Asylum at Neuendeich

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Asylum am Neuendeich was a closed institution of the Inner Mission near Glückstadt founded in 1850 on the basis of a private charitable foundation for the purpose of caring for young women and women . In 1932 the building and land of the foundation were leased for other uses to the former "Alsterdorfer Anstalten" (predecessor of the Evangelical Foundation Alsterdorf ) with effect from April 1933 , and sold to them after the Second World War . Since the organizational structure of the Alsterdorf Evangelical Foundation was changed in 2005, the facility there has been continued in the “alsterdorf assistenz ost” section under the name “Wohnhaus Am Neuendeich”.

Location and name

The facility was in what is now the Blomesche Wildnis community , Neuendeich district, Am Neuendeich (Kommunalstrasse 8) 175, about 3 km northwest of Glückstadt . The Neuendeich district is not identical to the Neuendeich community east of Glückstadt (Moorrege district, Pinneberg district) . Only a draft sketch of the first building has survived; today's successor facility “Wohnhaus Am Neuendeich” now uses converted and expanded buildings.

In the course of time, the facility was listed under different names both in its own and in official documents, in the mail, in the press and in specialist literature, such as "Asylum in the Blomeschen (also: Blohme'schen) Wildnis am Neuendeich" , "Asylum for neglected girls and released female prisoners in Neuendeich bei Glückstadt", "Asyl am Neuendeich bei Glückstadt in Holstein", "Asyl Neuendeich bei Glückstadt", "Asyl Neuendeich", "Asyl bei Glückstadt", "Girls' asylum in the Blomeschen Wildniss ”,“ Asylum for girls near Glückstadt ”,“ Asylum for released female prisoners ”and“ Glückstädter asylum for young women released from prison ”.

Historical classification

The Asylum am Neuendeich was part of a broad movement that, especially in the 19th century, led to the establishment of institutions for general welfare and youth welfare based on government, church or private initiatives in many German regions . It was triggered by the changes in social conditions that began with mercantilism from the 16th to the 18th century and which led to the Industrial Revolution in Germany at the beginning of the 19th century . The population increased significantly, but the yields from agriculture did not keep pace, and under the competition of production in manufacture and finally industry, the situation of handicrafts and traditional branches of trade deteriorated. The rural population became impoverished, a wage-dependent proletariat developed in the cities, and the previously dominant structures of the extended family dissolved. In order to mitigate this development, private, church, union and state initiated and organized social security systems have developed since the beginning of the 19th century . The Halleschen Anstalten founded by August Hermann Francke in 1698 was one of the early forerunners, and further private individuals subsequently founded Protestant and Catholic orphanages. At the end of the 18th century, many cities built industrial schools (later “factory schools”). In 1813 Johannes Daniel Falk founded the first “rescue house” in Weimar for the benefit of the boys who had become homeless during the Napoleonic wars . Similar facilities followed in 1819 by Adalbert von der Recke-Volmerstein and in 1825 by David Traugott Kopf . In 1831, at the suggestion of Pomeranian President Johann August Sack, the "Züllchower Rescue House" (later the " Züllchower Anstalten )" was founded, and in 1833 the "Rauhe Haus" was founded by Johann Heinrich Wichern only about 65 km from Neuendeich . In 1836 Theodor Fliedner founded the Kaiserswerther Diakonie . In 1849 the German Protestant Church recognized the need to meet the economic and emotional hardship of large sections of the population by founding a “Central Committee for Inner Mission” . In 1840 Prussia stipulated that when "neglected" children were subject to the violence of third parties ("holding children"), certain minimum standards were to be observed. At that time Neuendeich was still in Danish territory within sight of the Danish garrison - and the former royal seat of Glückstadt. At the end of December 1863, however, on the eve of the German-Danish War , the Danes had evacuated Glückstadt and German troops had succeeded them, and in 1866 Prussia had taken over Glückstadt and the surrounding area with asylum in its territory as part of the annexation of the previous duchies as the province of Schleswig-Holstein .

Penal institutions and correctional institutions

The asylum at Neuendeich was closely linked in several ways with the penal and reformatory institutions, first of the Danish, then the Prussian authorities in Schleswig-Holstein: When the Danish-Norwegian King Frederik III. In 1649 the government and justice offices of his duchies of Schleswig-Holstein moved to Glückstadt, and the city also got a prison . Then, in the new building started in 1736 at Rethövel 9, where the Rantzau-Palais had previously stood, a penitentiary and workhouse were also put into operation from 1739 , into which “Tolle” were also assigned from 1754 and in 1817 their own “women's penitentiary” was set up . In 1818 the "New Prison" in the "Old Casting House" in Königstr. 41 built so that in 1819 the prisoners from the Neumünster and Lübeck penal institutions could be taken over. In 1820, a separate wing of the building for female prisoners was built in the Königstrasse asylum, and in 1833 the Bechtolheim house at Rethövel 12 was also used as a prison for women. In 1841 the Glückstadt institutions took over the prisoners from the Altona prison , and in 1850 those from Flensburg . With this, all supraregional penal institutions of the Danish ruled Schleswig-Holstein were brought together in Glückstadt. As early as 1867, just one year after the annexation by Prussia, a correctional institution was set up in Glückstadt in addition to the penal institutions that were initially being continued . Nationwide in 1871 the Reich Criminal Code regulated in Section 56 the “forced upbringing” of persons from 12 to 18 years of age by being instructed in “educational and reformatory institutions” as long as “as the administrative authority above the institution deems it necessary, but not beyond the completed one Twenty year old ". In 1875 the Glückstadt penitentiaries were dissolved in favor of the institutions in Rendsburg, Lingen and Celle. What remained was the men's prison, which played a role in Theodor Storm's 1887 novella The Double , and the women's prison at Rethövel 9 and 12 with over 400 convicts. The asylum was now also granted to female “pupils” from the correctional institution, which in 1883 had more than 1,200 “correctors”.

founding

Sketch of the asylum home from 1850

The Protestant chaplain of the Glückstadt prison was Pastor Friedrich August Gleiß from 1839 until his death in 1849. He was offended by the fact that women prisoners in particular found it difficult to find their way back into civil life after serving their sentences. He made contact with several founders of youth welfare institutions, such as Caroline Fliedner in the Kaiserswerther Diakonie, and in 1844 called for the establishment of another such foundation, which was to set up a "refuge for released female prisoners". As early as the end of January 1845, the provisional "Direction", ie the founding board , was informed that the Danish-Norwegian queen would take over the patronage . After presenting its plans to the Danish government in Gottorf in writing , the board also received administrative approval. As a result, several dignitaries from Glückstadt and the surrounding area could be won, with their deposits in 1847 in what was then the Blomesche Wildnis district, the Stendersche Hof am Neuendeich, whose residential building had just burned down, along with 13 hectares of land and the right to the payment of the fire insurance that had become due has been. In November 1848, the foundation board was complete; in addition to Gleiß, it also included a senior government councilor , chancellery, senior war commissioner, senator , senior pastor , rector , candidate and organist . The board of directors drew up the statutes , gave the order for the construction of the asylum home and began to solicit donations , from which the ongoing operations should be paid for. Gleiß died in 1849, the building of the home was completed in 1850. The two-storey house with a roughly square floor plan had an entrance for the management as well as three rooms for pupils and a kitchen on the ground floor, then a work and a dining room in the middle and an uncovered courtyard, and finally the one on the other side Entrance for the pupils, two further rooms, another kitchen, a guest room and a storage room. On the upper floor were the large room of the "overseer" and the smaller one of the "second overseer", as well as four other rooms for pupils, an infirmary and a few rooms not dedicated. Overall, the house was designed quite generously for the intended occupancy with a maximum of 12 pupils, even from today's perspective.

Charitable orientation

At the end of 1850, Auguste Decker, a sister-in-law of the prison chaplain Schetellig, was appointed as the “head of the asylum center” (“home mother”). The asylum at Neuendeich started its work in the same year as the Alsterdorfer Anstalten founded by Heinrich Matthias Sengelmann . Decker was asked to run the home as “a real institution of the Evangelical Inner Mission in the spirit of Wichern” with the aim of placing the women who had been released from custody in her care as servants or maids in private households and parishes as soon as possible . Until this succeeded, she kept the pupils busy with domestic and handicraft work, especially spinning, and with agricultural activities under the direction of an “economist”. Any costs incurred were covered by divine service collections , donations, alms and bequests , which often came from the Schleswig-Holstein knighthood and for which, for example, Ernst Friedrich Versmann's "Sunday Messenger" was advertised. When "housemother" Decker retired in 1887, it was said:

“She had a warm interest and a rich understanding of the soul work that was to be done here. Their accounts show a heartfelt love for the fallen, a good skill in leading and educating them, and a sober judgment of the success of their work. She has experienced good and bad in her pupils, how some would like to get rid of their old life and could not become free, how some ran away, some kept coming back, some also became good people. [...] The main means of nurturing the soul, God's word, was well known to her, she lived in it and knew how to use it. On Sundays she went to church with her pupils. "

Business orientation

The board of directors of the Asylum Foundation consisted of the prison director Migula as chairman and the Glückstadt mayor Brandes, pastor Carl Lensch from Borsfleth, two other pastors, another "director" and the owner of the neighboring estate. During this time, she made two decisions that were supposed to change the character of the asylum: In recent years it had become more and more difficult to reliably cover the costs of the asylum with donations. Therefore, the agricultural use of the foundation's land should be intensified in the future in order to ensure self-sufficiency and to market the excess production. In doing so, explicit reference was made to the motto “ ora et labora ”, which the Inner Mission had borrowed from the monastery rules. In addition, in order to get closer to the new goal, a childless pair of parents should now be employed as the home management as the successor to the first home mother, from whom the home father had to bring his own agricultural experience.

Job description for home parents 1887

The board began looking for such home parents through internal inquiries in similar institutions. Like Johann Hinrich Wichern, they could not name anyone in his letter of June 16, 1887. At the beginning of July 1887, the board therefore published a job advertisement in the regional press. One day later, the regional association of the Inner Mission in Neumünster recommended two candidates, including a couple Böhmer who had lived as “parcelists” (small farmers) with Süsel for six years and now worked as home parents in the “Herberge zur Heimat” in Eutin , which is part of the Inner Mission . Böhmer was made aware of the advertisement and applied, the testimony of repute he had named , a pastor from Süsel and a church council from Eutin, issued a good testimonial, his wife was a former deaconess . The Böhmer couple were awarded the contract and in October 1887 began their work as home parents of the asylum on Neuendeich.

In the following years the asylum home was occupied to its full capacity. Böhmer increased the agricultural income as requested and he succeeded in getting a seasonal agricultural worker from the board, since the increased work in the fields overwhelmed the female pupils. Nevertheless, the pressure of the foundation board on the home parents and through them on the pupils apparently remained considerable. In 1892, the board of directors made two reproaches to the father, Böhmer: On the one hand, he was not educating strictly enough. On the other hand, she blamed him for the fact that time and again some of the interned pupils “ran away” - as was already the case at the time of his predecessor. In the interest of the pupils and in his defense, Böhmer explained these allegations:

“[...] so we raised them according to God's word, with love, patience and kindness; but if this was by no means sufficient, she also received a very mild chastisement, and if we had to reproach ourselves, it is that we treated her much too gently, I used to say that in extraordinary cases For example, if the girls hit each other, allowed a slap in the face, but hadn't done it for a long time, because they were recognized as wrong and would rather give another small punishment for it [...] As for running away, this only has his own Reason in the great indolence of all the girls and the many excessive work [...] which I cannot change, however, because I do not know the financial situation of the asylum, I do not manage with any or always very little stock and never know whether it has the means Allow me to use outside help or not, so I have to rely on my own strength and the girls have to stop working with me. "

For the foundation board, the escape of pupils was not only a problem for educational reasons, because the "escaped" pupils reported - as expected - not exactly well about their stay in the asylum. In the spring of 1895, the board of directors decided to inquire with third parties about the reputation of their home father. A pastor interviewed then gave this information: “About the house parents of the asylum I have not been told anything disadvantageous by escaped girls. The girls only sometimes complained about heavy farm work and said that they did not want to be in the asylum, but did not express any allegations against the house parents. ”In view of the events surrounding the two successors of the Böhmer couple, this statement is remarkable. In any case, the board of directors could not accuse Böhmer of any misconduct on this basis, but the economic pressure and educational expectations remained. A few months later, Böhmer submitted his resignation for himself and his wife and left the asylum in November 1895.

Crisis caused by two scandals

After the women's section of the Glückstadt prison was closed in 1897, only released prisoners from outside the region and female released prisoners from the Glückstadt correctional institution were eligible for the asylum at Neuendeich. The asylum therefore temporarily housed fewer than five pupils. An offer by Pastor Friedrich Gleiß, head of the regional association of the Schleswig-Holstein Inner Mission, to transfer the asylum to a facility of this regional association, was rejected by the asylum board. The asylum might have disappeared from the public consciousness if serious legal allegations had not arisen about two of the following home fathers:

After the Böhmer couple in 1895, the foundation's board of directors decided to hire Otto Ludwig Fröndt, the former station porter, as the home manager. However, like his two successors, he did not meet the requirements that the board had formulated in the internal and public advertisement for the position in 1887: Fröndt was a single man and had neither pedagogical training nor experience nor a connection to the Inner Mission. At the end of 1902, two former pupils accused Fröndt of coercion and sexual abuse. At first there was no legal clarification, Fröndt was only persuaded to withdraw from the asylum at the end of the first quarter of 1903. At the beginning of 1904, however, he was involved in an alimony process in which the child's mother named the aforementioned two witnesses as witnesses, along with many other earlier pupils. The Itzehoe district court now also included the earlier allegations in the hearing and sentenced Fröndt in October 1904 to three years in prison for repeated immoral acts against children under 14 years of age. For the asylum on Neuendeich, the process was all the more damaging as the published reasons for the judgment stated that the asylum had "downright rotten conditions" at that time, and that the girls interned there had "been prepared for the vice".

In the meantime, the foundation's board of directors had temporarily appointed another person to be the dormitory manager for the period up to September 1903, but his previous position as station master did not reveal any qualifications for this task either. For the period from October 1903, the board of directors agreed on Friedrich Wilhelm Joachim Kolander and his wife as the new home manager couple. As a forester, Kolander was not qualified for the new job either, at the age of 27 he still had little experience in life and was also about to accept a position in East Germany. His father Gustav Adolf Kolander, born in 1842, was not only chairman of the foundation's board of directors, but also director of the correctional institution, “warden of honor” of the German Fleet Association and city ​​councilor , and thus an influential person. Together with the board member Mayor Brandes, he - unfortunately - pushed through the appointment of his son against the vote of the two pastors represented on the board.

Asylum home after expansion in 1905

Initially, calm returned to the asylum, but its capacity was even expanded to 32 places by an extension. This made it easier to accommodate pupils, for whom in 1900 the youth authority of the provincial administration had secured eight places in asylum on the basis of the law on welfare education for minors. But then the second scandal about the asylum at Neuendeich loomed: The house parents were reported by the pupils and their relatives for abuse and coercion. As a result, both Kolanders were charged with physically abusing, deprived of their liberty and coercion in a large number of cases between 1904 and 1908, by chastising them with sticks and whips in order to tolerate the abuse compelled and caused the deprivation of liberty through arrest sentences. In January 1909 the trial took place in the criminal chamber of the Itzehoe district court. The court accused the asylum chief of having made the wrong choice when appealing the father of the home and of having subsequently also insufficiently supervised , but left it at this criticism. The court also showed mildness with regard to the defendants: It ruled out some of the allegations because of insufficient evidence, and held that the defendant was “dealing with poor human material”, had no previous education and was still young. Therefore, the court sentenced the father to a prison term of nine months for willful assault and coercion, and his wife was even acquitted. The trial and the judgment, which was often felt to be too mild, had attracted attention not only in the North German but also in the Berlin press. Some authors saw in it "beyond the enormity of the individual case" a cautionary example, through which "serious deficiencies of the system have become visible", the just passed through the 1900 Prussian law for the welfare education of minors and the also in 1900 anchored in the BGB Parents in relation to the state seemed regulated, but actually did not prevent “disproportions like in Glückstadt”. Even in the German Reichstag , the criminal proceedings against Kolander's parents were a topic for years:

"I mean that sad case that took place before the judges in Itzehoe. [...] I am of the opinion that this case should give us reason to seriously consider whether we should not include the question of care Circle of imperial legal tasks would have to draw. [...] Gentlemen, what a great, indescribable state of affairs that, under the supervision of a state authority, a young forester who has absolutely no involvement in such a responsible, difficult and delicate office is simply torn out of his forester career and is now an educator partly unhappy, partly neglected girl, and in possession of the office this right of upbringing exercises in a downright barbaric, I would almost like to say, insane way. [...] That one's own father has to decide on the appointment of the head of this welfare institution, not cousin, but fatherhood. That is really a monstrous state. "

A year later, another member of the Reichstag warned: “Let's not rely on it being declared that the young people are going to educational institutions and the like. I remind you of what we heard from the educational institutions, of the horrors of the Blohmean wilderness ”. Because, he adds a year later: "Gentlemen, I could tell you other cases from the East, from the West, from the Blohmean wilderness, about a number of hypocrites, from so-called heads of welfare institutions"

At that time, the reputation of the asylum was additionally damaged by the fact that the foundation board had initially not appointed any other home management in place of the home parents brought to court. As a result, “anarchic conditions” are said to have prevailed in the asylum. Of the 29 pupils, 17 had left the facility, eleven of them had previously managed to break into the asylum's clothing room and exchange their institutional clothing ("blue-dotted dress with black and green ribbon") for normal ones. At a time when women were not only excluded from voting in the Reichstag elections , but were even dependent on the consent of their husbands with regard to their whereabouts and employment, the frequent appearance of these pupils in neighboring Glückstadt caused a particular sensation. The Glückstadt police had been alerted by the mayor (himself a member of the asylum board) and had "been busy all day catching the girls again".

After the verdict, home father Kolander appealed, and the Reichsgericht ordered the trial to be restarted. In the courtroom, father Kolander, who was summoned as a witness, and his accused son contradicted one another on an important point: the former claimed that he had expressly forbidden corporal punishment, while the latter, on the other hand, had never received such a condition, on the contrary, the representative of the supervisory authority had told him that he must "proceed strictly". The reappointed witnesses exonerated the defendant. The Itzehoe Criminal Court did not deal with the contradictions any further. In early July 1909 it revised its sentence to only eight months in prison for the defendant. His wife remained unpunished, and the incorrect selection of the foundation's board of directors when appointing the home parents, the obvious nepotism and the subsequent lack of supervision by the board of directors and government agencies had no legal consequences. After the verdict, however, some of the former pupils confessed to having sworn perjuries in court for fear of their home father Kolander. As a result, a third trial was opened before the Altona jury court for renewed taking of evidence regarding the old allegations and, in addition, the allegation of incitement to perjury by the home managers and the performance of perjury by some of the witnesses. Eventually the witnesses were acquitted of the charge of perjury, but father Kolander was sentenced to imprisonment for one year for attempted induction and for the other accusations, while his wife was acquitted again. The meanwhile 67-year-old father Kolander resigned from his position as head of the correctional institution, but the serious failures of the asylum committee and the state supervision, although on record, again had no legal consequences.

The end of asylum

After the two board members, Mayor Brandes and Pastor Holst, were briefly employed as home manager, the unmarried Johanne Holm, sister-in-law of Holst, took over the office of home mother. It was followed by the unmarried home mothers Frank (1911-1914), Andrea Hansen (1914-1922) and Adelheid Bischhoff (1922-1933).

During home mother Hansen's time, the asylum also came into contact with the workers 'and soldiers' council , which had also formed in Glückstadt after the November Revolution . As early as November 1918, he inspected the correctional facility, from which not only some of the asylum inmates had come, but whose director Heinrich Finnern was also a member of the Asylum Foundation's board of directors. Two months later, a prisoner of the asylum asked the workers 'and soldiers' council for a “pardon” and release from the asylum.

After 1909 there were no further allegations of mistreatment or abuse. On the other hand, however, the economic situation of the asylum deteriorated both in accordance with the general hardship during the First World War and the subsequent global economic crisis , as well as due to changed priorities in church and state social policy. Not only in government agencies, but also in the Inner Mission, the weight of the arguments shifted from Christian charitable aid to economic usefulness to sheer social Darwinism .

On the one hand, the pressure of expectation in society with regard to the establishment's economic independence grew. On the other hand, representatives of workers' interests had gained in importance since 1919. They criticized the illegal and unconstitutional exploitation of economic hardship at the expense of inmates who were obliged to work in various institutions. In 1929, for example, the Arbeiterwohlfahrt complained that “Protestant, Catholic and Jewish denominational institutions exceed the statutory working hours in good parity, 9 3/4 - 10 1/4 hours of working hours without further training courses indicate the Neuendeich asylum in Holstein [...]”.

