12 weeks (fully paid). Moreover, unpaid leave for fathers in the Netherlands can be

taken for 26 weeks, whereas fathers in Norway may request up to 1 year of unpaid leave.

Considerable differences between the two social systems are also observed in the day care

1 Sources: Statistics Netherlands—www.cbs.nl; Statistics Norway—www.ssb.no.

J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722 701

123

facilities for parents. Day care in Norway is heavily subsidized and guaranteed by the

government (starting from age 1 of the child), whereas costs for parents in the Netherlands

are relatively high. The more parental-friendly social policies in Norway (such as longer

parental leave, childcare at highly subsidized rates, and workplace flexibility) could reduce

parental strain and thus lead to lower offending rates after childbirth. Conversely, the

presence of good childcare facilities might diminish or negate the influence of parenthood

on offending.

Method

Sample

For this study, two contemporary at-risk samples from the Netherlands and Norway were

considered. We started with data from a longitudinal study performed in the Netherlands

that contained individuals institutionalized during adolescence in a juvenile treatment

center. The 540 Dutch respondents (270 males, 270 females) were born between 1969 and

1977 and were treated in a residential care setting for behavioral or familial problems,

often including delinquency. With an aim to analyze behavioral changes before and after

the birth of the first child, we selected from the 540 individuals only those who became

parents 2 (100 males and 191 females). Although there is no directly comparable setting in

Norway for the Dutch study, the system of registry data containing the total Norwegian

population (Lyngstad and Skardhamar 2011) allows great flexibility to select various

samples based on specified criteria. To specify these criteria, we focused on two aspects:

(a) obtaining similar samples based on youth factors (criminal involvement and family

background) and (b) obtaining similar samples based on characteristics related to entrance

into parenthood (age and marital status when entering parenthood and criminal

involvement).

The construction of the Norwegian sample proceeded as follows. First, we retained only

individuals from the total Norwegian population who became parents up until age 33 (as

was the case in the Dutch sample) and were born between 1970 and 1990. Second, for both

Dutch and Norwegian parents, we constructed a set of variables to be used further in the

matching procedure: parents divorced (dichotomous variable showing whether individuals

experienced divorce of the biological parents in youth 3 ); youth offending (dichotomous

variable recording whether the individuals committed an offense before age 16); offender

16 to 1st child (dichotomous variable showing whether an individual committed an offense

between age 16 and childbirth); age of entering parenthood (categorical variable recording

the age range in which individuals entered parenthood using 3-year age ranges 4 ; the

variable contains six categories, with the first category including ages 16–18, and the last

2 A question that arises with registered data is whether entrance into parenthood is properly addressed,

given that individuals (particularly males) might have become parents earlier without an official parental registration. We can address the issue on a subsample of Dutch respondents (n = 139), who have been recently interviewed. With the exception of five males and three females, there was concordance between registered and self-reported information on all parenthood data. Thus, we do not consider unregistered parenthood a reason for concern. 3 This variable was measured at institutionalization in adolescence for the Dutch respondents and at age 18

for the Norwegian respondents. 4 Although initially we focused on an exact age match, the procedure failed to identify a matching sample

for the analysis given the low number of inhabitants in Norway (approximately 5 million individuals) and

702 J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722

123

category ages 31–33); married at childbirth (binary variable showing whether individuals

were married when the first child was born); and gender (binary variable showing whether

a respondent is male or female). In the third step, we focused on the Dutch sample and

constructed frequency distributions of all possible combinations of the previously defined

variables. For example, this six-way cross tabulation showed for one of its cases that, from

the total of 191 women, 4 of them had their first child between ages 25 and 27, did not

experience parental divorce in youth, did not offend in youth or at any moment before

entering parenthood and were not married when the first child was born. In the fourth step,

we randomly selected the same number of Norwegian persons, replicating exactly the

contingency table of the Dutch sample on the specified criteria. Following the previous

example, the Norwegian sample now also contains 4 females who became parents between

ages 25 and 27, did not experience parental divorce in youth, did not offend in youth or

before entering parenthood and were unmarried when the first child was born.

The implemented matching procedure implemented ensured the availability of two

samples (Dutch and Norwegian) resembling the exact combinations of the specified

characteristics. After processing additional exclusion criteria (availability of post-birth

information and controlling for death and emigration), the at-risk groups for this study

included 93 males and 186 females for the Dutch sample (the high-risk sample) and 100

males and 189 females for the Norwegian sample (the elevated-risk sample). In both

samples, individual-level information was used for a period of a maximum of 121 months,

with a median observation period of 106 months for the Dutch data and 121 months for the

Norwegian data.

Data and Measures

Data Sources

For the sample in the Netherlands, information on parenthood, marital status and other

demographic variables was obtained from the Municipal Population Register, a centralized

electronic registration system containing data on all registered inhabitants of the Nether-

lands. Information on criminal offending was obtained from Judicial Documentation

abstracts of the Ministry of Justice (comparable with ‘‘rap sheets’’). These files contain

information on all cases registered by the police at the Public Prosecutor’s Office, offenses

committed and the corresponding verdicts. Offenses were recorded starting at age 12, the

minimum age of criminal responsibility in the Netherlands. Furthermore, offenses followed

by acquittals or so-called technical dismissals were eliminated from the analysis. Infor-

mation on parental divorce was obtained from personal files completed during institu-

tionalization in the juvenile treatment center (see van der Geest et al. 2009).

For the Norwegian sample, we extracted information from the administrative records at

Statistics Norway, in which data from different databases can be linked at the individual

level on personal identification numbers. For this study, the population registers provided

information on family background, parental and marital status, and other demographic

data. The criminal statistics register system (linked with police records) provided infor-

mation on all solved cases associated with criminal offenses. For the current analysis, we

used only cases for which a legal decision against the perpetrator was taken because for a

Footnote 4 continued the conditioning on a relatively complex set of inclusion criteria. For the final selection, we used 3-year age ranges.

J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722 703

123

considerable number of committed offenses, the prosecution is dropped although the

perpetrator was found (e.g., mental health problems or case transferred for mediation).

Furthermore, the solved cases included complete information on each offense and the exact

date when the offense was committed. Finally, we registered offenses followed by criminal

charges (and not convictions) starting with age 10. This approach offered the possibility to

extend the observation period concerning criminal involvement because convictions would

have been recorded only starting with age 15 (the minimum age of criminal responsibility

in Norway).

Variables

Grouping Variables To ensure the grouping of all variables around entrance into par-

enthood, a time-varying time variable was constructed. The variable contained for each

individual a maximum of 121 months (time points) around the birth of the first child, with

values ranging from -60 to ?60 (negative values for pre-childbirth months, positive

values for post-childbirth months, and 0 for the month of childbirth). Additionally, we

constructed the binary variable period to separate observations into two periods: pre-

childbirth months (value of 0) and post-childbirth months—including the month of

childbirth (value of 1).

