Strengths-based approaches to reentry: Extra mileage toward reintegration and destigmatization

Full text

Strengths-Based Approaches to Reentry: Extra Mileage toward Reintegration and
Destigmatization
Professor Shadd Maruna
1
Queen’s University Belfast
And
Professor Thomas P. LeBel
2
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
CITE AS:
Maruna, S. & LeBel, T. (2009). “Strengths-Based Approaches to Reentry: Extra
Mileage toward Reintegration and Destigmatization.” Japanese Journal of
Sociological Criminology, 34, 58-80.
AUTHOR NOTES
Shadd Maruna is Professor of Justice Studies and Human Development in the School of Law at
the Queen’s University Belfast in Northern Ireland. His book Making Good: How Ex-Convicts
Reform and Rebuild Their Lives was named the Outstanding Contribution to Criminology in
2001 and is currently being translated into Japanese.
Thomas P. LeBel is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. His current research focuses on prisoner reintegration, the
stigma of incarceration, and substance abuse treatment.
1
Correspondence to Shadd Maruna, School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast, 29 University
Square, Belfast BT7 1NN, United Kingdom. EMAIL: s.maruna@qub.ac.uk.
2
Correspondence to Thomas LeBel, Department of Criminal Justice, Helen Bader School of Social
Welfare, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, P.O. Box 786, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA EMAIL:
lebel@uwm.edu

Strengths-Based Approaches to Reentry
ABSTRACT
Efforts to assist in the reintegration of prisoners back into society are typically either risk-based
or need-based. An alternative philosophy for reintegration, strengths-based (or “restorative”)
reentry, treats people returning from prison as assets to be utilized rather than threats. This paper
explores the theory behind these efforts, drawing on one of the original formulations of this
perspective in the work of the psychologist Albert Eglash. Eglash argues that the process of
redemption requires more than just punishment or providing compensation to one’s victims, but
involves individuals going a “second mile.” This “second mile,” which he calls “creative
restitution” involves making up for one’s wrong-doing by working to help others, in particular
other prisoners or those at risk of going to prison. We argue that these strengths-based efforts
work primarily as a stigma management strategy. Individuals who have been punished for doing
wrong can redeem their reputations through explicit involvement in help-giving behaviors and
other efforts to contribute positively to society. This change in public perceptions can then lead to
changes in the person’s own self-beliefs and self-identity. We conclude by exploring a new
development in the strengths-based movement, which we describe as going a “third mile.” This
involves more direct efforts at stigma reduction through activism on ex-prisoner issues on a
political level. We argue that this is a natural next step in efforts towards destigmatization.
KEY WORDS
Redemption, Reentry, Stigma, Restorative Justice, Community Service

In the past decade, the reentry of persons from prison into the wider society has been recognized
as among the most pressing issues facing the criminal justice system and indeed society in the
United States and elsewhere (see e.g., Travis, 2005; Petersilia, 2003). The responses to this issue
can broadly be divided into three primary groups: risk-based, need-based and strengths-based
approaches. All seek to reduce the problem of recidivism among those returning from prison, but
each takes a different approach. Risk-based approaches tend to focus on enhanced modes of
supervision. Ex-prisoners are monitored more intensely, and behaviors deemed risky are not
tolerated. Need-based approaches seek to provide support to former prisoners and help to guide
them into treatment and care situations that can help them gain their independence. Frequently,
so-called “reentry programs” will combine risk-based and need-based strategies (sometimes
called using both “the carrot and the stick”), for instance, providing housing and therapeutic
support while also restricting ex-prisoners’ movements and closely monitoring their behavior.
This paper will focus on an alternative approach that has been labeled a “strengths-based”
approach or alternatively “restorative reentry” as it is based on principles fundamental to the
restorative justice movement (see esp. Maruna & LeBel, 2003; Maruna, LeBel, & Lanier, 2003;
Bazemore & Karp, 2004; Bazemore & Stinchcomb, 2004; Burnett & Maruna, 2006). As opposed
to risk- or need-based interventions, the focus here is less on controlling or helping ex-prisoners
and instead on treating them as individuals with talents and abilities to contribute to society. The
difference is subtle but significant. Mimi Silbert, co-founder of the exemplary strengths-based
organization, Delancey Street in San Francisco, summarizes this distinction nicely: “Nobody
makes the critical point: We need these people. The country is missing something because a huge
bulk of its population is not a part of it. They have talents we need” (cited in Mieszkowski, 1998,
p. 6). Strengths-based interventions recognize this by providing opportunities for individuals

