A Taste of Prison: A Study on the Relationship between Food Satisfaction and Experienced Severity of Imprisonment

Abstract

This study explored the relationship between prison food satisfaction and experienced severity of imprisonment (ESI). Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to verify distinct food satisfaction aspects, and regression analyses were estimated to examine their association with ESI. The findings revealed a negative relationship between food satisfaction and ESI, particularly for satisfaction with food choice and variety, highlighting food as a key domain through which incarcerated persons experience autonomy, dignity, and deprivation. Expanding food-related autonomy may help mitigate the burdens of imprisonment. Integrating food policy into wider institutional strategies may offer a promising avenue for promoting humane and rehabilitative correctional environments.

Keywords

prison food food satisfaction food choice severity of imprisonment punishment

Introduction

Every year, nearly 30,000 people are imprisoned in the Netherlands (Statistics Netherlands, 2024). Although most prison stays are generally short, the experience of imprisonment can have lasting effects on well-being and behavior, both during incarceration and after release (Boone et al., 2016). Research on the experienced severity of imprisonment (ESI) shows that about 60% of incarcerated persons perceive their imprisonment as severe or very severe (Raaijmakers et al., 2014). Prison sentences, especially harsher ones, are often thought (or meant) to deter (re)offending, an idea grounded in deterrence theory. However, the extent to which this is achieved remains debatable. Several studies suggest that harsher prison conditions may actually increase the likelihood of reoffending (Chen & Shapiro, 2007; Drago et al., 2011). Moreover, there are clear disadvantages to high severity of imprisonment. Quantitative research has linked negative experiences and more severe behavioral sanctions to increased rates of misconduct in prison (Međedović et al., 2024; Yasrebi-de Kom et al., 2023), which, in turn, are associated with poorer post-release outcomes (Cochran et al., 2012).

Several studies have examined how prison conditions and aspects of the prison climate relate to ESI (Raaijmakers et al., 2014; Van Ginneken et al., 2018); however, the role of prison food has received little attention. Notably, Van Ginneken et al. (2018) found that food satisfaction ranked lowest among all dimensions of the prison climate, suggesting it may be a particularly relevant aspect of daily prison life. The central role of food in shaping the prison experience is underscored by a growing body of qualitative research (Johnson et al., 2024). Furthermore, Sexton (2015) found that dissatisfaction with prison food is often perceived as an extension of punishment, with poor-quality meals symbolizing the staff's refusal to acknowledge incarcerated persons’ humanity. Similarly, studies have shown that the inability to choose what, when, and how to eat was considered a constant reminder of their degraded status and loss of agency (Blore, 2011; Collica, 2010; Comfort, 2008).

Despite these findings, the relationship between food satisfaction and ESI has not been studied quantitatively. While qualitative research highlights negative food experiences as an additional form of punishment, quantitative studies on ESI have focused on other prison conditions. This study aims to bridge this gap by integrating quantitative approaches to ESI with qualitative insights from prison food research, thereby exploring how satisfaction with prison food relates to incarcerated persons’ perceptions of the severity of their imprisonment. In doing so, this study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of how food shapes the carceral experience. These insights may inform more humane and effective food policies, with the potential to improve prison conditions and reduce the adverse effects of incarceration.

Experienced Severity of Imprisonment

Although research on ESI remains limited, several studies have identified factors that shape how incarcerated persons perceive their sentence. The level of ESI varied across prisons, units, and regimes. For example, sentenced individuals reported lower severity than those in pretrial detention, while those in extra care units reported the highest ESI (Van Ginneken et al., 2018). More broadly, aspects of the prison climate, such as autonomy, safety, treatment by staff, and access to social contacts or meaningful activities, were negatively associated with ESI (Raaijmakers et al., 2014). These findings suggest that a more positive prison climate may buffer against the psychological strain of imprisonment.

Individual differences such as age, ethnic or migration background, and social ties have also been linked to ESI. Older incarcerated persons and those with a non-white or migration background were found to rate their imprisonment as more severe (Crank & Brezina, 2013; Raaijmakers et al., 2014). Conventional ties with society play a role as well; for example, individuals with a partner (Crank & Brezina, 2013; Crouch, 1993) reported higher ESI than those without such ties. Conversely, prior incarceration has been associated with lower ESI (Crank & Brezina, 2013; Crouch, 1993; Yasrebi-de Kom et al., 2024).

Food Satisfaction

Food satisfaction is a multifaceted concept that goes beyond basic liking or acceptance, as often assessed in consumer research (Cardello et al., 2000). While underexplored in prison settings, it is frequently studied in other institutions, such as hospitals, schools, and the military, where sensory experience is the most commonly examined food dimension. This includes appearance, odor, taste, texture, and mouth feel (e.g., Andersen & Hyldig, 2015; Tuorila, 2007), with temperature also playing a critical role (Sari & Sunarti, 2024). In addition, food satisfaction involves psychological and physical responses. The psychological dimension includes enjoyment and alignment with personal needs and expectations, while physical aspects relate to perceived healthiness, satiety, and energy (Andersen & Hyldig, 2015). Choice, variety, and food presentation (e.g., packaging) are also important contributors to satisfaction (Cardello, 1996; Spence et al., 2022).

Although rarely quantified in prison studies, qualitative research has increasingly explored incarcerated persons’ food experiences, primarily in relation to broader aspects of prison life, such as power dynamics, punishment, identity, and health (Woods-Brown et al., 2023). Nevertheless, several dimensions of food satisfaction have been observed in the prison context. For example, sensory dissatisfaction is common: incarcerated persons express frustration with sensory aspects of prison food: ready-made or convenience-style meals are often described as unappetizing in appearance, with poor taste and unpleasant texture, such as being overcooked or excessively chewy (De Graaf & Kilty, 2016; Gibson-Light, 2018; Smoyer & Lopes, 2017; Struthers Montford, 2023; Wilson, 2023).

Prison meals have also been found to negatively affect the psychological aspects of food satisfaction. When food fails to meet individuals’ expectations or needs, incarcerated persons often report a loss of control, autonomy, and individuality (Godderis, 2006b). Several studies have described how food that is perceived as poor in quality can be experienced as degrading (De Graaf & Kilty, 2016; Struthers Montford, 2023) or punitive in nature (Smoyer & Lopes, 2017). Conversely, positively perceived meals may help mitigate the constant reminder of their diminished status as ‘prisoners’ (Blore, 2011; Collica, 2010; Comfort, 2008; De Graaf & Kilty, 2016).

Physical aspects of food satisfaction have also emerged as a source of concern among incarcerated persons. Poor nutritional quality of prison food was reported to negatively impact their energy levels and physical fitness, contributing to overall dissatisfaction (Harner & Riley, 2013), but only by those who valued health and nutrition (Avieli, 2023; Condon et al., 2008). Additionally, insufficient portions were found to be a general problem (Smoyer, 2016; Vanhouche, 2015; Williams et al., 2009), especially for those unable to purchase supplementary food from the canteen (Gibson-Light, 2018; Struthers Montford, 2023).