Dependent Variables The overall criminal offending of the individuals was recorded as a

binary time-varying indicator distributed around entrance into parenthood to fit the format

of the time variable. The variable takes a value of 1 in each month a person committed at

least one offense (0 otherwise). For the second step of the analysis, focusing on changes in

offending possibly associated with economic needs, we constructed a dichotomous time-

varying variable reflecting respondents’ involvement in property offending for each month

under observation (1 = committing at least one property offense). By using dichotomous

dependent variables, we classify individuals into offenders and non-offenders, thus

focusing on the analysis of cessation of crime rather than reduction/increase in crime.

Covariates To isolate the effects of parenthood from aging effects, we constructed a

time-varying age variable recording the exact age of the individual (in years) at the

beginning of each observed month. Because previous literature suggested that the rela-

tionship between parenthood and offending is moderated by marriage, we constructed a

time-varying dichotomous variable showing the marital status of the person in each

specific month under observation (1 = married). Furthermore, to account for youth

offending, a time-invariant binary variable was constructed (1 = committing at least one

offense before age 16). Finally, the variable additional children was constructed as a

dichotomous time-varying variable controlling for the presence of additional children born

within the observation period (1 = one or more other children).

Analytic Strategy

The theoretical discussion presented above derives empirical implications from each causal

theory related to the timing of change. Thus, our analytical strategy is to investigate to what

extent empirical patterns correspond to the hypothesized patterns. Our approach does not

704 J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722

123

provide direct causal estimates, 5 but we qualify the plausibility of the theoretical causal

claims based on the trends observed.

The chronological occurrence of events was accounted for by variables grouping

information around the birth of the first child in a person-month file. For the analysis, we

recorded information starting with the 60th month before the birth of the first child through

the 60th month after childbirth. Naturally, monthly measures result in lower absolute levels

of offending than if using yearly measures, but it allows for more detailed analyses of the

patterns. The pattern of change over time in criminal trajectories related to the entrance

into parenthood was modeled using generalized additive models (GAMs), also known as

nonparametric smoothing splines. GAMs are extensions of the more familiar generalized

linear models, with the specification that the linear predictor represents a sum of smooth

functions of determined covariates (Wood 2006). By specifying models in terms of smooth

functions rather than parametric relationships, GAMs offer high flexibility in the contour of

the trends without pre-imposing an overall specific shape (e.g., linear or curvilinear).

A general structure of a smoothing spline containing a smooth function of a single

covariate is defined as follows:

yi ¼ fðziÞ þ ei ð1Þ

where y represents the outcome variable, f is a smoothing function of the covariate z, and e is the error term (Wood 2003). Because the use of smoothing splines is less common in

criminology, we provide a more detailed explanation of the technique. The principles

behind this method are perhaps best understood when using the most basic specification of

the smooth function, which is to define it as a cubic spline. Wood (2006) offers a visual

representation of a cubic spline, which is replicated in Fig. 2. For this spline, f is separated

into segments of cubic polynomials joined to become continuous up to the second

derivatives. The points at which the sections of the cubic polynomial are united are called

knots and are spread evenly through the covariate values.

A limitation of the cubic spline (and of polynomial splines in general) is that it makes

arbitrary choices about the smooth basis, knot locations, and the number of knots (see also

Skardhamar and Savolainen 2014). With the aim of providing regression splines following

as closely as possible the natural development of the data, we chose to fit thin plate

regression splines (TPRS). The TPRS as defined by Wood (2003, 2006) have the

advantage of balancing between under-smoothing and over-smoothing and do not force

one to make choices about basis functions or knots because the parameters to be estimated

result directly from the data. 6

The general structure of the GAM containing a smooth function of a single covariate (in

our case time) defines the expected outcome for person i at time point t as the following:

gðlitÞ ¼ b0 þ fðtimeitÞ þ Xith ð2Þ

where g is a specific link-function, b0 represents the overall intercept, f is a smoothing function of the time covariate, and Xit contains the vector of parametric terms (explanatory

5 Estimating counterfactual causal effects requires a quasi-experimental situation that is difficult to justify

for family-related transitions. We agree with other scholars who have argued that finding credible instrument variables is unrealistic (Sampson et al. 2006), and that techniques such as fixed effects and propensity score methods are insufficient for causal interpretation (Bjerk 2009; Skardhamar et al. 2015). Conversely, insights about causality can also be achieved without causal estimates (Berk et al. 2014). 6 As detailed explanations of the TPRS go beyond the purpose of this study, we recommend interested

readers to consult Wood (2003, 2006).

J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722 705

123

variables) with the corresponding estimated coefficients h. However, because we wanted to estimate the amount of change in offending at the transition point (birth of the first child),

the use of a single smoothing term (Eq. 2) would have been unable to capture any shifts in

offending occurring at the month of childbirth. We addressed this issue by introducing a

discontinuity in the pattern and fitting the spline function separately for the pre-birth and

post-birth periods as follows:

gðlitÞ ¼ b0 þ kitb1 þ f1ðtimeitÞ þ f2ðtimeitÞ � kit þ Xith ð3Þ

In this third equation, the b1 coefficient captures the difference in offending at the moment of birth, whereas k represents the period variable separating pre-birth and post-

birth periods.

Following the binomial distribution of the dependent variable (offending), we specified

models as logistic regressions, controlling for a set of explanatory variables (youth offending,

marital status, and additional children). In addition, to capture the curvilinear relationship

between aging and offending, we controlled for linear and quadratic age variables. Given our

focus on gender and cross-national differences, separate models were estimated for each

gender within each country. Note that results of the smoothing splines have a less straight-

forward interpretation because the non-parametric estimate does not provide conventional

regression parameters (because multiple coefficients are estimated for each segment of data).

For this reason, the results are reported as predicted probabilities at the sample mean for the

covariates. Furthermore, because the GAM model is an extension of the ordinary regression

model to include nonparametric smoothing splines, the parametric terms are interpreted in the

usual way (in our case as in logistic regression). Thus, given the centering of the timing

variable, the coefficients are interpreted as conditional log odds in the month of childbirth. All

analyses were performed by use of R Core Team and the mgcv package for GAMs.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Parenthood

Both similarities and differences are observed between countries and across genders. On

average, at-risk males had their first child at age 27 in the Netherlands and age 26 in

o u

tc o

m e

covariate (z)

Fig. 2 Example of a cubic spline presented by Wood (2006, p. 124)

706 J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722

123

Norway. In both countries, at-risk females gave birth to their first child at age 21 on

average. Furthermore, both Dutch and Norwegian females entered parenthood earlier

compared with the males: before 20 years of age, 48.9 % of the Dutch females and 43.9 %

of the Norwegian females became mothers (compared with 6.5 % of the Dutch males and

7.0 % of the Norwegian males). Within the 5 years observed after childbirth, 37.6 % of the

Dutch males and 42.5 % of the Dutch females became parents again, whereas in Norway,

33.0 % of the males and 40.1 % of the females had additional children. Note that none of

the at-risk individuals in our samples had a child before age 16.