who have offended to make amends and make important contributions to their communities
(Braithwaite, 1989).
The strengths-based strategy has emerged from a different starting point than risk- or
need-based approaches, in that it has originated from the perspective of “success stories”
themselves. That is, rather than beginning with an assumption about what others need, then
testing the theory empirically with random controlled trials or other evaluation techniques,
strengths-based theories have arisen from basic social scientific research on how individuals “go
straight” or desist from crime “on their own” or outside of structured interventions (see Maruna,
Immarigeon & LeBel, 2003). In “The Strengths Perspective in Criminal Justice,” Michael Clark
(2005, p. 142) writes: “We’ve spent decades spinning and constructing interventions from our
point of view (e.g., ‘This is what offenders need’).” Yet, as Mary McMurran (2002, p. 5) and
others persuasively argue: “A different and potentially more useful perspective is to look at
motivation to change from an offender’s point of view” (see also McMurran, Theodosi, Sweeney,
& Sellen, 2008). This recognition has led to a series of proposals for desistance-led or desistance-
focused approaches to reentry (see Farrall & Maruna, 2004; McNeill, 2003, 2006; Robinson,
2008), including our own (see Maruna & LeBel, 2003; Ward & Maruna, 2007). One of the
consistent findings emerging out of the research on the lives of successfully desisting ex-
prisoners is that successful reintegration often appears to involve an explicit investment in what
developmental psychologists call “generativity” (see McAdams, Hart, & Maruna, 1998). That is,
one of the characteristics that appears to best distinguish between successfully and
unsuccessfully reformed ex-prisoners is the individual’s engagement in mentoring, parenting and
other “generative” activities designed to “give something back” to others in his or her
community (Halsey, 2008; Maruna, 2001; McNeill, 2003). This finding is the basis for

reintegrative efforts that seek to put the returning prisoner in the position of a help-giver rather
than a help-receiver.
In this paper, we will outline the core elements of the strengths-based or restorative
model and the empirical rationale for why it should reduce recidivism. In doing so, we will draw
in particular on the work of the psychologist Albert Eglash. Eglash (1977) has been widely
recognized as the originator of the term “restorative justice,” yet his substantive contributions to
that movement and to the psychology of criminal reform are sometimes overlooked. In
particular, Eglash (1957, 1977) sought to broaden the understanding of restitution in the criminal
justice system beyond direct acts of compensation to victims toward more abstract or “creative”
ways that individuals convicted of crimes could redeem themselves. He argued that traditional
forms of restitution or punishment may be enough to satisfy the needs of justice, but may not be
enough to earn a person’s redemption. He argued that redemption involved going a “second
mile.” Not just paying one’s debt (justice) but also demonstrating one’s worthiness for
forgiveness by giving something back to the community. In particular, Eglash became interested
in replicating the successful mutual-help model from groups like alcoholics anonymous into the
criminal justice sphere. He argued that individuals formerly caught up in crime and the prison
system could usefully become involved in counseling or supporting others in those
circumstances or at risk of such involvement.
In what follows, we review the theoretical literature in criminology on why this might be
an effective strategy for reintegration and recidivism reduction. In particular, we argue that the
second mile is a useful strategy for both stigma reduction and shame management (see Ahmed,
Harris, Braithwaite, & Braithwaite, 2001). We conclude by introducing a potential “third mile”
approach whereby successfully reintegrated ex-prisoners go beyond such helping roles and

