Evaluation Research on Correctional Treatment in West Germany: A Meta-analysis

  • Friedrich Lösel
  • Peter Köferl
Part of the Research in Criminology book series (RESEARCH CRIM.)

Abstract

Compared with the United States and several West European countries, the institutionalization of treatment for criminals is only a relatively recent development in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). In 1969 § 65 StGB (Strafgesetzbuch; Penal Law) on placement in a sociotherapeutic prison was introduced as a major legal basis and one of the major advances in penal reform. The goal of this legislation was that the courts would order placement in a sociotherapeutic prison for the following groups of prisoners:
  1. 1.

    Recidivists with serious personality disorders

     
  2. 2.

    Dangerous sexual offenders

     
  3. 3.

    Young adult criminals who have been assessed as especially crime-prone

     
  4. 4.

    Criminally nonresponsible or reduced responsibility offenders, if placement in a sociotherapeutic prison would appear to provide a better opportunity for resocialization than treatment in a psychiatric clinic

     

Keywords

Europe Fishing Abate 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akers, R. L., Gruninger, W., & Hayner, N. (1976). Prison inmate roles: interorganizational and cross-cultural comparisons. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 4, 365–381.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, W. C. (1966). Correctional outcome: An evaluation of 100 reports. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 57, 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1986). Review of developments in meta-analytic method. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 388–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnett, W. S. (1985). The Perry preschool program and its long-term effects: a benefit-cost analysis. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.Google Scholar
  5. Beckmann, D., & Richter, H. E. (1972). Gießen-Test (GT). Handbuch. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  6. Bernhardt, E. (1984). Der dänische Strafvollzug — die weithin unbemerkte Wende. Zeitschrift für Strafvollzug und Straffälligenhilfe, 33, 140–144.Google Scholar
  7. Blass, W. (1983). Evaluation im Strafvollzug. Überblick und Kritik vorliegender Studien. In H. Kury (Ed.), Methodische Probleme der Behandlungsforschung, insbesondere in der Sozialtherapie(pp. 81–120 ). Cologne: Heymanns.Google Scholar
  8. Bullock, R. J., & Svyantek, D. J. (1985). Analyzing meta-analysis: potential problems, an unsuccessful replication and evaluation criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 108–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christie, N. (1981). Limits to pain. Oxford: Robertson.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences( 2nd ed. ). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  11. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  12. Corrado, R. R. (1981). Using experiments in evaluating delinquency prevention programs. In R. Roesch & R. R. Corrado (Eds.), Evaluation and criminal justice policy(pp. 17–28 ). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Cronbach, L. J., Ambron, S. R., Dornbusch, S.M., Hess, R. D., Hornik, R. C., Phillips, D.C., Walker, D.F., & Weiner, S. S. (1980). Toward reform of program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  14. Dolde, G. (1982). Effizienzkontrolle sozialtherapeutischer Behandlung im Vollzug. In H. Göppinger & P. H. Bresser (Eds.), Sozialtherapie. Kriminologische Gegenwartsfragen: Vol. 15 (pp. 47 — 64 ). Stuttgart: Enke.Google Scholar
  15. Driebold, R., Egg, R., Nellessen, L., Quensel, S., & Schmitt, G. (1984). Die Sozialtherapeutische Anstalt. Modelle für Empfehlungen für den Justizvollzug. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  16. Dünkel, E (1980). Sozialtherapeutische Behandlung und Rückfälligkeit in Berlin-Tegel. Berlin: Duncker and Humblot.Google Scholar
  17. Dünkel, E (1983). Methodische Probleme der Effizienzforschung bei Behandlungsmaßnahmen im Strafvollzug, insbesondere in der Sozialtherapie. In H. Kury (Ed.), Methodische Probleme der Behandlungsforschung, insbesondere in der Sozialtherapie(pp. 121–147 ). Cologne: Heymanns.Google Scholar
  18. Dünkel, F. (1987). Die Herausforderung der geburtenschwachen Jahrgänge. Aspekte der Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse in der Kriminalpolitik. Freiburg i. Br., FRG: Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht.Google Scholar