To understand better the characteristics of the at-risk groups in relation to population

patterns, we compared our at-risk persons with comparison groups extracted from the

general population. The comparisons group for the Netherlands contained individuals in

the total population matched one-by-one with the initial 540 risk individuals based on date

of birth, gender (and name initials in case of multiple matches). Furthermore, only indi-

viduals becoming parents were retained in the control groups. For Norway, conditioned on

individuals entering parenthood through age 33, an exact match on gender and date of birth

were performed (followed by a random selection of individuals in the few cases in which

multiple matches were retained after the first two selection criteria). Figure 3a, b offers a

country-specific overview of the entrance into parenthood patterns for both at-risk and

control groups. With no outstanding country differences observed for males, the graphs

show that both at-risk and control males develop relatively similar trends (with at-risk

males entering parenthood slightly earlier). For females, although the trends for at-risk

groups are almost identical across countries, visible differences are observed when com-

paring them to their control groups. In the Netherlands, approximately 62.4 % of the high-

risk females had their first child before age 21, compared with only 4.6 % in the control

group (who reached the same percentage only around age 29). In Norway, the differences

between elevated-risk and control females are smaller; by age 21, approximately 60.3 % of

the elevated-risk females gave birth to their first child compared with 33.3 % in the control

group (the control group reached the same percentage around age 24).

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

15 20 25 30

p ro

p o

rt io

n

age

A The Netherlands

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

15 20 25 30

p ro

p o

rt io

n

age

B Norway

risk males risk females

control males control females

Fig. 3 Cumulative distribution of the age of entering parenthood

J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722 707

123

Criminal Offending

A considerable number of individuals in our at-risk samples engaged in criminal behavior

at early ages. Due to the matching procedure, engagement in criminal behavior in youth

was similar for the Netherlands and Norway (69.0 % of the at-risk males and 42.9 % of the

at-risk females committed at least one offense before age 16).

For a better understanding of the development of criminal behavior of our at-risk indi-

viduals, we provided age-crime curves for the complete criminal follow-up and compared

them with the corresponding crime trends of the control groups extracted from the general

population. Figure 4a, b presents the prevalence of offending at every specific age observed.

For Dutch males, high discrepancies in offending are recorded between high-risk and control

groups. Although for the controls, the highest value registered was 5.7 %, for the high-risk

group 12.9 % was the lowest value recorded (with peaks observed at ages 15–16, when

52.7 % of the males offend at least once). Dutch high-risk females show lower offending

proportions compared with the males, but their criminal conduct remains elevated compared

with the female control group. Whereas for the Dutch control females the trend is almost level

at 0, most high-risk females commit offenses in youth (highest peak observed at age 14, when

22.6 % of the females offend at least once). Although overall the Norwegian at-risk groups

show lower proportions of offending across time, the general trends of the elevated-risk and

control groups are similar to those described above for the Dutch groups. Elevated-risk

Norwegian males record the highest prevalence at age 15, when 35.2 % of the individuals

commit at least one offense, whereas the values for control males do not exceed 4.6 % for any

of the observed ages. Elevated-risk Norwegian females register their peak in offending at age

17, when 12.9 % of the females commit a criminogenic act at least once, whereas for the

control females, proportions are almost leveled-off at 0 (peak registered at age 30, when only

1.2 % of them were involved in crime). For all at-risk groups under observation, a general

decreasing trend is observed during aging.

Other Descriptives

Given the matching procedure, the groups in both the Netherlands and Norway are very

similar with respect to their marital status at birth (approximately three in 10 males and one

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

10 20 30

p ro

p o

rt io

n

age

A The Netherlands

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

10 15 20 25 30

p ro

p o

rt io

n

age

B Norway

risk males risk females

control males control females

Fig. 4 Proportions of offenders by age

708 J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722

123

in 10 females were married when the first child was born). Nevertheless, some differences

appear when analyzing marital status during the entire 10-year observation period for the

at-risk respondents; in the Netherlands 38.6 % of the males and 20.4 % of the females

were married at least once, whereas in Norway, 50.0 % of the males and 23.8 % of the

females were married.

The matching procedure also ensured very similar groups with respect to parental

divorce in the family of origin. In both the Dutch and Norwegian at-risk samples,

approximately 57.0 % of the males and 67.0 % of the females experienced parental

divorce at early ages.

Changes in Offending Trends Around the Entrance into Parenthood

Models for Overall Offending

Sample in the Netherlands Figure 5a, b presents the results of the smoothing splines (and

corresponding confidence intervals) for the high-risk males and females in the Netherlands.

For males, there is a slight gradual decline in the monthly probabilities to offend prior to

the month of childbirth from approximately 5–4 %. At childbirth, a shift in offending of

approximately 1 % point is observed, and this month has the lowest probabilities to offend.

Post-birth, we found a rebound effect, in which the probabilities of offending increase and

reach levels higher than before becoming a parent. The highest probabilities are recoded at

the end of the tracking period. For the models fitted, overall approximate significance tests

of smooth terms are provided. These tests are shown in Table 1. However, as Clark (2012)

notes, the tests should be interpreted with caution. For males, the overall test shows a non-

significant decline in offending probabilities pre-childbirth, whereas we found a significant

post-childbirth increase in offending (Table 1).

For high-risk females, although the monthly probabilities to offend remain low (ap-

proximately 2 %) during the entire observation period (Fig. 5b), a specific pattern around

childbirth is notable. At the beginning of the pre-birth period (for approximately

3–4 years), the probabilities to offend show a flat pattern (also see confidence intervals)

followed by a decline approximately 1.5 years before birth. The pregnancy period is

Fig. 5 Smoothed splines of criminal offending—The Netherlands

J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722 709

123

associated with the lowest probabilities to offend for females, and no noticeable shift is

observed at birth. The post-birth period is characterized by increases in the probabilities to

offend and, similar to the males, this increase was statistically significant (Table 1).

In addition, our models for the Dutch individuals included a set of observable char-

acteristics. The estimated parametric terms can be found in Table 2. The coefficient for

period shows a significant shift at time = 0 for males and a non-significant one for

females. In other words, for males, the likelihood to become involved in crime diminishes

by 40 % 7 at childbirth. Furthermore, youth offending remains a significant predictor of

later offending for both genders. In line with results from previous studies, marriage is

significantly associated with declines in the probabilities to offend for males, but no

significant effect is registered for females. Finally, having additional children significantly

reduces the likelihood to offend for both males and females.

Sample in Norway For the Norwegian sample, Fig. 6a, b presents the monthly probability

trends for the elevated-risk respondents. The monthly levels of offending are similar to the

ones in the Dutch sample (approximately 4 % for males and 2 % for females). For males,

most of the pre-pregnancy period is characterized by increases in the probabilities to

7 Percentage calculated as ((expb - 1) 9 100), where b represents the estimated coefficient.

Table 1 Overall approximate significance of smooth terms

Smooth terms The Netherlands Norway

Males Females Males Females

edf p value edf p value edf p value edf p value

Overall offending

Pre-birth 1.007 .103 3.322 .605 3.498 .027 4.392 .002

Post-birth 1.003 .000 1.133 .000 1.595 .063 1.351 .027

Property offending

Pre-birth 1.797 .134 1.018 .847 2.098 .055 3.751 .056

Post-birth 1.001 .101 1.042 .014 1.001 .005 1.769 .293

edf effective degrees of freedom

Table 2 Coefficients for the parametric predictors in GAMs (overall offending)

Variables The Netherlands Norway

Males Females Males Females

Intercept -8.426*** -10.581*** -5.534** -13.551***

Age 0.429** 0.407* 0.227* 0.375**

Age 2

-0.009** -0.009 -0.008** -0.009**

Period (before/after birth) -0.507* 1.156 0.394 2.891

Youth offending 0.645*** 0.503*** 0.533*** 1.739***

Marital status -0.586** -0.457 -0.401* 0.663**

Additional children -0.597* -0.651** 0.255* 0.021

Adjusted R 2

0.009 0.003 0.016 0.015

*** p \ .001; ** p \ .01; * p \ .05

710 J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722

123

offend, with the steepest increase in the first 1.5 years of the observation period. A slight

decline continues during the pregnancy, and no substantive shift is observed at childbirth.