become involved in direct activism around ending the stigmatization of other ex-prisoners.
What is Strengths-Based Reentry?
Returning prisoners face numerous challenges in the transition from prison. With very little
financial or social capital, they need to very quickly find suitable housing, employment, and the
sort of supportive social networks that all of us require in order to survive. Often released with
only a meagre sum in gate money and no personal savings, ex-convicts struggle financially and
have difficulty affording reasonable accommodation. Because of their time out of the workforce,
they have trouble finding and maintaining meaningful employment. Ex-prisoners also face
challenges in re-establishing family ties, and many struggle with addictions to alcohol and/or
drugs and other mental health issues (Petersilia, 2003). All of these problems are thought to
increase the likelihood of recidivism for released prisoners.
Underpinning many of these issues, however, is the issue of stigma. That is, perhaps the
primary challenge facing the returning prisoner (and what makes him or her unique), is the need
to prove him or herself to be worthy of forgiveness – the forgiveness of the wider society, of their
own families, and of themselves. Without this forgiveness (or what Eglash terms “redemption”),
we argue, there is little hope for finding a home or meaningful role in the prosocial world.
Strengths-based and restorative interventions can be understood as a form of stigma
management or reverse “labeling” (Braithwaite, 1989). Whereas the “degradation ceremonies” of
criminal justice (Garfinkel, 1956) act as a system for the labeling of individuals as “offenders”
and are therefore implicated in the perpetuation of a criminal class (see e.g., the labeling theories
of Becker, 1963; Lemert, 1951), strengths-based activities invert this process by allowing
stigmatized individuals to prove themselves as more than their labels. In what Bazemore (1999)

calls “earned redemption,” strengths-based practices treat offenders as community assets to be
utilized “rather than merely liabilities to be supervised” (Travis, 2000, p. 7). The strengths model
is premised both on a normative theory of justice based around restitution, and an empirical
theory of criminal recidivism based on labeling theory or the “looking-glass” self-concept
(Maruna, LeBel, Mitchell, & Naples, 2004). Normatively, in order for justice to be done,
offenders need to help repair some of the harm caused by an offence (Johnstone, 2001).
Additionally, though, there is an empirical assumption that engagement in this repair process will
be rehabilitative for the returning individual.
The idea is that when individuals do something wrong (or have been punished on
suspicion of doing so), we seek to “redeem ourselves” – that is, prove that we are more than our
mistakes. We seek to “make good.” These efforts, in turn, often trigger a level of forgiveness
from both victims and the wider community, who recognize that the individual is not a “bad
person” and should not be permanently excluded from society. This multi-stage interactional
pattern can be thought of as the process of “redemption” or reputational “rehabilitation”
(Maruna, 2001) and is common not just among humans around the world but can even be found
among our evolutionary ancestors in the animal world (see esp. McCullough, 2008). This process
is easiest to appreciate on the micro-level. So, for example, when Friend X insults another Friend
Y, the insulted party will likely become angry and avoid Friend X or strike back in some way. If
Friend X then apologizes and makes an effort to make up for the wrong, however, Friend Y is
more likely to forgive X and the friendship will resume as usual. Although these principles
provide the basic foundation for strengths-based work, the reparation process is much more
complicated when it is mapped on to a social situation as complex as an ex-prisoner returning
from prison. Indeed, there are few explicit, agreed-upon definitions of what a “strengths-based”

or “restorative” approach actually involves in reintegration practice, and therefore the terms are
often employed inappropriately by interventions.
In his original formulation of what he calls “creative restitution” (or, later, “restorative
justice”), however, Albert Eglash (1957, p. 619) laid out four loose principles for what
differentiated restorative or strengths-based practices from traditional forms of restitution. In the
article (which has now become a foundational text for the restorative justice movement), Eglash
characterizes traditional restitution as follows:
a) It is a financial obligation
b) Its extent is limited
c) It is court-determined
d) It is an individual act.
On the other hand, according to Eglash’s formulation, creative or restorative restitution could be
differentiated by the following characteristics:
1) It is any constructive act.
2) It is creative and unlimited
3) It is guided, self-determined behavior
4) It can have a group basis.
Eglash’s four characteristics remain a useful way of framing what is unique about strengths-
based approaches over a half-century later, and provide a means of distinguishing strengths-
based approaches from, for example, traditional community service work or prison labor. We
utilize his four characteristics in our review below.
1) Strengths work is constructive activity
Eglash (1957, p. 619) writes, “While punishment must be painful or uncomfortable, it need
not be a constructive contribution. The essence of restitution, on the other hand, is a constructive
effort, an offender giving something of himself.” Eglash notes that restorative acts have a “poetic