A lack of variety is another prominent source of dissatisfaction, which is frequently described as harsh, punitive, and even painful (Godderis, 2006a; Harner & Riley, 2013; Pageau et al., 2021; Struthers Montford, 2023; Vanhouche, 2015; Wilson, 2023). Similarly, limited choice or influence in what or how they eat is a common source of frustration for incarcerated persons (Vanhouche et al., 2018; Williams et al., 2009). In contrast, more autonomy (for example, through self-catering) can enhance agency and mitigate feelings of symbolic degradation (Blore, 2011; Comfort, 2008; Minke, 2014).

Although temperature and food presentation or packaging are common themes in consumer food satisfaction research, they remain underexplored in prison contexts. However, other factors have been identified. Incarcerated persons from minority backgrounds often report lower satisfaction, particularly when meals fail to reflect their cultural food preferences (Godderis, 2006a; Vanhouche et al., 2018; Williams et al., 2009; Wilson, 2023). Dissatisfaction is also noted when meals do not meet religious dietary requirements, such as halal, kosher, or vegetarian options (Godderis, 2006a; Struthers Montford, 2023). These findings suggest that neglecting cultural or religious dietary needs may reduce food satisfaction for incarcerated persons from non-native backgrounds.

The Current Study

Although the relationship between prison food satisfaction and ESI has not been directly studied, several qualitative studies suggest that food experiences shape how incarceration is experienced. For incarcerated persons, nutritionally inadequate, unappetizing, or insufficient meals can evoke feelings of frustration, humiliation, and neglect, exacerbating the emotional burden of imprisonment (Struthers Montford, 2023) and serving as an extension of their punishment (Sexton, 2015). Similarly, Smoyer and Lopes (2017) found, “Participants constructed prison food and related activities as an unsavory and punishing dimension of prison life.” (p. 250). Restrictive conditions around accessing, preparing, and consuming food were seen as punitive due to limited agency, privacy, autonomy, and cultural expression (Blore, 2011; Chatterjee & Chatterjee, 2018; Collica, 2010; Comfort, 2008; Smoyer & Lopes, 2017). Because prison food plays a central role in shaping incarcerated persons’ experiences (Johnson et al., 2024; Woods-Brown et al., 2023), and inadequate food can be perceived as degrading and punitive, a negative relationship between food satisfaction and ESI is hypothesized. Yet, this relationship has not been directly examined.

This study addresses this gap by exploring the relationship between prison food satisfaction and ESI, guided by two research questions: 1. What is the relationship between overall food satisfaction and ESI? and 2. How are different dimensions of food satisfaction related to ESI? The study uses survey data from 3,400 incarcerated persons across all 29 Dutch prisons. To account for variation in how imprisonment is experienced, analyses control for individual characteristics, such as age, gender, cultural identity, prior incarceration, and access to self-catering (Crank & Brezina, 2013; Raaijmakers et al., 2014), and institutional factors (regime type and food supplier), as these may affect food quality and broader prison experiences.

The Dutch Context

Until recently, prison food in the Netherlands mainly consisted of poor-tasting, ready-made meals served in black plastic containers, colloquially referred to as the “black box”, with limited quality, variety, or autonomy. In 2022, a new contract introduced three suppliers for the northern, central, and southern regions of the country. Four different meal types were available to incarcerated persons: three hot meal options and a breakfast/lunch package. The breakfast/lunch package and two options of hot meals were offered by the food supplier (a ready-made meal and an ingredient package). The third hot meal option was a self-catered meal, prepared using ingredients bought in the prison canteen. The availability of the ingredient box and access to cooking facilities varied by regime, with fewer opportunities in pre-trial units, where the ingredient box was often unavailable; and limited recreational time further restricted self-catering options (Groeneveld et al., 2025). These differences may affect food satisfaction, as not all incarcerated persons equally value self-catering (De Heide & Ramakers, 2024). Although all suppliers followed the same meal structure, they had discretion over sourcing and composition, resulting in differences in quality, quantity, and variety. Research by Nieuwbeerta et al. (2025) showed that satisfaction differed across the three suppliers, suggesting that the characteristics of the food itself play an important role therein.

The Dutch prison system consists of several regimes, each with different purposes, restrictions, and daily routines. Pre-trial units, for those awaiting trial, involve more restrictions and less recreational time. Prison units house sentenced individuals and provide greater access to reintegration, recreation, and self-catering. Extra care units serve vulnerable individuals with psychological needs, while persistent offender units offer intensive rehabilitation for those with repeat convictions and complex life problems.

Method

Data

This investigation utilized data from the Dutch Life in Custody (LIC) (see Van Ginneken et al., 2018) and Food in Custody (FIC) studies, using the Prison Climate Questionnaire (PCQ) (see Beijersbergen, 2016; Bosma et al., 2020) and FIC questionnaire (see Nieuwbeerta et al., 2025). Data were collected between January and April 2024 as part of a joint project. Research staff spent one week in each of the 29 prisons, during which all incarcerated persons who could be approached were invited to participate. This included both men and women across various regimes. The study's purpose, methods, use of data, participants’ rights, and informed consent were explained verbally. Those who agreed received two paper questionnaires to complete by the end of the week, when they were collected. Participation was voluntary, and participants could withdraw at any stage of the research. Approval for this study was obtained from Leiden University's Ethics and Data Committee. The procedure of this study is like that of the LIC study from previous years (For more information, see Van Ginneken et al. (2018). More information on the FIC-study can be found in the article by Nieuwbeerta et al. (2025).

Sample

During the data collection period, 8,710 persons were incarcerated across the 29 prisons. Of those, 2,511persons could not be approached due to a variety of circumstances; 895 (10.3%) were transferred or released, 388 (4.5%) were occupied with work or other activities, 98 (1.1%) were placed in isolation cells, 553 (6.1%) had language difficulties, 77 (0.9%) had behavioral or mental health issues, 107 (1.2%) because staff deemed it unsafe, 106 (1.2%) due to time constraints, and 287 (3.3%) for other reasons. The remaining 6,199 (71.4%) were invited to participate. Among them, 1,136 (18.3%) declined, 119 (1.9%) lacked time, 108 (1.7%) did not trust research, 47 (0.8%) were about to be released, and 612 (9.9%) gave other reasons. This resulted in 4,177 participants (67.4% response rate). For this study, both the LIC and FIC questionnaires were used; participants who completed only one were excluded.

In total, 3,727 participants (42.8% of the prison population) completed both questionnaires and were included. Some regimes, such as terrorist (0.5%) and minimum security units (0.8%), differ substantially in daily schedules, especially in regard to recreational time, making comparison difficult. Due to both their distinctiveness and small sample sizes, four regimes were excluded (95 participants): Minimum Security (0.8%), Terrorist (0.5%), Intensive Supervision (0.8%), and units for people with difficult to control behavior (0.5%). Additionally, 232 participants who did not complete items for the dependent variable were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 3,400.