A rebound effect occurs post-birth, and a gradually increasing path of offending is

observed for the remaining months. At the end of the observation period, males register the

highest probabilities to offend, with a point estimate close to 6 %. For the Norwegian

females, the trend is very similar to the Dutch one—a relatively flat line in the pre-

childbirth period with a small dune approximately 2 years before birth (although with

overlapping confidence intervals), followed by a more steep decline during pregnancy.

Although there is no actual shift in the probability of offending at childbirth, the post-

childbirth period provides slight increases in the probabilities of offending. An overall test

of the smoothing terms shows that the significant changes for males occur pre-birth,

whereas statistical significance for females is recorded both pre-birth and post-birth

(Table 1). However, the statistical significance post-birth for females should be interpreted

with caution.

The estimated coefficients of the covariates introduced in our GAMs for the Norwegian

respondents are presented in Table 2. For both Norwegian males and females, no signif-

icant shift in the offending trend was recorded in the month of childbirth. Youth delin-

quency was significantly associated with higher likelihoods of offending in adulthood for

both Norwegian males and females. Furthermore, marriage for both genders was associated

with significant changes in the likelihood of offending. Nevertheless, the direction of the

effects is opposite; males show lower probabilities to offend if married, whereas females

show higher probabilities to offend when married. Finally, having additional children

significantly increases the likelihood of offending for males.

Note that an extended model specification for this study included additional control for

incarceration periods. After concluding that incarceration does not represent a bias element

in the relationship investigated, we allowed for a clear comparability of the models and

presented results without controlling for incarceration. 8

Models for Property Offending

Although it was not a specific goal of the current study to analyze the timing of change in

criminal offending for specific types of offenses, results from the main analysis recording

overall offending showed increases in the probabilities to offend after entrance into par-

enthood. Because strain theory places an additional focus on increases in economic crime

related to parental strain, we performed additional analyses for property offenses as an

outcome.

Sample in the Netherlands For the Dutch high-risk males (Fig. 7a), the trend in property

crime shows a systematic decline of 1 % point prior to entrance into parenthood. However,

this decline remains non-significant (Table 1). With no significant shift in property

offending at childbirth, the probabilities to offend almost stabilize post-birth. For females

(Fig. 7b), the pre-birth period is characterized by a flat, low-leveled trend followed by

8 For all males (Dutch and Norwegian), incarceration had no influence on their criminal trends. For the

Norwegian females, we found a very small number of incarcerations spells, and models including incar- ceration failed to converge, whereas incarceration for the Dutch females only slightly reduced the peak in offending probabilities observed approximately 1.5 years before birth. However, it remained in the boundaries of the confidence interval and provided a minimum improvement to overall explained deviance. This result is not necessarily surprising, because both countries provide non-punitive penal policies with low incarceration rates and short incarceration periods.

J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722 711

123

slight increases post-birth. Although the post-birth increase reached the significance level

(Table 1), the test should be considered marginal. Nevertheless, at the end of the obser-

vation period, females register the highest probabilities to commit property offenses (ap-

proximately 1 % higher compared with the month of birth). The estimated coefficients of

all covariates introduced in our regression models for property offending are listed in

Table 3.

Sample in Norway For the Norwegian elevated-risk sample, the trends are slightly dif-

ferent. Males (Fig. 8a) show a slight increase in the probabilities to commit property

offenses until approximately 2 years pre-childbirth, followed by a relatively flat trend up to

childbirth. The post-childbirth period stands out because the probabilities of committing

property offenses increase steeply, and, at the end of the observation, they are approxi-

mately 3 % points higher compared with pre-birth months. The statistical test for the post-

Fig. 6 Smoothed splines of criminal offending—Norway

Fig. 7 Smoothed splines of property offending—The Netherlands

712 J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722

123

childbirth smoothing function confirms this increase because it reaches significance

(Table 1). For the Norwegian females (Fig. 8b) property offending probabilities remain

relatively low (approximately 1 %) during the entire observation period (with post-

childbirth probabilities never reaching pre-pregnancy levels). The estimated coefficients of

all covariates included in the property offending models are presented in Table 3.

Overall, the post-transition probabilities show an almost indistinguishable increasing

trend in property offending, with the exception of Norwegian males showing a systematic

post-birth increase.

A final observation is related to the magnitude of the observed changes. Compared to

previous studies, the base rate of offending in this observation window might appear low

(under 7 % for all groups investigated). Thus, the changes are of small magnitude in

absolute terms, and cannot be expected to be major drivers of the aggregate patterns of

desistance. On the other hand, these analyses are based on monthly measures to capture the

timing of changes in more detail, and the crime rates would have been larger in absolute

terms if we had used yearly measures. Thus, the level of offending is not quite trivial

either. However, the substantive meaning of these results is related to when changes occur

rather than the size of any causal effects. The results presented above might suggest that

Table 3 Coefficients for the parametric predictors in GAMs (property offending)

Variables The Netherlands Norway

Males Females Males Females

Intercept -9.579** -7.801* -12.945*** -11.930***

Age 0.354 0.260 0.877*** 0.178

Age 2

-0.007 -0.006 -0.023*** -0.005

Period (before/after birth) -0.851 -0.422 0.305 1.354

Youth offending 0.994*** 0.807*** 0.326 2.308***

Marital status -0.325 -0.794 0.301 1.189***

Additional children -0.889 -0.541 -0.025 0.131

Adjusted R 2

0.007 0.002 0.011 0.012

*** p \ .001; ** p \ .01; * p \ .05

Fig. 8 Smoothed splines of property offending—Norway

J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722 713

123

parenthood is not a major explanatory factor of desistance since the absolute changes are

low, and so is the initial level of offending. On the other hand, the core theoretical point is

related to tendencies in the timing of change rather than magnitude of effects, of which we

turn to in the next section.