justice” about them; they should produce visible “good” with tangible beneficiaries in the same
way that one’s crimes involve clear harms with real victims. Strengths-based models are
designed “to be focused on projects designed to meet community needs, build community
capacity, and repair the harm caused by crime to affected communities” (Bazemore &
Stinchcombe, 2004, p. 16). Dickey and Smith (1998, p. 35) write:
Probation and parole projects in which offenders visibly and directly produce things the larger
community wants, such as gardens, graffiti-free neighbourhoods, less dangerous alleys,
habitable housing for the homeless…have also helped build stronger communities, and have
carved channels into the labour market for the offenders engaged in them.
This community service work is about more than breaking rocks. Rather than being designed to be
punitive, strengths-based work is explicitly intended to be both enjoyable and rewarding. The idea
is to “turn participants on” to the satisfaction of this sort of work and convert them to a new way
of living. This cannot be done by subjecting them to the degrading or demeaning treatment of the
chain gang, but might be possible by providing opportunities for challenging, intrinsically
interesting tasks that could utilize and build upon the talents of the offender in useful, visible roles.
2) Strengths Work is Creative and Generative
Eglash (1957, p. 620) describes justice as “the first mile,” whereas, restorative justice, he
argues, is explicitly about “going the second mile”:
The first mile is punishment, or reparations or indemnity or atonement. But the offender
has not yet squared or redeemed the situation, making it good. Only a second mile is
restitution in its broad meaning of a complete restoration of good will and harmony.
The primary example Eglash gives of this second mile is for individuals who have done
something wrong to help turn around others at risk of ending up in prison themselves. This

widespread phenomenon has become known as becoming a “professional ex-” (Brown, 1991) or
a “wounded healer” (LeBel, 2007; Maruna, 2001; White, 2000). The wounded healer is one who
shares his or her own experiences, wisdom, and hope with those less far along in the process of
recovery or reintegration (see e.g., De Leon, 2000). Many prisoners and former prisoners express
a desire to receive mentoring from formerly incarcerated persons who are “making it” in
conventional society (e.g., Erickson, Crow, Zurcher, & Connett, 1973; Irwin, 2005; McAnany,
Tromanhauser, & Sullivan, 1974; Richie, 2001; Sowards, O’Boyle, & Weissman, 2006). This
helping role is similar to Anderson’s (1990, p. 329) description of the “mentor-protégé
relationship” between “old heads” (or respected adult members of a community) and the
neighborhood youth. Although it is impossible to measure the true extent of the wounded healer
phenomenon as it relates to former prisoners, it appears that a substantial number choose to exit
the “convict role” by helping others in an occupation such as a paraprofessional, lay therapist or
counselor (e.g., Irwin, 2005; Maruna, 2001). Lofland (1969, p. 287) notes that this sort of
helper/wounded healer career role “serves to make acceptable, explicable and even meritorious
the guilt-laden, ‘wasted’ portions of an Actor’s life.”
3) Strengths Activities as Self-Determined, But Guided
Eglash (1957, p. 620) writes: “In punishment, a judge makes a decision and this decision
is imposed on an offender. … If the same technique is used in restitution, then restitution is no
longer a creative act. Some of its growth value is lost.” Yet, Eglash is clear that “although
restitution is a voluntary act, an offender needs guidance.” He writes, “Only a skillful guide can
encourage a man to go a second mile. I suspect that the best guide is a man who has himself gone
through it” (p. 621).

Whereas traditional community service is judicially ordered as punishment, strengths-
based work is voluntarily agreed upon (Bazemore & Stinchcombe, 2004). Rather than coercing
obedience, strengths-based practices are therefore thought to develop intrinsic motivations
toward helping behaviors – what Michael Clark (2001) calls the difference between compliance
and growth. This does not “grow overnight” though (Eglash, 1957, p. 621), it needs to be
nurtured through practice and habituation. Volunteers become partisans of prosocial behavior
through involvement with activities that utilize their strengths and promote their individual
dignity. In the words of de Tocqueville (1835/1956, p. 197), “By dint of working for one’s
fellow-citizens, the habit and the taste for serving them is at length acquired” (for an empirical
illustration of this theory, see Uggen & Janikula, 1999).
4) Strengths Activities and Esprit de Corps
In addition, as part of a helping collective (consisting of other wounded healers farther
along on the road to recovery), the volunteer is thought to obtain “a sense of belonging and an
esprit de corps” (Pearl & Riessman, 1965, p. 83). Eglash (1957, p. 621) writes: “In punishment, a
man stands alone. But restitution is a creative act, and the way is open for group discussion.”
Indeed, Eglash wrote widely about support groups for persons with criminal records modeled on
the 12-Step Movement with titles like “Youth Anonymous” and “Adults Anonymous” decades
before these sorts of interventions became fashionable internationally (see Eglash, 1958). This
collective “mutual support” nature of strengths activities has very much remained a feature of
these interventions since this time. White, Boyle, and Loveland (2004, p. 246) argue that “the
centerpiece of all successful recovery mutual-aid groups is the process of sharing experience,
strength, and hope.” Self-help group participants often emphasize that their expertise comes from