In the final sample, most participants were male (94.8%) with an average age of 38.4 years; half (50.5%) identified most with Dutch culture. Over half (61.1%) had been previously imprisoned, and 41.4% had been incarcerated for six months or less. The majority (76.3%) reported having the opportunity to cook in their unit's kitchen. Most were housed in pre-trial (46.3%) or prison (sentenced) units (41.9%), the remaining in the extra care (8.4%) or persistent pffender (3.5%) units. The included and excluded samples did not significantly differ in regime, age, gender, prior imprisonment, or time served. However, more participants in the included sample reported a Dutch cultural identity (50%) compared to the excluded group (32%) (χ²(1) = 10.0, p = .002). Given the excluded group's small size (n = 232), this difference is considered negligible for the analyses.

Measures

Experienced severity of imprisonment. The dependent variable was measured using three items of the PCQ, in line with prior research by Raaijmakers et al. (2014). Participants rated their agreement on a 5-point Likert scale (from strongly disagree to strongly agree) with the following statements: (1) I experience my sentence as painful, (2) My time here feels a lot like punishment, (3) This sentence is more painful than I anticipated. The items were combined into a single scale with a high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .887).

Food satisfaction. The independent variable was measured using the FIC questionnaire. As four meal types were available (see The Dutch Context), satisfaction was assessed separately for each, using the same items. Participants rated their overall satisfaction per meal on a 1–10 scale (based on the Dutch grading system) and responded to 23 statements on a 5-point Likert scale (see Supplementary material). These items reflect nine theoretical aspects tested in a pilot study by Van der Vlist and Vanhouche (2022): psychological (4), sensory (4), physical (3), quantity (4), variety/choice (3), cultural (1), religious (1), temperature (1), and presentation (1). Multi-item aspects were combined into subscales for each meal type (see Analyses).

Personal and prison characteristics. Several control variables were included: age, gender, cultural identity, time served, prior imprisonment, and opportunity to cook, all self-reported via the PCQ and FIC questionnaires. Cultural identity and time served, originally categorical, were dichotomized. Cultural identity was measured by asking individuals the cultural identity with which they identified most, offering options such as Dutch, Moroccan, Surinamese, and Antillean. For the analyses, these were recoded into Dutch and non-Dutch cultural identity. Time served was initially measured in six categories. In the sample, 41.6% of participants had been incarcerated for less than six months, and 58.4% for less than one year, which is lower than national figures, where 64% was imprisoned for less than 3 months (Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency, 2025). This discrepancy likely reflects challenges in reaching and inviting incarcerated persons who are imprisoned for a short time, who are often preoccupied with adjusting to prison life, housing, and release planning. In contrast, those incarcerated longer may have more time and motivation to participate. For the analyses, time served was therefore recoded into two categories: 0–6 months and more than 6 months.

The food supplier and regime were also included. Supplier data came from Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency (DCIA) records, with one of the three suppliers used as the reference category. Regime type, based on administrative data, distinguished between prison (reference), pre-trial, extra care, and persistent offender regimes.

Analyses

Testing the food satisfaction scales. Because the aspects of food satisfaction were developed theoretically and only used in a pilot study (Van der Vlist & Vanhouche, 2022), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test a five-factor model: psychological, sensory, physical, quantity, and choice/variety (the remaining aspects were single-item measures). CFA was performed in R using the ‘lavaan’ package, specifying items to load onto their respective latent constructs with correlations allowed between factors. To assess construct distinctiveness, four models were tested for each meal type: 1. a five-factor model with separate scales, 2. a three-factor model combining psychological, sensory, and physical into one factor with quantity and choice/variety separate, 3. a higher-order three-factor model (psychological, sensory, and physical as one higher order factor), and 4. a one-factor model combining all items. Additionally, to assess overall food satisfaction, CFA was performed using mean scores across all four meal types. After estimating the hypothesized models, modification indices were examined, and only theoretically justifiable changes (e.g., correlated errors between similar items) were included. A maximum of four covariances per model (eight for models across all meal types) was allowed.

Model fit was evaluated using multiple indices: the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and the Chi-square test (χ²). CFI and TLI values ≥ .90 indicated acceptable fit and ≥ .95 excellent fit. RMSEA and SRMR values > .10 indicated poor, .08–.10 mediocre, .05–.08 acceptable, and < .05 excellent fit. To compare the models for each of the four meal types, chi-square difference tests were conducted. However, due to its sensitivity to large samples, changes in fit indices (in particular CFI) were used to assess meaningful improvements in model fit (Kline, 2023). Based on the CFA results, food satisfaction subscales were constructed, and their internal consistency was tested using reliability analysis. Finally, the scales were checked for multicollinearity using linear regression models.

Descriptive and bivariate analyses. First, descriptive analyses were conducted, calculating frequencies, means, and standard deviations for continuous variables, and percentages for categorical variables. Differences in food satisfaction across the four meal types were tested using one-way ANOVAs with Games-Howell post hoc tests (Levene's test p < .05). Bivariate analyses examined associations between food satisfaction, control variables, and the dependent variable. Spearman's rank correlations were used for all continuous and dichotomous variables (ESI, food satisfaction scales, age, gender, cultural identity, prior imprisonment, time served, and opportunity to cook) due to non-normal distributions. For variables with three or more categories (food supplier and regime), Kruskal-Wallis H tests assessed group differences. Chi-square tests were used for associations between categorical variables (e.g., dichotomous vs. nominal variables).

Regression models. To answer the research questions, regression models were estimated, using ESI as the dependent variable, the overall food satisfaction score (RQ1) and food satisfaction subscales (RQ2) as independent variables, and controlling for both the personal and prison characteristics. Since participants could have consumed any combination of the four meal types, separate models were run for each. Because incarcerated persons share conditions within prison units, their responses were expected to be more similar within units than between units. To test this, an empty multilevel (null) model was run. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient was .01 and not statistically significant, indicating minimal between-unit variance in ESI. Standard linear regression models were used (using SPSS 29). Missing data were handled using multiple imputation.

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analyses and Internal Consistency

The results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) are reported in Table 1. Although chi-square difference tests indicated significant differences between the four models (Δχ² = 42–2894, Δdf = 4–10, all p < .001), model evaluation primarily relied on changes in fit indices, particularly the CFI. The five-factor model (Model 1) consistently showed excellent fit across all meal types and outperformed the competing models, with ΔCFI values ranging from .02 to .07. This was further reflected in superior values on other fit indices as well, confirming Model 1 as the best-fitting and most robust model. CFA using a total mean score across meal types showed poor model fit, indicating that food satisfaction varied meaningfully by meal type and was evaluated distinctly. Therefore, all subsequent analyses were conducted separately per meal type to maintain the validity of the factor structure. Based on these results, five subscales (psychological, sensory, physical, quantity, and choice/variety) were constructed and tested for reliability. Internal consistency was acceptable for quantity (Cronbach's α = .72–.85) and good to excellent for the other subscales (α = .84–.96) across meal types.

Table 1.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses.