Discussion

According to the age-graded theory of social control (Sampson and Laub 1993; Laub and

Sampson 2003), becoming a parent holds the potential to be a turning point in one’s

criminal involvement, promoting desistance. The causal nature of the relationship

described by Sampson and Laub implies that any decrease in offending should occur after

the transition to parenthood. Following the arguments of routine activity theorists (Cohen

and Felson 1979; Horney et al. 1995; Warr 1998), entrance into parenthood is expected to

diminish time spent with (deviant) peers and lead individuals toward a more conforming

lifestyle. However, changes in routine activities may occur immediately at birth for men

but at the time of pregnancy for women. A different perspective on change is given by the

theory of cognitive transformation, suggesting that parenthood may trigger changes in

offending but only if preceded by an internalized commitment to change leading to

desistance (Giordano et al. 2002). Hence, actual changes in offending should be visible

both before and after the transition. The related perspective on maturation (Maruna 2001)

implies that desistance occurs well ahead of the transition, and the transition itself remains

unrelated to crime. When contrasting these theories, we conclude that an important element

that sets theoretical predictions apart is the timing of change.

The main purpose of this study was to evaluate to what extent parenthood affects

criminal behavior consistent with existing theoretical assumptions. If parenthood affects on

offending, changes in criminal paths must be observed after childbirth. Any changes in

offending occurring before the transition to parenthood question the causal nature of the

parenthood-crime relationship. To investigate the timing of change in criminal trajectories

around entrance into parenthood, we analyzed a sample of at-risk individuals. Gender

differences in the timing of change were also studied. Additionally, to understand whether

effects and timing of change remain the same regardless of national contexts, we con-

ducted analyses in two different social settings: the Netherlands and Norway.

Results of the analyses showed that, for all at-risk individuals in our study (men or

women, Dutch or Norwegian), criminal involvement declined prior to becoming a parent

and even before pregnancy. These results are consistent with the findings of Monsbakken

et al. (2013) based on a general population sample in Norway. Unfortunately, we could not

identify other studies focusing on the timing of change around entrance into parenthood in

other social contexts or using different samples and methodologies. Additionally, our

results showed that respondents were least likely to offend in the month of childbirth.

However, after the birth of the first child, we registered increases in criminal involvement

during the entire remaining period. The post-transition trend showing increases in criminal

involvement is intriguing because many existing studies described an opposite relationship

between parenthood and crime (see Savolainen 2009; Kreager et al. 2010; Uggen and

Kruttschnitt 1998, Kerr et al. 2011). However, desistance may occur only in certain

conditions such as sharing a common household with the other parent, having the custody

of the child, or having a high quality parent–child relationship (Farrington and West 1995;

Ganem and Agnew 2007; Giordano et al. 2011). Because in this at-risk groups we cannot

714 J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722

123

be sure that such conditions were met, we can speculate that the increase in crime is

explained by the lack of a ‘desirable’ parental environment.

From a theoretical perspective, declines in criminal offending occurring before the

transition to parenthood tend to align with assumptions of the cognitive transformation

(Giordano et al. 2002) and maturation (Maruna 2001) frameworks because the early

changes might reflect ongoing processes and a readiness for change. However, the post-

transition pattern contradicts the expectancies of both mentioned theories. Becoming a

parent does not represent a hook-for-change in crime reduction, as the cognitive trans-

formation theory assumes. Additionally, because the personal commitment to change

observed pre-transition was not sufficiently strong to resist negative after-transition

transformations, nor do we find sufficient evidence to support the maturation hypothesis.

However, the patterns observed may be the result of a social selection process in which

individuals are more likely to enter parenthood at a moment of low criminal involvement

in their career. A different explanation of the short-term effect of parenthood on crime and

increases in criminal involvement after childbirth may be related to the age at which

individuals become parents. The study of Kerr et al. (2011) showed that ‘‘off-time’’

(young) and normative timing parenthood seem to be differently associated with crime. In

their study, the older the men were when becoming fathers, the stronger the decline in

crime. A different study conducted in the Netherlands (De Goede et al. 2011) for first time

parenthood showed similar results: the likelihood of criminal involvement for older fathers

is lower compared to the one for younger fathers, and, the younger the age of entering

parenthood, the higher the likelihood of offending. Although our study controlled for age

effects, we did not further interact fatherhood and age to understand how crime involve-

ment changes around entrance into parenthood for younger or older fathers. It may be that

the at-risk individuals in our study (known for experiencing unconventionally ordered

transitions) became parents at younger ages when autonomy from their own family of

origin is not fully gained and parenthood roles are not properly integrated.

Whereas our findings seem to support the assumption that parenthood leads to changes

in crime, the direction of change observed (increase in criminal involvement) is not

consistent with the one described by the turning point hypothesis (Sampson and Laub

1993). However, a consideration of the processes explaining observed trends may offer a

more nuanced interpretation of our results in the light of this hypothesis. If we consider the

role change (becoming a parent) as a determinant of a conforming lifestyle, then our

results indeed do not sustain the turning point assumption. However, this role change might

influence the manner in which spouses exert their direct social control. Because the

presence of a child can affect a romantic union in many ways (e.g., reduced emotional

support and attention for the partner), a spouse may decrease levels of social control and

reduce bonding, which in turn may lead to changes in daily routines that can be transposed

into crime.

The increase in criminal involvement post-childbirth is in line with the pattern described

by strain theory, and we can hypothesize that entrance into parenthood might be associated

with a sort of stress (Miller and Sollie 1980). Furthermore, it was stated that choosing to

resolve strain through crime might depend on the financial aspirations or difficulties of the

individuals (Lilly et al. 2002). Accordingly, a straightforward criminogenic reaction to

economic strain would then be transposed into engagement in property offenses (Broidy

and Agnew 1997; Daly 1998; Giordano et al. 2002, 2011; Wakefield and Uggen 2004).

With the exception of Norwegian males, results show only minor increases in the proba-

bilities to commit property offenses. Furthermore, when comparing trends for each indi-

vidual subgroup analyzed, we observed that a considerable part of the increases in overall

J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722 715

123

offending remains unexplained by involvement in property offending. However, before

concluding that criminal conduct is not the product of strain resulting only in economic

offenses, future studies should focus particularly on employment participation and how this

participation diminishes the financial burden related to parenthood. Moreover, other

offences generating income (e.g., drug dealing) should also be considered. Increases in

crime after childbirth may also be explained by the fact that parenthood causes individuals

to spend more time within the family and, as a result, facilitates occurrences of domestic

violence. Unfortunately, the available registered data were limited in providing informa-

tion on domestic violence. Overall, our results suggest that financial strain is not the only

possible process explaining the crime-amplifying effects of parenthood.

A specific focus of this study was to identify possible abrupt changes in the daily

activities related to entrance into parenthood. As hypothesized by the routine activity

theory (Cohen and Felson 1979), a major shift in offending should occur immediately after

childbirth, and an overall declining path should follow thereafter. With the exception of

high-risk Dutch males, we did not identify a significant shift in offending probabilities in

the month of childbirth. Nevertheless, even for the Dutch males, the estimated coefficient

for the shift was only marginally significant. Moreover, for all groups analyzed, the post-

childbirth period was characterized by increases in probabilities to offend. Similar con-

clusions can be extracted when analyzing the splines for property offenses, with a note that

in this case, no marked shift was evidenced at birth for any of the groups.

Starting from the assumption that the experience of parenthood is different for men and

women, we expected to see gender differences in criminal trends (Giordano et al. 2011).