  19. Dünkel, F., Nemec, R., & Rosner, A. (1985). Organisationsentwicklung und Behandlungsmaßnahmen in einer sozialtherapeutischen Anstalt. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript. Freiburg i. Br., FRG: Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht.Google Scholar
  20. Egg, R. (1984). Straffälligkeit und Sozialtherapie. Cologne: Heymanns.Google Scholar
  21. Emmerik, J. V. (1982). Einige Ergebnisse der Nachuntersuchung von ehemaligen Patienten der Dr. Henri van-der-Hoeven-Kliniek in Utrecht. Zeitschrift für Strafvollzug und Straffälligenhilfe, 31, 339–347.Google Scholar
  22. Fahrenberg, J., Selg, H., & Hampel, R. (1978). Das Freiburger Persönlichkeitsinventar (FPI). Handanweisung( 3rd ed. ). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  23. Farrington, D. P. (1983). Randomized experiments on crime and justice. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice. An annual review of research: Vol. 4 (pp. 257–308 ). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Fricke, R., & Treinies, G. (1985). Einführung in die Meta Analyse. Bern: Huber. Friedman, H. (1968). Magnitude of experimental effect and a table for its rapid estimation. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 245–251.Google Scholar
  25. Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. R. (1980). Effective correctional treatment: bibliotheraphy for cynics. In R. R. Ross & P. Gendreau (Eds.), Effective correctional treatment(pp. 3–36 ). Toronto: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  26. Glaser, D. (1983). Towards a cost/benefit assessment of Dutch penal policies. The Hague: Research and Documentation Center of the Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
  27. Glass, G. V., & Kliegl, R. M. (1983). An apology for research integration in the study of psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 28–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Grawe, K. (1987). Die Effekte der Psychotherapie. In M. Amelang (Ed.), Bericht über den 35. Kongreß der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie in Heidelberg 1986: Vol. 2 (pp. 515 - 534 ). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  30. Hesener, B., & Jehle, J. M. (1987). Bevölkerungsbewegung und Strafvollzugsbelegung. Die künftige Entwicklung des Strafvollzugs unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der demo-graphischen Entwicklung. Wiesbaden, FRG: Kriminologische Zentralstelle.Google Scholar
  31. Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, E. L., & Jackson, G. B. (1982). Meta-analysis: cumulating research findings across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Interview with Martinson. (1978, December 9). Criminal Justice Newsletter, 9, p. 4.Google Scholar
  32. Kaiser, G. (1986). Aktuelle Ergebnisse kriminologischer Forschung. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 103, 1–23.Google Scholar
  33. Kaiser, G., Dünkel, F., & Ortmann, R. (1982). Die sozialtherapeutische Anstalt–das Ende einer Reform? Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik, 15, 198–207.Google Scholar
  34. Kury, H. (Ed.). (1983). Methodische Probleme der Behandlungsforschung, insbesondere der Sozialtherapie. Cologne: Heymanns.Google Scholar
  35. Kury, H. (1986). Die Behandlung Straffälliger: Vol. 1. Inhaltliche und methodische Probleme der Behandlungsforschung. Berlin: Duncker and Humblot.Google Scholar
  36. Lejins, P.P. (1982). Maßnahmen zur Behandlung abnormer Täter–Erfahrungsbericht aus den USA. In H. Göppinger & P. H. Bresser (Eds.), Sozialtherapie. Kriminologische Gegenwartsfragen: Vol. 15 (pp. 7–31 ). Stuttgart: Enke.Google Scholar
  37. Leviton, L. C., & Hughes, E. F. (1981). Research on the utilization of evaluations: a review and synthesis. Evaluation Review, 5, 525–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lipton, D., Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  39. Logan, C. (1972) Criminology. Evaluation research in crime and delinquency: a reappraisal. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 63, 378–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lösel, E (Ed.). (1983). Kriminalpsychologie. Weinheim, FRG: Beltz.Google Scholar
  41. Lösel, F. (1987). Methodik und Problematik von Meta-Analysen–mit Beispielen der Psychoatherapieforschung. Gruppendynamik, 18, 323–343.Google Scholar
  42. Lösel, E, & Nowack, W. (1987). Evaluationsforschung. In J. Schultz-Gambard (Ed.), Angewandte Sozialpsychologie(pp. 57–87 ). Munich: Psychologie-Verlags-Union.Google Scholar
  43. L?sel, F., K?ferl, P., & Weber, F. (1987). Meta-Evaluation der Sozialtherapie Stuttgart: nke.Google Scholar
  44. Morris, N. (1974). The future of imprisonment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Neu, A. (1974). Die finanziellen Auswirkungen des Alternativ-Entwurfs. In J. Baumann (Ed.), Die Reform des Strafvollzugs(pp. 145–164). Munich: Goldmann.Google Scholar