The asylum was also in competition with similar institutions that the state now maintained itself, such as a home for young people who were difficult to educate in 1926 in the former Blome'schen Schloss Heiligenstedten . Looking back, on the occasion of the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the asylum in 1950, the chronicler remembered:

“As happily as we celebrated our 75th anniversary in 1925, our work in the next few years was just as hard hit by the general economic and financial crisis and the political attitudes of those who were otherwise assigned to our institution by the welfare children! The result was that our house, where only 1.70 RM per day and pupil was charged as boarding and care allowance, became increasingly empty, while in Heiligenstedten Castle the provincial authorities at the time paid 5 RM per day and pupil was! "

The foundation board had to be concerned about the economic survival of the facility. Coincidentally, Pastor Paul Stritter, head of the Alsterdorfer Anstalten, planned to outsource the institute in favor of a life far away from the “challenges of the big city”. As a first step, he succeeded in acquiring the Stegen estate north of Hamburg as an agricultural branch. The wish of the foundation board of the Asylum am Neuendeich for an economically strong partner came in handy. In the same year, Pastor Friedrich Karl Lensch , Stritter's successor since 1930, agreed on a contract with Pastor Carl Lensch, member of the Asylum Board: First, all of the asylum's buildings were renovated, then these and, in two stages, the entire country for an initial five years leased to the Alsterdorfer Anstalten. From 1933, the Alsterdorfer Anstalten used the facility and land of the previous asylum on the one hand, under the direction of sisters and nurses sent from Hamburg with the previous home mother Bischhoff as head nurse, as a home for mentally handicapped girls and on the other hand as a rest home for their own staff. The pupils of the Alsterdorfer Anstalten am Neuendeich were expressly referred to as “slightly ill but weak-minded female foster children who are still able to work”. In this way they were able to escape National Socialist discrimination as "life unworthy of life" and "useless boarders" and, unlike in Alsterdorf, there were no questionable medical experiments and "selections" with the aim of "euthanasia" at Neuendeich .

Appreciation

The pupils of the facility were occasionally referred to in official correspondence as " fallen girls ", "unaccustomed to work" and "neglected" in accordance with the linguistic usage and social understanding of the time . This shows that they were morally and sometimes legally outside of society. The express goal of the asylum at Neuendeich was the physical and mental restoration and then the reintegration of these people into the society of that time. The board of directors did not provide any information on the extent to which the asylum succeeded in doing this.

Only looking back and roughly estimated the temporary chairman of the foundation board, Pastor Carl Lensch: "With 75% success this inner missionary work in our institution was blessed during this time". The most concrete information on the effectiveness comes from the time of the home father Böhmers. In a letter "to the highly honorable management" he stated:

"Regarding the mentioned success of my work, I make the remark that 16 of the 45 girls I have taken in are living in decent circumstances: 6 married, 1 engaged to a decent man and 9 in employment."

Since the board of directors was able to check this information, it can be assumed that Böhmer made them as accurate as possible, but they would speak for a successful reintegration of only about a third of the pupils. Today's demands on a sociological evaluation, however, cannot meet Boehmer's statements anyway, and unfortunately the period of asylum from 1850 to 1895 under home mother Decker and home parents Böhmer must be seen as a happy exception. Given the high quota of unauthorized people leaving the facility, or at least given the conditions as evidenced by the evidence in the criminal trials of 1904 and 1909, the asylum is unlikely to have lived up to the goals it set itself when it was founded. Despite all the commitment of individuals, this was countered by insufficient personnel and material resources on the one hand, insufficient qualifications, conflicts of interest and serious negligence on the part of the board of directors in the selection of staff as well as insufficient supervision by the board of directors and authorities on the other.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Theodor Schäfer 1902: The asylum for released female convicts and neglected girls in the Blome'schen Wildniß near Glückstadt , In: Correspondenzblatt der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Diakonissenanstalt für Schleswig-Holstein in Altona:
  2. ↑ a b c J. Jakobsen 1912: Asylum at Neuendeich near Glückstadt in Holstein . IX. Department, pp. 464–468 in: P. Seiffert (Hsg): German Welfare Educational Institutions in Word and Image, Vol. 1, Halle ad Saale
  3. ↑ J. Jakobsen 1917: Das Asyl Neuendeich near Glückstadt , p. 300 ff in: Friedrich Gleiß: Handbook of the inner mission in Schleswig-Holstein, 444 p., Verlag HH Nölke
  4. ↑ Residential building on Neuendeich. alsterdorf-assistent-ost.de, archived from the original on September 20, 2012 ; Retrieved April 6, 2012 .
  5. ↑ Residential building on Neuendeich - location of the successor to the asylum on Neuendeich
  6. ↑ Glückstadt (formerly women's prison) . geolocation.ws. Retrieved April 6, 2012.
  7. ↑ Karsten Hanstein: Glückstadt - a royal dream behind walls. Guarding, punishing and isolating, tradition in Glückstadt? In: Reprint of the FDP parliamentary group in the Schleswig-Holstein state parliament . 1997 ( PDF [accessed April 6, 2012]).
  8. ^ Imperial Criminal Code of 1871
  9. ↑ a b c d e f City Archives Glückstadt in the Brockdorff-Palais, Sign. N1
  10. ^ Itzehoer Nachrichten of July 8th, 1887: Job advertisement for home parents in the asylum on Neuendeich
  11. ↑ Carl Claus Ludwig Böhmer, born January 12, 1858 in Luhnstedt, fifth child of Georg Friedrich August Boehmer (1819–1868) and Fanny Caroline Friederike Struck (1825–1894), ⚭ December 1, 1883 in Süsel near Eutin with the deaconess (Anna Dora) Wilhelmine Böttger, born December 1, 1856 in Schlamersdorf. The couple had no children of their own, but were assigned a foster daughter by the Schleswig-Holstein Educational Association in 1895. At the end of 1895, the family moved to a purchased estate near Wankendorf in Holstein Switzerland
  12. ^ Hans-Joachim Ramm 1989: Church in transition. In: Association for Schleswig-Holstein. Church history (ed.): Writings of the association, Vol. 30, 452 S., Wachholtz, ISBN 3-5290-2830-4 .
  13. ↑ Itzehoer Nachrichten No. 235 of October 7, 1904, supplement p. 1: Announcement of the judgment in the criminal trial against Fröndt
  14. ↑ a b Reimer Möller 2007: A coastal region in political and social upheaval (1860-1933): the consequences of industrialization in the Steinburg district (Elbe) , In: Hamburg working group for regional history (Hsg): Publications of the Hamburg working group for regional history, vol. 22, 715 pp., LIT Verlag Münster, ISBN 3-8258-9194-1
  15. ^ Provincial order for the province of Schleswig-Holstein (1888) . verassungen.de. Retrieved April 6, 2012.
  16. ↑ North German Courier No. 18 v. Jan. 22, 1909
  17. ↑ Hamburger Nachrichten v. Jan. 19, 1909
  18. ↑ The Reichsbote No. 13 of January 16, 1909, Appendix 1: Report on the 1st abuse process in Itzehoe
  19. ↑ Central Bureau for the German Press (Hsg): Deutsche Reichs-Korrespondenz v. Jan. 18, 1909: The Itzehoe trial
  20. ↑ Abg. Dr. Heckscher: Negotiations of the German Reichstag . reichstagsprotocol.de. January 19, 1909. Retrieved on April 6, 2012: "The Kolander case speaks for regulation under Reich law and strict state supervision"
  21. ↑ Abg. Stadthagen: Negotiations of the German Reichstag . reichstagsprotocol.de. January 15, 1910. Retrieved on April 6, 2012: "Without strict state supervision, admission to educational institutions is no solution."
  22. ↑ Abg. Stadthagen: Negotiations of the German Reichstag . reichstagsprotocol.de. January 13, 1911. Accessed on April 6, 2012: "The educational institutions require strict surveillance."
  23. ^ Itzehoer Nachrichten v. Jan. 21, 1909: A mass exodus of welfare children to Blohmesche Wilderness .
  24. ↑ Hamburger Nachrichten v. Jan. 21, 1909: A mass exodus of welfare children from the "Blohmesche Wilderness"
  25. ^ Itzehoer Nachrichten v. July 8, 1909: Report on the 2nd abuse trial in Itzehoe
  26. ^ Doris Schnittger: Memories from the beginnings of the asylum near Glückstadt . Page 35 ff in: Regional Association for Inner Mission in Schleswig-Holstein (Hsg): Landeskirchliche Rundschau, vol. 1., No. 9 v. November 27, 1910
  27. ^ A b Carl Lensch: Outline of the history of the asylum . In: Festschrift for the 100th anniversary of the asylum on Neuendeich, 1950
  28. ^ Claudia Prestel 2003: Jugend in Not: Welfare Education in German-Jewish Society (1901-1933) . 408 pp., Böhlau Verlag Vienna, ISBN 3-2057-7050-1
  29. ^ Anonymus: History of the asylum . In: Festschrift for the 100th anniversary of the asylum on Neuendeich, 1950


Coordinates: 53 ° 48 '44.2 "  N , 9 ° 24' 5.7"  E