	χ²	df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
Ready-made
Model 1: Five-factor model	1219***	138	.966	.958	.067	.074
Model 2: Three-factor model (psychological, sensory, and physical combined)	1898***	145	.946	.936	.083	.076
Model 3: Higher-order three-factor model	1348***	143	.963	.955	.069	.075
Model 4: One-factor model (all scales combined)	2814***	148	.917	.904	.101	.057
Ingredient package
Model 1: Five-factor model	547***	138	.961	.952	.070	.080
Model 2: Three-factor model (psychological, sensory, and physical combined)	802***	145	.938	.927	.086	.084
Model 3: Higher-order three-factor model	589***	142	.958	.949	.072	.082
Model 4: One-factor model (all scales combined)	1303***	146	.890	.872	.114	.082
Self-catered
Model 1: Five-factor model	1289***	138	.969	.961	.064	.038
Model 2: Three-factor model (psychological, sensory, and physical combined)	2140***	145	.946	.936	.082	.893
Model 3: Higher-order three-factor model	1416***	142	.966	.958	.066	.045
Model 4: One-factor model (all scales combined)	3206***	146	.917	.903	.102	.055
Breakfast/lunch
Model 1: Five-factor model	1231***	138	.975	.969	.059	.054
Model 2: Three-factor model (psychological, sensory, and physical combined)	2595***	145	.944	.935	.086	.061
Model 3: Higher-order three-factor model	1342***	142	.973	.967	.061	.056
Model 4: One-factor model (all scales combined)	4125***	146	.910	.894	.109	.072
Total
Model 1: Five-factor model	9796***	2756	.392	.373	.165	.172
Model 2: Three-factor model (psychological, sensory, and physical combined)	9852***	2763	.450	.432	.157	.174
Model 3: Higher-order three-factor model	9806***	2760	.450	.432	.157	.172
Model 4: One-factor model (all scales combined)	10070***	2766	.430	.412	.159	.140

***p < .001.

Descriptive and Bivariate Analyses

The descriptive statistics are reported in Table 2. The dependent variable (1–5 scale) had a mean of 3.5 (SD = 1.1). However, there was considerable variation: 19% perceived imprisonment as not (very) severe, 50% as (very) severe, and 31% as neutral.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics Study Variables.

	n	%	Min	Max	M	SD
Dependent variable
Experienced the severity of imprisonment	3400		1	5	3.5	1.1
Independent variables
Food satisfaction with ready-made meals
Overall satisfaction	2053		1	10	4.7	2.2
Psychological	2177		1	5	2.5	1.0
Sensory	2179		1	5	2.6	1.0
Physical	2179		1	5	2.5	1.0
Quantity	2105		1	5	2.6	0.9
Choice/variety	2105		1	5	2.5	0.9
Religion	1936		1	5	2.7	1.1
Culture	2100		1	5	2.5	1.2
Temperature	2058		1	5	2.8	1.1
Presentation	2136		1	5	2.6	1.1
Food satisfaction ingredient package
Overall satisfaction	688		1	10	5.3	2.0
Psychological	742		1	5	2.9	1.0
Sensory	740		1	5	2.9	0.9
Physical	745		1	5	3.0	1.0
Quantity	727		1	5	2.5	0.8
Choice/variety	736		1	5	2.8	0.9
Religion	676		1	5	2.9	1.0
Culture	718		1	5	2.8	1.1
Temperature	707		1	5	3.0	1.0
Presentation	741		1	5	2.7	1.0
Food satisfaction with self-catered meals
Overall satisfaction	2272		1	10	6.9	1.9
Psychological	2390		1	5	3.8	0.9
Sensory	2383		1	5	3.7	0.9
Physical	2361		1	5	3.6	0.8
Quantity	2320		1	5	3.5	0.7
Choice/variety	2343		1	5	3.4	0.9
Religion	2030		1	5	3.4	1.0
Culture	2265		1	5	3.4	1.0
Temperature	2357		1	5	3.7	1.0
Presentation	2263		1	5	3.3	0.9
Food satisfaction breakfast/lunch package
Overall satisfaction	2494		1	10	5.2	2.0
Psychological	2682		1	5	2.8	0.9
Sensory	2670		1	5	2.9	0.9
Physical	2694		1	5	2.9	0.9
Quantity	2604		1	5	2.8	0.9
Choice/variety	2643		1	5	2.7	0.9
Religion	2368		1	5	2.9	1.0
Culture	2515		1	5	2.9	1.0
Temperature	2618		1	5	3.0	0.9
Presentation	2674		1	5	2.8	1.0
Control variables
Age	3263		18	93	38.4	12.3
Gender (0 = male)	3282		0	1	0.1	0.2
Cultural identity (0 = Dutch)	3134		0	1	0.5	0.5
Prior imprisonment (0 = no)	3314		0	1	0.6	0.5
Time served (0 = < 6 months)	3305		0	1	0.6	0.5
Opportunity to cook (0 = no)	2968		0	1	0.8	0.4
Food supplier
North	552	16.2	0	1	0.2	0.4
Central	1241	36.5	0	1	0.4	0.5
South	1607	47.3	0	1	0.5	0.5
Regime
Prison	1573	41.9	0	1	0.5	0.5
Pre-trial	1425	46.3	0	1	0.4	0.5
Extra care	284	8.4	0	1	0.1	0.3
Persistent offender	118	3.5	0	1	0.0	0.2

Overall food satisfaction (1–10 scale) ranged from 4.7 to 7.0 (SD = 1.9–2.2). Mean scores for the different aspects (1–5 scale) ranged from 2.5 to 2.8 (ready-made), 2.5 to 3.0 (ingredient package), 3.3 to 3.8 (self-catered), and 2.7 to 3.0 (breakfast/lunch), with SDs between 0.8 and 1.2. Overall, the pattern of ratings across aspects was largely consistent between meal types.

ANOVA analyses showed significant differences between all meal types across all ten food satisfaction aspects, F(3, 7032–8045) = 160.7–794.8, p < .001, η² = .064–.229. Post hoc tests (see Table 3) revealed that self-catered meals received the highest ratings across most scales, while ready-made meals were rated lowest. Most meal types differed significantly, except the ingredient and breakfast/lunch packages, which only differed in quantity and choice/variety. The ingredient package was used less frequently in pre-trial (9.5%), extra care (16.9%), and persistent offender (19.5%) regimes, compared to 37.4% in the prison regime.

Table 3.

Differences in Mean Scores of Food Satisfaction Aspects Between Meal Types.