  45. Ortmann, R. (1987). Resozialisierung im Strafvollzug Freiburg i. Br., FRG: Max-Planck-In-stitut für ausl?ndisches und internationales Strafrecht.Google Scholar
  46. Posavac, E. J., & Carey, R. G. (1980). Program evaluation. Methods and case studies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  47. Quay, H. C. (1977). The three faces of evaluation: What can be expected to work? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 4, 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rehn, G. (1979). Behandlung im Strafvollzug. Weinheim, FRG: Beltz.Google Scholar
  49. Rezmovic, E. L. (1979). Methodological considerations in evaluating correctional effectiveness: issues and chronic problems. In L. B. Sechrest, S. O. White, & E. D. Brown (Eds.), The rehabilitation of criminal offenders: problems and prospects(pp. 163–209 ). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  50. Romig, A. D. (1978). Justice for our children. An examination of juvenile delinquent rehabilitation programs. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  51. Rosenthal, R. (1983). Assessing the statistical and social importance of the effects of psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 4–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple, general purpose display of magnitude of experimental effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 166–169.Google Scholar
  53. Schmitt. G. (1981). Sozialtherapie im Überblick. In Bundeszusammenschluß für Straffälligenhilfe (Ed.), Sozialtherapie als kriminalpolitische Aufgabe(pp. 123–165 ). Bonn-Bad Godesberg: Author.Google Scholar
  54. Schüler-Springorum, H. (1986). Die sozialtherapeutischen Anstalten - ein kriminalpolitisches Lehrstück. In H. J. Hirsch, G. Kaiser, & H. Marquardt (Eds.), Gedchtnisschrift für Hilde Kaufmann (pp. 167–188). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  55. Sechrest, L. B., & Yeaton, W. H. (1982). Assessing the effectiveness of social programs: methodological and conceptual issues. Evaluation Studies, 2, 151–166.Google Scholar
  56. Sechrest, L. B., White, S. O., & Brown, E. D. (Eds.). (1979). The rehabilitation of criminal offenders: problems and prospects. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  57. Shapiro, D.A., & Shapiro, D. (1982). Meta-analysis of comparative therapy outcome studies: a replication and refinement. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 581–604.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shapiro, D.A., & Shapiro, D. (1983). Comparative therapy outcome research: methodological implications of meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 42–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Smith, M. L., & Glass, G. V. (1977). Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. American Psychologist, 32, 752–760.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Smith, M. L., Glass, G. V., & Miller, T. I. (1980). The benefits of psychotherapy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Van den Bergh, W., Van der Plaats, L. K., & Niemantsverdriet, J. R. (1983). Die Behandlung psychisch gestörter Straftäter in der van-der-Hoeven-Kliniek in Utrecht. In R. Driebold (Ed.), Strafvollzug(pp. 153–166 ). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  62. Waldo, G., & Griswold, D. (1979). Issues in the measurement of recidivism. In L. B. Sechrest, S. O. White, & E. D. Brown (Eds.), The rehabilitation of criminal offenders: problems and prospects(pp. 225–250 ). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  63. Wilkins, L. (1978). “Treatment” on trial: the case of Patuxent. In N. Johnston & L. Savitz (Eds.), Justice and corrections(pp. 670–687). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  64. Witte, A.D., Woodbury, D.F., Smith, S.H., Barreto, H., & Beaton, R. (1983). The effects of a less coercive internal prison environment and gradual re-integration on post-release performance: an evaluation of Morris model of imprisonment as implemented at the Federal Correctional Institution at Butner D.C. Report for the Bureau of Prisons, July 1983.Google Scholar
  65. Wittmann, W. W., & Matt, G.E. (1986). Meta-Analyse als Integration von Forschungsergebnissen am Beispiel deutschsprachiger Arbeiten zur Effektivität von Psychotherapie. Psychologische Rundschau, 37, 20–40.Google Scholar
  66. Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-analysis. Quantitative methods for research synthesis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Friedrich Lösel
  • Peter Köferl

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations