Entwicklungspfade der Straftäterbehandlung: skizzierte Wege und Evaluation der Zielerreichung

Abstract

ZusammenfassungDer Aufsatz gibt einen Überblick über die Konzepte und empirischen Evaluationsergebnisse zur Straftäterbehandlung seit den 1960er-Jahren. Zahlreiche Metaanalysen zeigen im Durchschnitt positive Ergebnisse. Kognitiv-verhaltenstherapeutische Programme und das RNR-Modell haben die solideste Evidenzbasis, aber auch einige andere Ansätze sind erfolgversprechend. Bei Sexualtätern sind die Ergebnisse noch weniger einheitlich, insbesondere hinsichtlich der Behandlung in Gefängnissen. Bei der Umsetzung in die Praxis zeigen sich zahlreiche Einflüsse auf die Wirksamkeit, die den Programminhalt, den Kontext, die Probanden und die Methodik der Evaluation betreffen. Das "good lives model" und das "desistance model" erfordern kein anderes Paradigma, sondern sind gut mit dem "What-works-Ansatz" und erweiterten RNR-Modell vereinbar. In diesem Rahmen werden 12 Vorschläge zur empirisch fundierten Weiterentwicklung der Straftäterbehandlung gemacht.Schlüsselwörter Behandlung von Straftätern · Resozialisierung · "What works" · Evaluation · Evidenz Developmental pathways of offender treatment: outlined routes and evaluation of goal attainment AbstractThis article provides an overview of concepts and empirical evaluation results of offender treatment since the 1960s. Many meta-analyses showed on average positive effects. Cognitive behavioral treatment programs and the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model have the most solid evidence base but various other approaches are also promising. For sexual offenders the results are less uniform, in particular for treatment in prisons. The transfer from model projects into routine practice shows that many influences on effectiveness need to be considered, e.g. with respect to program content, context, participants, and evaluation method. The good lives model and desistance model do not need alternative paradigms but are well compatible with the extended RNR model and the what works approach. Within this framework, the article contains 12 proposals for empirically founded further development of offender treatment.

Moderators of Sexual Recidivism as Indicator of Treatment Effectiveness in Persons With Sexual Offense Histories: An Updated Meta-analysis

“…Another six studies ( Abracen et al, 2011 ; Grady et al, 2017 ; Letourneau et al, 2013 ; Olver et al, 2020 ; Smallbone & McHugh, 2010 ; Smid et al, 2016 ) recommended in the Online Supplementary Materials by Schmucker and Lösel (2017) as being eligible for updating their meta-analysis, were also added; again, two of these recommended studies were updated with more recent studies on the same samples ( Grady et al, 2017 ; Olver et al, 2020 ) identified by the current authors. Another two eligible studies ( Buttars et al, 2016 ; Mews et al, 2017 ) were identified based on other recent meta-analyses ( Gannon et al, 2019 ; Lösel, 2020 ).…”

“…Treatment of persons who committed sexual offenses focuses on the reduction of sexual recidivism in order to increase public safety. Although previous meta-analyses provided evidence for reductions in sexual recidivism ( Alexander, 1999 ; Aos et al, 2006 ; Furby et al, 1989 ; Gallagher et al, 1999 ; Gannon et al, 2019 ; Grossman et al, 1999 ; Hall, 1995 ; Hanson et al, 2002 , 2009a , 2009b ; Kim et al, 2016 ; Lösel & Schmucker, 2005 ; Mpofu et al, 2018 ; Polizzi et al, 1999 ; Reitzel & Carbonell, 2006 ; Schmucker & Lösel, 2015 , 2017 ; Ter Beek et al, 2018 ; Walker et al, 2004 ), there is still controversy about which sample characteristics, treatment variables, or methodological issues contribute most to the effectiveness of treatment ( Lösel, 2020 ). Sound treatment evaluation in this field is complicated by various concerns, such as the heterogeneity among persons with sexual offense histories in terms of pre-treatment risk of reoffending, variances between adults and juveniles, differences in treatment approaches, and deficits in study design assigning appropriate treatment and control groups ( Lösel & Schmucker, 2017 ).…”

Same problems, different concepts and language: What happens when prison climate research goes on a journey?

“…In Germany there is a growing interest in prison climate research which has been neglected for a period but is now thought to be a true research desideratum (Guéridon, 2020; Lösel, 2020: 45; Neubacher, 2019: 127). In the past a substantial portion of prison research was dedicated to identifying effective treatment programmes and prisoners well suited to them.…”

“…The quality of the patient-therapist relationship is as relevant to the treatment effect as the chosen treatment approach. Accordingly, in prison the relational skills of the staff are associated with positive results (Lösel, 2020: 45 with reference to Gendreau et al, 1999). By now, international prison research deems prison climate to be an important, if not the key, parameter of prison life.…”

The prison as a space for development

“…B. Lösel 2018Lösel , 2020Lösel et al 2019) gibt es demnach sowohl kontraintentionale als auch nonintentionale Wirkungen und Nebenwirkungen -erwünschte wie unerwünschte.…”