	Ingredient Package	Self-Catered Meals	Breakfast Lunch Package		Self-Catered Meals	Breakfast Lunch Package		Breakfast Lunch Package
Ready-Made Meals				Ingredient Package			Self-Catered Meals
Overall satisfaction	−.58***	−2.25***	−.45***		−1.66***	.13		1.79***
Psychological	−.36***	−1.27***	−.32***		−.92***	.04		.96***
Sensory	−.36***	−1.17***	−.33***		−.80***	.03		.83***
Physical	−.45***	−1.03***	−.37***		−.58***	.08		.66***
Quantity	.04	−.89***	−.22***		−.94***	−.26***		.68***
Choice/variety	−.29***	−.88***	−.11***		−.59***	.18***		.77***
Religion	−.18***	−.69***	−.18***		−.51***	.00		.51***
Culture	−.32***	−.88***	−.35***		−.57***	−.03		.53***
Temperature	−.13*	−.86***	−.17***		−.73***	−.04		.68***
Presentation	−.11	−.74***	−.19***		−.63***	−.08		.55***

***p < .001.

Bivariate analyses (not tabled) revealed weak negative correlations between food satisfaction and ESI, varying by meal type (Spearman's ρs ranged from −.04 to −.17). Most scales for ready-made meals and breakfast/lunch packages were significantly negatively associated with ESI, while fewer associations were found for the ingredient package (quantity and choice/variety) and self-catered meals (overall satisfaction and choice/variety). Strong intercorrelations between psychological, sensory, and physical scales (ρs = .60–.86) suggested potential multicollinearity. However, the CFA results supported treating them as distinct constructs due to better model fit. Control variables showed mostly weak correlations with food satisfaction, varying by meal type: age (ρs = .05–.23), gender (ρs = .04–.11), cultural identity, (ρs = −.04 to −.17), prior imprisonment (ρs = −.05 to −.12), time served (ρs = −.05 to .12), opportunity to cook (ρs = .06–.19), food supplier (H(2) = 6.1–56.2), and regime (H(3) = 8.0–57.4). Age, gender, prior imprisonment (ρs = −.08 to −.16), and regime (H(3) = 12.6) were significantly associated with ESI.

Regression Models

Overall food satisfaction. To address the first research question, four linear regression models (one per meal type) were estimated with ESI as the dependent variable (Table 4). In all models, food satisfaction was significantly associated with ESI (B = −.053 to −.071, p < .05 to .001); for example, a 1-point increase in satisfaction with ready-made meals corresponded to a .071-point decrease in ESI. Several control variables were also significantly associated: older participants reported slightly higher ESI (B = .011–.015, p < .01–.001), and women reported higher ESI than men (B = .253–.493, p < .05). Prior imprisonment was linked to lower ESI (B = −.278 to −.424, p < .01–.001), and individuals in pre-trial, extra care, or persistent offender regimes reported higher ESI than those in the prison regime.

Table 4.

Linear Regression Models for Overall Food Satisfaction per Meal Type.

	Experienced Severity of Imprisonment
	Ready-made (n = 2194)		Ingredient package (n = 754)		Self-catered (n = 2414)		Breakfast/lunch package (n = 2721)
	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE
Food satisfaction
Overall score	−.071***	.011	−.053*	.021	−.053***	.012	−.063***	.011
Age	.014***	.002	.011**	.004	.013***	.002	.015***	.002
Gender (0 = male)	.278*	.109	.403**	.149	.379***	.102	.424***	.093
Cultural identity (0 = Dutch)	−.074	.050	.106	.085	.041	.048	.014	.045
Prior imprisonment (0 = no)	−.396***	.050**	−.254	.085	−.342***	.048	−.404***	.044
Time served (0 = < 6 months)	−.048	.054	.182	.116	−.035	.053	−.011	.048
Opportunity to cook (0 = no)	.044	.062	−.242	.141	−.009	.066	.000	.053
Food supplier (north = reference)
Middle	.126	.071	.082	.113	.119	.066	.086	.062
South	.125	.070	−.099	.116	.092	.065	.053	.060
Regime (prison = reference)
Pre-trial	.181**	.056	.130	.121	.184***	.055	.155**	.050
Extra care	.164*	.082	.356*	.166	.183*	.091	.193*	.077
Persistent offender	.296*	.123	−.067	.240	.139	.138	.143	.123

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

Subscales of food satisfaction. To address the second research question, another four linear regression models were estimated, using nine separate food satisfaction subscales as predictors (Table 5). Multicollinearity was evaluated via VIF scores, all of which remained below 10, and mostly under 5, indicating acceptable levels. Despite some elevated values, the CFA results supported the distinctiveness of the predictors, justifying their inclusion. While this could have affected the stability of the regression coefficients, this was taken into account in the interpretation of the results.

Table 5.

Linear Regression Models for Food Satisfaction Aspects per Meal Type.

	Experienced Severity of Imprisonment
	Ready-made (n = 2194)		Ingredient package (n = 754)		Self-catered (n = 2414)		Breakfast/lunch package (n = 2721)
	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE
Individual level
Food satisfaction
Psychological	−.027	.051	.001	.091	.002	.049	−.110*	.049
Sensory	−.129*	.056	−.059	.106	.069	.067	.055	.058
Physical	.010	.046	.164	.094	.062	.050	−.072	.047
Quantity	−.004	.030	−.066	.055	.037	.039	−.046	.030
Choice/variety	−.132***	.037	−.265***	.061	−.192***	.034	−.133***	.031
Religion	−.019	.034	.048	.069	.049	.046	.132**	.048
Culture	.001	.038	−.018	.072	−.016	.047	−.100*	.048
Temperature	.018	.033	−.039	.075	−.081	.046	.036	.040
Presentation	.069	.036	.032	.065	−.021	.038	.032	.038
Age	.014***	.002	.012***	.004	.013***	.002	.015***	.002
Gender (0 = male)	.287**	.110	.333*	.150	.368***	.102	.390***	.092
Cultural identity (0 = Dutch)	−.069	.051	.132	.085	.040	.048	.018	.045
Prior imprisonment (0 = no)	−.398***	.050**	−.262	.085	−.337***	.048	−.400***	.044
Time served (0 = < 6 months)	−.052	.054	.199	.115	−.042	.053	−.007	.048
Opportunity to cook (0 = no)	.050	.062	−.259	.140	−.007	.067	.029	.053
Food supplier (north = reference)
Middle	.127	.073	.120	.113	.115	.066	.075	.062
South	.132	.071	−.047	.116	.095	.065	.032	.060
Regime (prison = reference)
Pre-trial	.174**	.056	.152	.120	.184***	.055	.160**	.049
Extra care	.174*	.082	.414*	.165	.172	.090	.186*	.076
Persistent offender	.311*	.123	−.006	.238	.147	.138	.110	.122

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

The subscale for choice and variety emerged as the only consistent predictor across all meal types, showing a significant negative association with ESI (B = −.132 to −.265, p < .001), indicating that greater satisfaction with food choice and variety was associated with lower ESI. Additional significant associations included sensory satisfaction for ready-made meals (B = −.129, p < .05), and psychological (B = −.110, p < .05), religious (B = .132, p < .01), and cultural (B = −.100, p < .05) satisfaction for the breakfast/lunch package. The control variables were similar to the model for overall food satisfaction: age, gender, and prior imprisonment were significantly related to ESI. Higher ESI was also reported in the pre-trial, persistent offender, and extra care regimes, depending on the meal type.

Discussion

This study examined the relationship between incarcerated persons’ food satisfaction and their experienced severity of imprisonment (ESI) in the Netherlands. Using a new food satisfaction instrument (see Nieuwbeerta et al., 2025), the findings support the hypothesis of a negative relationship between food satisfaction and ESI. Among the various dimensions, choice and variety is a singular predictor across all meal types. Although associations were generally weak, their consistent significance highlights the psychological and symbolic importance of food in prison.

The consistent negative association between food choice and variety and ESI suggests that food-related autonomy may help buffer against the deprivations of incarceration. This aligns with prior research showing that autonomy in general reduces ESI (Raaijmakers et al., 2014). Qualitative studies have found that the ability to choose what, when, and how to eat contributes to incarcerated persons’ sense of agency and dignity, while its absence reinforces institutional control and symbolic degradation (Blore, 2011; Collica, 2010; Comfort, 2008). Limited variety is widely described as punitive and distressing, contributing to overall dissatisfaction with prison life (Condon et al., 2008; Godderis, 2006a; Harner & Riley, 2013; Pageau et al., 2021; Struthers Montford, 2023; Vanhouche, 2015; Wangmo et al., 2018; Wilson, 2023), whereas practices enhancing choice, such as self-catering, can improve agency and mitigate the symbolic degradation associated with incarceration (Blore, 2011; Comfort, 2008; Minke, 2014). Improving food satisfaction, particularly in terms of choice and variety, may be a valuable avenue for reducing the (psychological) burdens of imprisonment.

Notably, while food quantity, quality, and health are identified as fundamental needs in the international literature (De Heide & Ramakers, 2024), the present study found no significant association between these dimensions (i.e., quantity, overall, and physical satisfaction) and ESI. Instead, the aspect of choice and variety (linked to autonomy, a subsidiary need) emerged as the only consistent predictor. This may reflect the relatively high standard of prison food in the Netherlands (Nieuwbeerta et al., 2025), suggesting that basic food needs are generally met, thereby reducing their influence on ESI. Consequently, with these fundamental needs largely fulfilled, the importance of choice and variety emerges more prominently, highlighting autonomy-related aspects as the prominent factors in shaping the prison experience.

This investigation also revealed a number of interesting patterns. First, sensory satisfaction showed a weak negative association with ESI for ready-made meals, likely due to reheating diminishing texture quality (Cardello, 1994). Meanwhile, choice and variety had the strongest negative association, particularly for ingredient package meals, which offer more autonomy by design. Secondly, in breakfast/lunch packages, lower satisfaction with psychological and cultural appropriateness aspects was related to higher ESI, highlighting the impact of cultural mismatch on deprivation (Wilson, 2023). Counterintuitively, satisfaction with religious appropriateness showed a positive association with ESI. This finding may reflect a spurious relationship, as unmeasured factors such as religious affiliation could influence both food satisfaction and ESI. Unfortunately, such variables were not available in the data, limiting the extent to which this association can be understood. Lastly, food satisfaction varied by meal type, with self-catered meals rated highest and ready-made meals lowest, generally showing higher satisfaction than earlier studies (Van Ginneken et al., 2018). This likely reflects improvements under the DCIA's 2022 procurement contract, emphasizing healthier, sustainable meals, self-catering options, and supplier accountability (Nieuwbeerta et al., 2025; Van der Vlist, 2022).

Several control variables were also linked to ESI: age was positively associated with ESI, likely due to stronger social ties and health vulnerabilities (Crank & Brezina, 2013; Raaijmakers et al., 2014), and women reported higher ESI than men, possibly reflecting greater distress from parental separation (Enos, 2001; Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Prior incarceration was negatively associated with ESI, suggesting adaptation and coping due to past experiences (Crank & Brezina, 2013; Crouch, 1993; Yasrebi-de Kom et al., 2024). Those in pre-trial regimes reported higher ESI than sentenced persons, likely due to (procedural) uncertainty and harsher conditions (Anderson et al., 2023; Van Ginneken et al., 2018), with higher ESI also seen in persistent offender and extra care regimes (varying per meal type). One food supplier was linked to higher ESI for self-catered meals, possibly reflecting regional or institutional differences rather than supplier effects.

Study Strengths and Limitations

A key strength of the present study is its large, nationally representative sample of incarcerated persons, enhancing the generalizability of findings within the Dutch prison system. Another strength lies in the rigorous development and validation of the food satisfaction scales. Assessment of internal consistency, discriminant validity, and CFA supported the nine food satisfaction aspects and the five-factor scale structure, reinforcing confidence in the robustness and interpretability of the results.

However, the study is not without limitations. Due to the cross-sectional design, the direction of the association between food satisfaction and experienced severity of imprisonment cannot be determined. That is, it is possible that those who experience imprisonment as more severe rate their food less positively. Another limitation concerns the questionnaire design. In line with the PCQ structure, food satisfaction items were grouped by aspect and lacked reverse-worded items (except for quantity), as did the ESI items. This format may have encouraged uniform response patterns, such as straightlining, particularly among less engaged participants. While high inter-item correlations may reflect real conceptual overlap, the absence of reverse-coded items and grouped structure could have contributed to multicollinearity, particularly among psychological, sensory, and physical aspects. Despite a good model fit according to the CFA, this could have potentially affected the precision of some regression coefficients.

Future Research Directions

Future research could build on these findings in several important ways. First, while this study identified the association between food-related choice and ESI, it did not directly assess general autonomy in prison life. Including validated measures of perceived autonomy would help clarify whether the effects observed are specific to food or reflect broader autonomy needs. Furthermore, the cross-sectional design limits causal inference, underscoring the need for longitudinal research to examine whether improvements in food satisfaction, especially variety and choice, lead to changes in ESI over time. Methodologically, future research should improve measurement precision by randomizing item order and incorporating reverse-worded items to reduce response bias and multicollinearity. Finally, cross-national studies could explore how varying prison food systems shape the relevance of basic (e.g., quantity, quality, health) versus subsidiary (e.g., autonomy, choice, and variety) food-related needs, offering insight into how their fulfillment or frustration influences ESI across different contexts.

Practical and Policy Implications

This study offers practical insights for prison administrators and policymakers aiming to improve prison conditions and mitigate the harms of incarceration. The consistent negative association between food satisfaction, particularly regarding variety and choice, and ESI underscores that food is not merely logistical, but central to well-being, autonomy, and dignity (Smoyer, 2014; Smoyer & Blankenship, 2014). Expanding self-catering options, especially in regimes where they are limited, presents a relatively low-cost way to enhance autonomy and agency. This is especially relevant given the higher ESI reported in the pre-trial regime, to which food satisfaction contributed. Increasing variety and customization within fixed meal options, such as ready-made meals and breakfast/lunch packages, could address common grievances related to limited choice and improve satisfaction with sensory and religious aspects. These changes could have implications beyond nutrition, potentially supporting physical and mental health (Hawley et al., 2008; Madden et al., 2012), reducing antisocial behaviors (Maruca et al., 2021; Minke, 2014), and promoting sustainability through reduced food waste (Beavis, 2004; Snels et al., 2018). While the findings align with recent reforms in Dutch prison food procurement, emphasizing autonomy and satisfaction (Van der Vlist, 2022), they also highlight that further progress lies in expanding the potential for more food choices and autonomy. Embedding food satisfaction into routine quality monitoring could help signal institutional strain and support more humane, responsive, and rehabilitation-focused policies.

Conclusion

This study contributes to the growing understanding of the experienced severity of imprisonment by identifying food satisfaction, particularly in terms of choice and variety, as a relevant factor. In line with qualitative research, greater food satisfaction was associated with lower ESI, underscoring the psychological and symbolic significance of food in prison beyond its nutritional role. These findings suggest that food is a key domain through which incarcerated persons experience autonomy, dignity, and deprivation. Although food satisfaction levels were relatively high, the findings suggest that while basic food needs are largely met, autonomy-related needs remain pressing. Enhancing food-related choice, through, for example, self-catering options or customizable meals, could help mitigate the (psychological) burdens of imprisonment. As correctional systems seek to balance security, rehabilitation, and humane treatment, integrating food policy into broader institutional strategies may offer a promising and underexplored pathway forward.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-tpj-10.1177_00328855261431806 - Supplemental material for A Taste of Prison: A Study on the Relationship between Food Satisfaction and Experienced Severity of Imprisonment

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tpj-10.1177_00328855261431806 for A Taste of Prison: A Study on the Relationship between Food Satisfaction and Experienced Severity of Imprisonment by Bram de Heide, Miranda Sentse, and Miranda Boone in The Prison Journal

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The Food in Custody study was funded by the Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency (DCIA) and Leiden University. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the DCIA. The authors wish to thank the DCIA for their support with the administration of the survey.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

ORCID iDs

Bram de Heide

Miranda Sentse

Miranda Boone

Author Biographies

Bram de Heide, MS, is a PhD candidate at the Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology at Leiden University. His research focuses on incarcerated persons’ experiences around prison food.

Miranda Sentse, PhD, is an associate professor of criminology at the Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology at Leiden University. Her research focuses on the person-environment interplay in relation to problem behavior. She is specifically interested in the social networks of delinquent individuals.

Miranda Boone, PhD, is a professor of criminology and comparative penology at the Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology at Leiden University. She conducts research at the interface of criminology and criminal law. Her research focuses mainly on sentencing and enforcement.

References

Andersen

B. V.

Hyldig

(2015). Food satisfaction: Integrating feelings before, during and after food intake. Food Quality and Preference, 43, 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.03.004

Anderson

C. N.

Cochran

J. C.

Monetes

A. N.

(2023). How punitive is pretrial? Measuring the relative pains of pretrial detention. Punishment & Society, 26(5), 790–812. https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745231218702

Avieli

(2023). Prisoners’ experience of health self-management: A qualitative study. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 55(5), 926–935. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12881

Beavis

S. G.

(2004). Creating an open system in resource management: A study of waste minimisation in the prison system. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 11(2), 150–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2004.10648608

Beijersbergen

K. A.

(2016). Ontwikkeling van de leefklimaat vragenlijst penitentiaire inrichtingen [Development of the prison climate questionnaire penal institutions].

Blore

(2011). The right to adequate food and nutrition in Queensland prisons: From the prisoners’ mouth. Australian Journal of Human Rights, 16(2), 81–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2011.11910889

Boone

Althoff

Koenraadt

(2016). Het leefklimaat in justitiële inrichtingen [The prison climate in penal institutions]. Boom criminologie.

Bosma

A. Q.

Van Ginneken

E. F. J. C.

Palmen

Pasma

A. J.

Beijersbergen

K. A.

Nieuwbeerta

(2020). A new instrument to measure prison climate: The psychometric quality of the prison climate questionnaire. The Prison Journal, 100(3), 355–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885520916819

Cardello

A. V.

(1994). Consumer expectations and their role in food acceptance. In MacFie

H. J. H.

Thomson

D. M. H.

(Eds.), Measurement of Food Preferences (pp. 253–297). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2171-6_10 .

10.

Cardello

A. V.

(1996). The role of the human senses in food acceptance. In Meiselman

H. L.

MacFie

H. J. H.

(Eds.), Food choice, acceptance and consumption (pp. 1–82). Blackie Academic & Professional. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-1221-5_1

11.

Cardello

A. V.

Schutz

Snow

Lesher

(2000). Predictors of food acceptance, consumption and satisfaction in specific eating situations. Food Quality and Preference, 11(3), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(99)00055-5

12.

Chatterjee

S. C.

(2018). Food in captivity: Experiences of women in Indian prisons. The Prison Journal, 98(1), 40–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885517743444

13.

Chen

M. K.

Shapiro

J. M.

(2007). Do harsher prison conditions reduce recidivism? A discontinuity-based approach. American Law and Economics Review, 9(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahm006

14.

Cochran

J. C.

Mears

D. P.

Bales

W. D.

Stewart

E. A.

(2012). Does inmate behavior affect post-release offending? Investigating the misconduct-recidivism relationship among youth and adults. Justice Quarterly, 31(6), 1044–1073. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.736526

15.

Collica

(2010). Surviving incarceration: Two prison-based peer programs build communities of support for female offenders. Deviant Behavior, 31(4), 314–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620903004812

16.

Comfort

(2008). Doing time together: Love and family in the shadow of the prison. Chicago University Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226114682.001.0001

17.

Condon

Hek

Harris

(2008). Choosing health in prison: Prisoners’ views on making healthy choices in English prisons. Health Education Journal, 67(3), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896908094633

18.

Crank

B. R.

Brezina

(2013). Prison will either make ya or break ya: Punishment, deterrence, and the criminal lifestyle. Deviant Behavior, 34(10), 782–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2013.781439

19.

Crouch

B. M.

(1993). Is incarceration really worse? Analysis of offenders’ preferences for prison over probation. Justice Quarterly, 10(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829300091711

20.

De Graaf

Kilty

J. M.

(2016). You are what you eat: Exploring the relationship between women, food, and incarceration. Punishment & Society, 18(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474515623103

21.

De Heide

B. W. F.

Ramakers

(2024). More than a matter of taste: A systematic review of qualitative literature on incarcerated persons’ subjective food needs [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Department of Criminology, Leiden University.

22.

Drago

Galbiati

Vertova

(2011). Prison conditions and recidivism. American Law and Economics Review, 13(1), 103–130. https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahq024

23.

Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency. (2025). Infographic Gevangeniswezen 2025 [Infographic Prison System 2025]. https://www.dji.nl/binaries/dji/documenten/publicaties/2023/05/30/infographic-gevangeniswezen/infographic-gevangeniswezen-2025.pdf.

24.

Enos

(2001). Mothering from the inside: Parenting in a women's prison. State University of New York Press. https://doi.org/10.1300/J015v20n04_05

25.

Gibson-Light

(2018). Ramen politics: Informal money and logics of resistance in the contemporary American prison. Qualitative Sociology, 41(2), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-018-9376-0

26.

Glaze

L. E.

Maruschak

L. M.

(2008). Parents in prison and their minor children. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/pptmc.pdf.

27.

Godderis

(2006a). Dining in: The symbolic power of food in prison. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(3), 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2311.2006.00420

28.