“having been there too” (Humphreys, 2004, p. 15), and that they have valuable knowledge and
skills gained from these experiences that can be shared with others to improve their lives (see
e.g., Irwin, 2005, p. 178; Maruna, 2001). Cressey (1955, p. 118) argues that successful
reintegration efforts need to foster a “we” feeling and a “strong sense of belonging to one
group.” Similarly, in discussing recovery from substance use, White (2000) argues that wounded
healers have an emotional identification or kinship with those they are helping. These strong
bonds and the sharing of common experiences are thought to enhance the ability to establish
rapport with other offenders (Cressey, 1965), and some mutual-help groups for former prisoners
argue that only those who have undergone the experience are qualified to help (McAnany et al.,
1974).
“Going the Second Mile” in Practice
The move from theory to actual practice for restorative interventions has been somewhat slow.
Compared to risk-based and need-based strategies, “strengths-based” practices are few and far
between and have received relatively limited attention in the academic literature (but see
Erickson et al., 1973; McAnany et al. 1974). However, early examples of strengths-based
interventions, such as the “New Careers Movement” (Grant, 1968; Pearl & Riessman, 1965), can
be found, if largely outside of the criminological literature. The central premise of the New
Careers Movement was that the disadvantaged (including, but not limited to, former prisoners)
could be trained and placed in entry-level social service jobs that would take advantage of their
life experiences as well as their geographic, cultural, and functional similarities to other persons
in need. This program involved training prisoners for “change agent” roles and utilizing formerly
incarcerated persons as a manpower resource in correctional rehabilitation and reentry programs

(Grant, 1968). The goal was “to transform receivers of help (such as welfare recipients) into
dispensers of help; to structure the situation so that receivers of help will be placed in roles
requiring the giving of assistance” (Pearl & Riessman, 1965, pp. 88-89). Although the original
New Careers programs have largely disappeared today, the movement has had a lasting impact,
fundamentally changing the way we think about professionals and clients in social work and
even criminal justice.
Another organization frequently touted as a model of strengths-based reintegration is the
Delancey Street Foundation in San Francisco (see e.g., Maruna & LeBel, 2003). Founded in
1971 by Mimi Silbert and former prisoner John Maher, Delancey Street has grown from an
organization consisting of ten recovering addicts (and one criminal psychologist) living in an
apartment to a thriving organization with 1,500 full-time residents in five self-run facilities, more
than 20 businesses that double as training schools, and an annual operating budget of close to
$24 million (Boschee & Jones, 2000; Mieszkowski, 1998). The program is self-supporting and
has no professional staff. Instead, taking an “each one teach one” approach, residents teach and
train newer arrivals then utilize these new skills to sustain the organization once the more senior
residents “graduate” into private housing and independent careers. According to Silbert (1984, p.
46), “This process is much like mountain-climbing in a chain in which the person closest to the
top is pulling everyone else along.” In doing so, Silbert says, residents “learn a fundamental
lesson…that they have something to offer. These are people who have always been passive….
But strength and power come from being on the giving end” (Boschee & Jones, 2000, p. 11).
A newer strengths-based case study was provided by Burnett and Maruna (2006). They
evaluated an innovative initiative that involved prisoners at HM Springhill Prison in the United
Kingdom as “citizens advisors” at a Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB). Like many others around

the country, this particular branch of the CAB was unable to meet the high level of demand on its
service with the existing citizen volunteers. Consistently unable to handle the number of phone
calls to its service each month, one of the bureau’s managers had the idea of approaching the
local open prison to invite suitable prisoners to be trained as advisors. The initial idea was for a
call centre to be based in the prison, but the CAB discovered that prisoners could apply for day-
time release on temporary license, and therefore prisoner volunteers could work out of the advice
bureau itself. The research found that the prisoner volunteers were quickly accepted and warmly
appreciated by both fellow volunteers and the citizens who were seeking assistance.
Finally, one of the most interesting and important strengths-based initiatives to emerge in
recent years is LIFERS, Inc, a prisoner-led group of men serving life terms at the State
Correctional Institution at Graterford in Pennsylvania. In a recent article in The Prison Journal,
the LIFERS Inc steering group (2004, p. 52) provide what might be the perfect encapsulation of
the strengths-based idea:
Accepting the possibility that we could very well be destined to die in prison, we looked at
how a life of meaning could be created given our circumstances. … As men of conscience,
with nothing to lose or gain personally, we felt a human responsibility to do what we could
to attack this problem. … LIFERS, Inc. reached the conclusion that we, from our unique
position as former perpetrators, could offer the leadership necessary to prevent street crime
and violence, saving lives in the process.
The LIFERS, Inc (2004, p. 60) statement mirrors Eglash’s argument from half a century earlier
that they are obligated to go a “second mile” in their work to reduce crime: “It is not enough that
offenders released from the Department of Corrections go on their way to live a successful life
(the expectation of the rehabilitation model); they should be expected to produce positive

tangible results that improve life in the communities they earlier destroyed.” Like Eglash, the
LIFERS also advocate a mutual help perspective whereby prisoners and former prisoners are
utilized as guides in the transformational process of others: “Transformed offenders have
legitimacy among their pretransformed peers that established social workers, prison officials, and
law enforcement personnel do not have” (p. 63). As a result, “the transformation process that
begins with the self ends with the transformation of others.” (p. 64).
Does Helping Really Help the Helper?
At the heart of the strengths-based perspective is the “helper principle” that “those who
help are helped most” (Gartner & Riessman, 1984, p. 19) or that “altruistic activity” is valuable
both for the giver as well as the receiver of help (Toch, 2000). Although more research is needed
to confirm these benefits, it is consistent with a smattering of research on help-giving behaviors
and orientations in the literature around criminality (e.g., Maruna, 2001; Uggen & Janikula,
1999) as well as addiction recovery (e.g., Crape, Latkin, Laris, & Knowlton, 2002; Zemore,
Kaskutas, & Ammon, 2004). The “helper principle” is also consistent with social scientific
theory regarding planned change.
In his discussion of what he calls “retroflexive reformation,” Donald Cressey (1955)
argues in favor of a social learning interpretation of this process: “In attempting to reform others,
the [prisoner/probationer] almost automatically accepts the relevant common purpose of the
group, identifies himself closely with other persons engaging in reformation, and assigns status
on the basis of anticriminal behavior” (p. 119). There is some evidence for this sort of a prosocial
modeling impact as well in the criminological literature. McIvor (1998), for instance, found that
individuals who viewed an experience of community service as “rewarding” had lower rates of

recidivism than those who found it to be a punishment. This indicates that at least some
individuals sentenced to community service can be “turned on” to this new experience and
develop prosocial skills and orientations in much the same way that social learning theory would
suggest that criminality is acquired (see also Uggen & Janikula, 1999).
However, there appears also to be a substantial role for labeling (and labeling theory) in
explaining the impact of helping behaviors. In accounting for her findings in the community
service research, for example, McIvor (1998) writes, “In many instances, it seems, contact with
the beneficiaries [of their community service work] gave offenders an insight into other people,
and an increased insight into themselves; …greater confidence and self-esteem; …(and) the
confidence and appreciation of other people” (pp. 55-56). We argue that the latter elements of
this formulation – the impact of helping activities on the views of others, as well as one’s own
self-understanding – may be the key to the reformative power of the helping role (Maruna &
LeBel, 2003). That is, the primary function of the helper orientation, in our model, is its function
as a means of stigma/shame management (see esp. Braithwaite, 1989; Ahmed, et al. 2001). As
Bazemore and Stinchcomb (2004) argue, “only by taking responsibility for making things right
with victims and victimised communities can offenders change either the community’s image of
them or their perceptions of themselves” (p. 16, italics in original).
Research suggests that engagement with helping behaviors can send a message to the
wider community that an individual is worthy of further support and investment in their
reintegration and thus help formerly incarcerated persons shed the negative connotations of the
“ex-convict” identity (Bazemore, 1999). For instance, in his substantial body of research on
interpersonal forgiveness inside and outside of the laboratory, the psychologist Michael
McCullough (2008) identified reparative acts as being among the most effective “signals”