Whereas for Dutch males signs of change occurred long before entrance into parenthood

(from 5 years before childbirth), the changes in offending for Dutch females seem to be in a

closer relationship with parenthood anticipation because declines start approximately

1.5 years before birth. One may think that anticipation and planning for these high-risk

females might seem unreal. We argue that this impression is not necessarily accurate because

these high-risk females grew up in a contemporary Western society, and even for them, a

reasonable level of birth control exists. Thus, a preparation of up to 1 year ahead of a

pregnancy is perhaps not unusual. The earlier change among men could also be related to the

Dutch criminal justice system, which tends to provide a milder treatment for females (Wartna

and Tollenaar 2006). Dutch males may be more aware of the long-term negative conse-

quences of their criminal conduct. However, particularly for high-risk men, it is unlikely that

this awareness relates directly to preparation for parenthood. We interpret this awareness

more as a maturation process (growing out of crime) for individuals with intense criminal

activity in their teenage years. The post-birth period is characterized by gradual increases in

the probabilities to offend for both males and females, and, although the magnitude of

increase differs by gender, the increase is proportional to the overall involvement in crime for

each group (and is lower for females). In the Norwegian elevated-risk sample, both genders

display the strongest decline in offending trends approximately 1.5 years before birth.

Similarities in the desistance process could be related to the fact that the Norwegian social

system ensures stronger gender equality with respect to parenthood (e.g., parental leave

obligatory for both males and females, stimulation of female employment through advan-

tageous childcare services). The post-childbirth crime trends in the Norwegian sample show

more-visible gender differences. Whereas the analysis for males shows an increasing trend in

crime, the probabilities for females to offend show only a minor increase and remain at a

lower level compared with the pre-birth period. In other words, for Norwegian elevated-risk

females, the beneficial effects of motherhood are visible over the long term, whereas for

Norwegian elevated-risk males, the motivation for change is only temporary. Interestingly, a

716 J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722

123

previous Norwegian study (Monsbakken et al. 2013) showed that the rebound effect around

the first childbirth is stronger for females than for males as in our case. However, we have no

particular reason to expect that the patterns should be similar because the sample analyzed by

Monsbakken and colleagues (general population) differs from the one in this study (at-risk

individuals—with problematic backgrounds and increased risk of recidivism).

With respect to social context differences, elements can be additionally discussed. Pre-

birth trends for females are relatively similar across countries. However, entrance into

parenthood seems to be related to a slightly stronger rebound for high-risk Dutch females.

The process of desistance for high-risk males seems to have a different starting moment—

at least 5 years before childbirth for Dutch respondents, whereas for Norwegian respon-

dents, changes appear approximately 1.5 years before childbirth. With the awareness of

considerable state support (Norway provides considerably more advantageous parental

packages compared with the Netherlands), elevated-risk males in Norway are less forced to

adopt a non-criminal lifestyle to prepare themselves for adult life, including parental

responsibilities. Nevertheless, these male differences observed across countries might be

the result of unobserved dissimilarities between groups. The institutionalized individuals in

the Dutch sample may be a group of more frequent youth offenders who reached their

crime peak in adolescence and thereafter gradually move away from crime. The post-birth

male trends show no differences across countries, strengthening the evidence that father-

hood does not offer sufficient motivation for change in the long term. In the context of

different social benefits across countries (Savolainen et al. 2001), the results for male

property offending remain puzzling. Because the Norwegian system is more generous

concerning parental benefits (Gauthier 2014), we would not expect increases in property

offending rates to be stronger for Norwegian males. A possible explanation for this pattern

is that involvement in property crime represents an individual aiming for material success

rather than a direct result of poverty.

Limitations of the Study

Although this study offers new insights into the relationship between parenthood and criminal

offending, a number of discussion points and limitations should be addressed. First, a causal

association between parenthood and criminal involvement cannot be claimed in this study.

However, causal estimation was not a study aim. Without any pretentions of causality, we

offered an analysis of specific timings of change in relation to entrance into parenthood and

assessed whether the theoretical predictions fit the observable patterns. The strength of our

study is that it provides a nuanced picture of what is to be explained and of how well these

patterns provide support for the dominant theoretical approaches in the literature.

Second, although the matching samples procedure aimed to create similar groups across

countries, we could only match on a limited number of variables, which is most likely

typical for comparative studies; nonetheless, the limited number remains an issue. Most

likely one of the first variables to be considered in constructing the Norwegian sample was

supposed to be youth institutionalization. Unfortunately, we did not have access in the

Norwegian data to information on youth rehabilitation programs. For this reason, we

matched individuals on other characteristics considered reflective of an at-risk sample.

However, although we consider the matching imperfect, the fact that we found reasonably

similar patterns in two potentially different at-risk groups, in different contextual settings,

indicates a sort of generality in the patterns observed.

J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722 717

123

Third, register data used for this study are limited in providing information on quali-

tative aspects of the family relationship, which might be important for the effect of par-

enthood on crime. As some authors noted, reduction in crime related to entrance into

parenthood should be nuanced by a high-quality relationship (Ganem and Agnew 2007) or

assume daily childrearing responsibilities (Yule et al. 2014; Kerr et al. 2011). The rebound

found in our study might result from a majority of families not having such qualities. To

explain further, additional information on the type of parent–child relationship is needed

because for at-risk individuals (men in particular), the parent–child relationship might be a

non-ideal one (e.g., parent–child relationship of poor quality or non-existent). Moreover,

there is the issue of whether registered crimes correspond to the true crimes committed. It

is possible that actual offending drops substantially in the post-birth period but that this is

unobserved because the outcome captures only criminal adjudication. A previous study

conducted by Kerr et al. (2011) highlighted differences between self-reported and official

arrests and found that fatherhood reduced self-reported crime but official arrests remained

unrelated to fatherhood. Clearly, future studies should introduce a mixed method design

including both self-reports and official registrations on criminal behavior in order to

capture ‘real’ changes in criminal development.

Fourth, in the context of Western societies in which family relationships have become less

standardized (Elzinga and Liefbroer 2007), the linkage between parenthood and crime might

depend upon relationship configuration (e.g., married, cohabiting or dating the biological

father). Unfortunately for this study, only information on marital status was available. Future

research should consider a broad range of intimate configurations. Next to this, the gender gap

in crime should address elements of legal and social sanctioning such as loss of custody or

parental rights, social assistance, housing, or unemployment to obtain a clearer understanding

of the processes describing the effects of parenthood on crime. Furthermore, the effect of

parenthood on criminal trajectories must be studied in relation with existing cultural norms

highlighting the normative ages of entering parenthood (in different social contexts and for

each gender) and how at-risk individuals differ from these norms.

Finally, the use of an at-risk sample may be considered a limitation because it is a non-

random sample, which restrains the possibility to generalize results. For this reason, a

replication of a similar design on general population samples is necessary. However, the

analysis of disadvantaged groups is common in criminology and has advantages. First,

change in offending is most relevant for those having reached a reasonable threshold of

offending (Laub and Sampson 2003, p. 22), making at-risk groups of substantive interest.

Second, individuals associated with troubled backgrounds, youth misconduct, and delin-

quency have been later registered as high-risk career criminals (Lynam 1996) and serious

offenders (van der Geest and Bijleveld 2008) and represent a serious social and economic

problem (Cohen and Piquero 2009). Thus, an understanding of the factors that can lead to a

discontinuation of criminal offending in adult life for these individuals is of major

importance for criminal policy and practice.

Concluding Remarks

This study is not the first one to show a rebound in offending after the transition to

parenthood. A previous study conducted in Norway on a general population sample

showed a similar V-shaped pattern around childbirth (Monsbakken et al. 2013). Several

other Western European studies identified comparable rebounds for other life-course

718 J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722

123

transitions such as marriage (Lyngstad and Skardhamar 2013; Beijers et al. 2012) and

employment (Skardhamar and Savolainen 2014; van der Geest et al. 2015). In contrast to

the above-mentioned European studies, some US studies found no rebound in offending

after the transition to parenthood (Kreager et al. 2010) or marriage (Laub et al. 1998;

Duncan et al. 2006). This discrepancy in results could be explained by cultural differences

between the US and Western European contexts. However, a more sober interpretation is

that the evidence is too scarce to settle the issue. Our study provides additional support to

the notion that timing of change should be investigated more closely.

Taken together with the mentioned European studies, our results indicate that life-

course transitions are not followed by a decline in offending. The observed decline starts

earlier and tends to be limited to a relatively short time interval. This does not necessarily

mean that parenthood and other life-course transitions do not affect crime but that the type

of causal effect must be considered more closely. Such results suggest that life-course

events such as employment, marriage and parenthood do not initiate desistance. However,

for a short period, they seem to sustain an ongoing desistance process initiated in a

previous phase in life. Another possibility to be considered is whether the counterfactual

outcome (not becoming a parent) would have caused an even greater increase in crime. If

so, parenthood could still have a negative causal effect on crime, despite the observed

rebound. This result could be considered a dampening effect on criminal propensity but not

one leading to desistance. Initiation, sustaining and dampening effects might all be causal

but reflect different social processes related to timing. An important task of future life-

course criminological research is to differentiate such processes clearly and to obtain more-

detailed empirical work and theoretical specifications of operant mechanisms.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Inter- national License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

References

Agnew R (1992) Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology 30:47–87 Agnew R (2006) Pressured into crime: an overview of general strain theory. Roxbury, Los Angeles Beijers JEH, Bijleveld CCJH, van Poppel F (2012) ‘Man’s best possession’: period effects in the association

between marriage and offending. Eur J Criminol 9:425–441 Berk R, Brown L, Buja A, George E, Pitkin E, Zhang K, Zhao L (2014) Misspecified mean function

regression: making good use of regression models that are wrong. Sociol Methods Res 43:422–451 Bersani B, Laub J, Nieuwbeerta P (2009) Marriage and desistance from crime in the Netherlands: do gender

and socio-historical context matter? J Quant Criminol 25:3–24 Billari FC, Liefbroer AC (2010) Towards a new pattern of transition to adulthood? Adv Life Course Res

15:59–75 Bjerk D (2009) How much can we trust causal interpretations of fixed-effects estimators in the context of

criminality? J Quant Criminol 25:391–417 Blokland AAJ, Nieuwbeerta P (2005) The effects of life circumstances on longitudinal trajectories of

offending. Criminology 43:1203–1240 Broidy L, Agnew R (1997) Gender and crime: a general strain theory perspective. J Res Crime Delinq

34:275–306 Clark M (2012) Generalized additive models. Getting started with additive models in R. Center for Social

Research, University of Notre Dame. http://www3.nd.edu/*mclark19/learn/GAMS.pdf Cohen LE, Felson M (1979) Social-change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. Am Sociol

Rev 44:588–608

J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722 719

123

Cohen MA, Piquero AR (2009) New evidence on the monetary value of saving a high risk youth. J Quant Criminol 25:25–49

Corman H, Noonan K, Reichman NE, Schwartz-Soicher O (2011) Life shocks and crime: a test of the ‘‘Turning Point’’ hypothesis. Demography 48:1177–1202

Cowdery RS, Knudson-Martin C (2005) The construction of motherhood: tasks, relational connection, and gender equality. Fam Relat 54:335–345

Daly K (1998) Women’s pathways to felony court: feminist theories of lawbreaking and problems of representation. In: Daly K, Maher L (eds) Criminology at the crossroads: feminist readings in crime and justice. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 135–154

De Goede S, Blokland AAJ, Nieuwbeerta P (2011) Parenthood and crime: the effects of having a first child on criminal career development [Ouderschap en crimineel gedrag: het effect van het krijgen van een eerste kind op de ontwikkeling van crimineel gedrag]. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie 53:3–22

Duncan GJ, Wilkerson B, England P (2006) Cleaning up their act: the effects of marriage and cohabitation on licit and illicit drug use. Demography 43:691–710

Edin K, Kefalas M (2005) Promises I can keep: why poor women put motherhood before marriage. University of California Press, Oakland

Edin K, Nelson TJ, Paranal R (2004) Fatherhood and incarceration as potential turning points in the criminal careers of unskilled men. In: Pattillo M, Weiman D, Western B (eds) Imprisoning America: the social effects of mass incarceration. Russel Sage Foundation, New York, pp 46–75

Elzinga CH, Liefbroer AC (2007) De-standardization of family-life trajectories of young adults: a cross- national comparison using sequence analysis. Eur J Popul-Revue Europeenne De Demographie 23:225–250

Farrington DP, West DJ (1995) Effects of marriage, separation, and children on offending by adult males. In: Hagan J (ed) Current perspectives on aging and the life cycle, vol 4. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 249–281

Feeney J (2001) Becoming parents: exploring the bonds between mothers, fathers, and their infants. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Ganem NM, Agnew R (2007) Parenthood and adult criminal offending: the importance of relationship quality. J Crim Justice 35:630–643

Gauthier AH (2014) Van voorloper tot achterblijver; 100 jaar zwangerschapsverlof in Nederland [From precursor to laggard; 100 years of maternity leave in The Netherlands]. Demos: bulletin over bevolking en samenleving 30(9):1–4

Giordano PC, Cernkovich SA, Rudolph JL (2002) Gender, crime, and desistance: toward a theory of cognitive transformation. Am J Sociol 107:990–1064

Giordano PC, Seffrin PM, Manning WD, Longmore MA (2011) Parenthood and crime: the role of want- edness, relationships with partners, and ses. J Crim Justice 39:405–416

Graham J, Bowling B (1995) Young people and crime. Home Office Research Study, 145, London Horney J, Osgood DW, Marshall IH (1995) Criminal careers in the short-term: intraindividual variability in

crime and its relation to local life circumstances. Am Sociol Rev 60:655–673 Kerr DC, Capaldi DM, Owen LD, Wiesner M, Pears KC (2011) Changes in at-risk American men’s crime

and substance use trajectories following fatherhood. J Marriage Fam 73:1101–1116 Kiernan K (2004) Unmarried cohabitation and parenthood in Britain and Europe. Law Policy 26:33–55 King RD, Massoglia M, MacMillan R (2007) The context of marriage and crime: gender, the propensity to

marry, and offending in early adulthood. Criminology 45:33–65 Kreager DA, Matsueda R, Erosheva EA (2010) Motherhood and criminal desistance in disadvantaged

neighborhoods. Criminology 48:221–258 Kruttschnitt C (1996) Contributions of quantitative methods to the study of gender and crime, or boot-

strapping our way into the theoretical thicket. J Quant Criminol 12:135–161 Laub JH, Sampson RJ (2003) Shared beginnings, divergent lives: delinquent boys to age 70. Harvard