Godderis

(2006b). Food for thought: An analysis of power and identity in prison food narrative. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 50, 61–75. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41035612 .

29.

Groeneveld

A. E. A.

Vanhouche

A. S.

Nieuwbeerta

Palmen

(2025). Cell's kitchen: Normalization of foodplaces in Dutch penal institutions. The Prison Journal, 105(2), 174–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/00328855241309111

30.

Harner

H. M.

Riley

(2013). Factors contributing to poor physical health in incarcerated women. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 24(2), 788–801. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2013.0059

31.

Hawley

Horwath

C. C.

Gray

Bradshaw

Katzer

Joyce

O'Brian

(2008). Sustainability of health and lifestyle improvements following a non-dieting randomised trial in overweight women. Preventive Medicine, 47(6), 593–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.08.008

32.

Johnson

Gagnon

Goguen

LeBlanc

C. P.

(2024). Prison food and the carceral experience: A systematic review. International Journal of Prison Health, 20(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPH-08-2023-0045

33.

Kline

R. B.

(2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). The Guilford Press.

34.

Madden

Leong

S. L.

Gray

Horwath

C. C.

(2012). Eating in response to hunger and satiety signals is related to BMI in a nationwide sample of 1601 mid-age New Zealand women. Public Health Nutrition, 15(12), 2272–2279. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980012000882

35.

Maruca

A. T.

Dion

Zucker

Lozuch

(2021). Significance of self-care management as persons prepare to reintegrate into the community. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 17(2), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1097/JFN.0000000000000316

36.

Međedović

Drndarević

Ilijić

(2024). Unfavorable prison social climate links dark tetrad traits with self-reported institutional misconduct. Personality and Individual Differences, 227, Article 112707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.112707

37.

Minke

L. K.

(2014). Cooking in prison – From crook to cook. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 10(4), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-09-2013-0044

38.

Nieuwbeerta

Groeneveld

A. E. A.

Palmen

vanhouche

A. S.

(2025). Veranderingen in de beleving van voeding in detentie, 2022–2024. Sancties, 19, 83–92.

39.

Pageau

Cornaz

C. D.

Gothuey

Seaward

Wangmo

Elger

B. S.

(2021). Prison unhealthy lifestyle and poor mental health of older persons – A qualitative study. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, Article 690291. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.690291

40.

Raaijmakers

E. A. C.

De Keijser

J. W.

Nieuwbeerta

Dirkzwager

Reef

(2014). De subjectieve zwaarte van detentie. Een Empirisch Onderzoek. Tijdschrift Voor Criminologie, 56(1), 60–80. https://doi.org/10.5553/TvC/0165182X2014056001004

41.

Sari

N. T. P.

Sunarti

E. Y.

(2024). A literature review: Unraveling the dimensions of food quality and its influence on consumer satisfaction. Brawijaya International Conference on Business Administration, Taxation, and Tourism, KnE Social Sciences, 453–467. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v9i11.15835

42.

Sexton

(2015). Penal subjectivities: Developing a theoretical framework for penal consciousness. Punishment & Society, 17(1), 114–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474514548790

43.

Smoyer

A. B.

(2014). Good and healthy: Foodways and construction of identity in a women’s prison. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 53(5), 525–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12097

44.

Smoyer

A. B.

(2016). Making fatty girl cakes: Food and resistance in a women’s prison. The Prison Journal, 96(2), 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885515596520

45.

Smoyer

A. B.

Blankenship

K. M.

(2014). Dealing food: Female drug users’ narratives about food in a prison place and implications for their health. International Journal of Drug Policy, 25(3), 562–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2013.10.013

46.

Smoyer

A. B.

Lopes

(2017). Hungry on the inside: Prison food as concrete and symbolic punishment in a women’s prison. Punishment & Society, 19(2), 240–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474516665605

47.

Snels

Soethoudt

Kok

(2018). Eten is om op te eten! Meten van voedselverspilling om zo te komen tot preventie van de kwaliteit van het voedsel voor de justitiabelen. https://edepot.wur.nl/532328.

48.

Spence

Motoki

Petit

(2022). Factors influencing the visual deliciousness / eye-appeal of food. Food Quality and Preference, 102, Article 104672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104672

49.

Statistics Netherlands. (2024). In 2023 zaten 6 van de 10 gedetineerden al eerder in detentie [In 2023, 6 out of 10 detainees were previously incarcerated]. https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2024/38/in-2023-zaten-6-van-de-10-gedetineerden-al-eerder-in-detentie.

50.

Struthers Montford

(2023). The embodiment of contempt: Ontario provincial prison food. Social & Legal Studies, 32(2), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/09646639221104253

51.

Tuorila

(2007). Sensory perception as a basis of food acceptance and consumption. In MacFie

H. J. H.

(Ed.), Consumer-led food product development (pp. 34–59). Woodhead Publishing Limited.

52.

Van der Vlist

(2022). Een nieuw contract voor voeding justitiabelen [A new food contract for incarcerated individuals]. Sancties, 1, 24–29.

53.

Van der Vlist

Vanhouche

A. S.

(2022). Voedingsvragenlijst [Food Questionnaire]. Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency.

54.

Van Ginneken

E. F. J. C.

Palmen

Bosma

A. Q.

Nieuwbeerta

Berghuis

M. L.

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

55.

Vanhouche

A.-S.

(2015). Acceptance or refusal of convenience food in present-day prison. Appetite, 94, 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.047

56.

Vanhouche

A.-S.

Smoyer

A. B.

Minke

L. K.

(2018). Couscous in Tilburg prison: Food narratives and the quality of prison life in a Belgian-Dutch prison. Prison Service Journal (238), 3–9.

57.

Wangmo

Handtke

Bretschneider

Elger

B. S.

(2018). Improving the health of older prisoners: Nutrition and exercise in correctional institutions. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 24(4), 352–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078345818793121

58.

Williams

Walton

Hannan-Jones

(2009). Prison foodservice in Australia – Systems, menus and inmate attitudes. Journal of Foodservice, 20(4), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-0159.2009.00144.x

59.

Wilson

(2023). Unpacking the prison food paradox: Formerly incarcerated individuals’ experience of food within federal prisons in Canada. Studies in Social Justice, 17(2), 280–305. https://doi.org/10.26522/ssj.v17i2.4028

60.

Woods-Brown

Hunt

Sweeting

(2023). Food and the prison environment: A meta-ethnography of global first-hand experiences of food, meals and eating in custody. Health & Justice, 11(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-023-00222-z

61.

Yasrebi-de Kom

F. M.

Dirkzwager

A. E.

Van der Laan

P. H.

Nieuwbeerta

(2023). Deterrent effects of sanction severity and the role of procedural justice in prison: A preregistered randomized vignette experiment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 21(1), 251–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09585-7

62.

Yasrebi-de Kom

F. M.

Dirkzwager

A. J. E.

Van der Laan

P. H.

Nieuwbeerta

(2024). Antecedents of subjective severity of detention and perceived procedural justice. Psychology, Crime & Law, 30(8), 863–890. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2126471

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

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

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

0.00 MB

0.01 MB