University Press, Cambridge Laub JH, Nagin DS, Sampson RJ (1998) Trajectories of change in criminal offending: good marriages and

the desistance process. Am Sociol Rev 63:225–238 Lilly JR, Cullen FT, Ball RA (2002) Criminological theory: context and consequences, 3rd edn. Thousand

Oaks, Sage Publications, CA Lynam DR (1996) Early identification of chronic offenders: who are the fledgling psychopaths? Psychol

Bull 120:209–234 Lyngstad TH, Skardhamar T (2011) Nordic register data and their untapped potential for criminological

knowledge. Crime Justice 40:613–645 Lyngstad TH, Skardhamar T (2013) Changes in criminal offending around the time of marriage. J Res Crime

Delinq. doi:10.1177/002242781246951

720 J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722

123

Maruna S (2001) Making good: how ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. American Psychological Association Books, Washington, DC

Massoglia M, Uggen C (2010) Settling down and aging out: toward an interactionist theory of desistance and the transition to adulthood. Am J Sociol 116:543–582

Miller BC, Sollie DL (1980) Normal stresses during the transition to parenthood. Fam Relat 29:459–465 Monsbakken CW, Lyngstad TH, Skardhamar T (2013) Crime and the transition to parenthood: the role of

sex and relationship context. Br J Criminol 53:129–148 Osgood DW, Lee H (1993) Leisure activities, age, and adult roles across the lifespan. Soc Leis 16:181–208 Osgood DW, Wilson JK, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Johnston LD (1996) Routine activities and individual

deviant behavior. Am Sociol Rev 61:635–655 Paternoster R, Bushway S (2009) Desistance and the feared self: towards an identity theory of criminal

desistance. J Crim Law Criminol 99:1103–1156 Perelli-Harris B, Kreyenfeld M, Sigle-Rushton W, Keizer R, Lappegard T, Jasilioniene A, Berghammer C,

Di Giulio P (2012) Changes in union status during the transition to parenthood in eleven European countries, 1970s to early 2000s. Popul Stud J Demogr 66:167–182

Rhule-Louie DM, McMahon RJ (2007) Problem behavior and romantic relationships: assortative mating, behavior contagion, and desistance. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev 10:53–100

Ross CE, Huber J (1985) Hardship and depression. J Health Soc Behav 26:312–327 Sampson RJ, Laub JH (1993) Crime in the making: pathways and turning points through life. Harvard

University Press, Cambridge Sampson RJ, Laub JH (2003) Life-course desisters? trajectories of crime among delinquent boys followed to

age 70. Criminology 41:555–592 Sampson RJ, Laub JH, Wimer C (2006) Does marriage reduce crime? a counterfactual approach to within-

individual causal effects. Criminology 44:465–508 Savolainen J (2009) Work, family and criminal desistance. Br J Criminol 49:285–304 Savolainen J, Lahelma E, Gauthier AH, Silventoinen K (2001) Parenthood and psychological well-being in

Finland: does public policy make a difference? J Comp Fam Stud 32:61–74 Shannon SKS, Abrams LS (2007) Juvenile offenders as fathers: perceptions of fatherhood, crime, and

becoming an adult. Fam Soc J Contemp Soc Serv 88:183–191 Skardhamar T, Savolainen J (2014) Changes in criminal offending around the time of job entry: a study of

employment and desistance. Criminology 52:263–291 Skardhamar T, Savolainen J, Aase KN, Lyngstad TH (2015). Does marriage reduce crime? a review of

research. Crime and Just 44:385–557 Sobotka T (2008) The diverse faces of the second demographic transition in Europe. Demogr Res

19:171–224 Theobald D, Farrington DP (2009) Effects of getting married on offending results from a prospective

longitudinal survey of males. Eur J Criminol 6:496–516 Thevenon O (2011) Family policies in OECD countries: a comparative analysis. Popul Dev Rev 37:57–87 Thompson M, Petrovic M (2009) Gendered transitions: within-person changes in employment, family, and

illicit drug use. J Res Crime Delinq 46:377–408 Thornberry TP, Wei EH, Stouthamer-Loeber M, Van Dyke J (2000) Teenage fatherhood and delinquent

behavior. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Office of Justice Programs—Youth Development Series, NCJ: 178899

Uggen C, Kruttschnitt C (1998) Crime in the breaking: gender differences in desistance. Law Soc Rev 32:339–366

van der Geest V, Bijleveld C (2008) Personal, background and treatment characteristics associated with offending after residential treatment: a 13-year follow up in adolescent males. Psychol Crime Law 14:159–176

van der Geest V, Blokland A, Bijleveld C (2009) Delinquent development in a sample of high-risk youth: shape, content, and predictors of delinquent trajectories from age 12 to 32. J Res Crime Delinq 46:111–143

van der Geest V, Skardhamar T, Verbruggen J (2015) Changes in offending around official labor market entry: vulnerable youths in transition to adulthood. In: van der Geest V, Blokland A (eds) Routledge handbook of life-course criminology. Routledge, New York

Wakefield S, Uggen C (2004) Having a kid changes everything? the effects of parenthood on subsequent crime. Unpublished article (downloaded Sept. 2013). http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_ research_citation/1/0/9/5/6/pages109560/p109560-1.php

Warr M (1998) Life-course transitions and desistance from crime. Criminology 36:183–216 Wartna BSJ, Tollenaar N (2006). Substitution of non-suspended imprisonment in cases of minimal

recidivism risk: estimating potential cut backs in prison capacity [Substitutie van onvoorwaardelijke

J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722 721

123

vrijheidsstraffen bij gering recidivegevaar: een raming van de te besparen gevangeniscapaciteit]. Wetenschappelijk Onderzoeken Documentatiecentrum, WODC-recidivestudies, Fact sheet 10

Wood SN (2003) Thin plate regression splines. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Stat Methodol) 65:95–114 Wood S (2006) Generalized additive models: an introduction with R. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton Yule C, Pare PP, Gartner R (2014) An examination of the local life circumstances of female offenders:

Mothering, illegal earnings, and drug use. Brit J Criminol 55:248–269 Zimmerman TS, Haddock SA, Ziemba S, Rust A (2001) Family organizational labor: who’s calling the

plays? J Fem Fam Ther 13:65–90 Zoutewelle-Terovan M, van der Geest V, Liefbroer AC, Bijleveld C (2012) Criminality and family for-

mation: effects of marriage and parenthood on criminal behavior for men and women. Crime Delinq. doi:10.1177/0011128712441745

722 J Quant Criminol (2016) 32:695–722

123

Journal of Quantitative Criminology is a copyright of Springer, 2016. All Rights Reserved.