individuals can send out to indicate to others that they are worthy of forgiveness. McCullough
addresses the creative restitution involved in restorative justice activities in particular in this
regard. He concludes:
Although the restorative justice movement was created without reference to the principles
of evolutionary psychology, no evolutionary psychologist could do much to improve upon
this combination of ingredients for making forgiveness happen (p. 178).
When people are forgiven by those around them, they then may be able to forgive
themselves and move on from the shame of wrongdoing or punishment. Maruna (2001) found
that assuming the role of wounded healer allows one to rework “a delinquent history into a
source of wisdom to be drawn from while acting as a drug counselor, youth worker, community
volunteer, or mutual-help group member” (p. 117). The individual undergoes a process of re-
labeling with a new prosocial identity replacing the self-beliefs of the “secondary deviant”
(Lemert, 1951) brought on by stigmatization. The potential benefits of assuming such helper
roles, then, would include a sense of accomplishment, grounded increments in self-esteem,
meaningful purposiveness, and a cognitive restructuring toward responsibility (Toch, 2000).
Research supports these arguments as well for ex-prisoners (see LeBel, 2007; LeBel,
Burnett, Maruna, & Bushway,,2008). Quantitative studies of mutual-help groups have found that
engaging in helping activities is related to better psychosocial adjustment and treatment
outcomes (Crape et al., 2002; Roberts et al., 1999; Zemore et al., 2004), and higher self-esteem
and feelings of self-worth (e.g., Hutchinson et al., 2006; Maton, 1988; Schiff & Bargal, 2000).
Overall, general population surveys find that helping others is strongly related to one’s
psychological health and that “one does well by doing good” (Piliavin, 2003, p. 227)
3
.
3
Research on volunteerism outside of criminal justice populations suggests that volunteers are healthier, perform
better in education, and have a stronger sense of civic identity than non-volunteers (Sabin, 1993; Shumer, 1994;

New Directions: Going the Third Mile
William White (2000) has been one of the primary chroniclers of the long history of
strengths-based activities among those recovering from addictions to alcohol and other
substances. In books like Slaying the Dragon, White (1998) has provided an intellectual history
for the role of the “wounded healer” and mutual-aid societies in the struggle with addiction in
society over the last century. Recently, White (2001, p. 16) has identified the beginnings of what
he refers to as the “New Recovery Movement.” In this new development, recovering persons
have moved “beyond their personal service work” as wounded healers and become “recovery
activists,” advocating on behalf of recovering persons as a group. According to White (2001),
individuals in the New Recovery Movement have joined together “not in supplication but in
service; not asking for something, but offering something; not advocating for themselves, but for
others; not acting as individuals, but in communion; and not seeking solutions through formal
institutions but through the community itself” (p. 6).
A parallel development has been taking place among ex-prisoner groups. Organizations
like The Center for NuLeadership on Urban Solutions, All of Us or None, and the Women’s
Prison Association (WPA) seek to develop “a group of leaders equipped to craft solutions to the
problems facing incarcerated and formerly incarcerated persons”
(http://www.wpaonline.org/institute/wap.htm). These grassroots organizations provide a voice to
formerly incarcerated persons and give them the opportunity to be engaged in attempts to change
Youniss, McLellan, & Yates, 1999). Volunteer work is also associated with an increased concern for social issues and
future involvement in protests and political campaign work (Metz, McLellan, & Youniss, 2003).

public policy
4
. For example, All of Us or None is a national organizing initiative of formerly
incarcerated persons and persons in prison. On its website and in its brochure, this organization
states that, “Advocates have spoken for us, but now is the time for us to speak for ourselves. We
clearly have the ability to be more than the helpless victims of the system”
(http://www.allofusornone.org/about.html). In academia, a similar movement called “Convict
Criminology,” largely consisting of ex-prisoner academics, have made important strides in
changing the way in which crime and justice are taught and studied at the university level (see
Jones, et al., 2009).
Although most of these groups are less than a decade old, an earlier wave of similar
advocacy activity took place in the early 1970s in several US cities. For instance, McAnany and
colleagues (1974, p. 8) explored a number of mutual help organizations consisting of former
prisoner groups in Chicago. These groups formed “to bring about changes in criminal justice,
and especially the correctional system…to inform the public about the inequities and
irrationalities of the criminal justice system, and to politicize prisoners and ex-prisoners to seek
political redress and system change through collective action.”
If Eglash’s “second mile” (the helper orientation of the “wounded healer”) is primarily an
act of stigma management, as we have argued, then these forms of “reintegration advocacy”
might be thought of as going a “third mile.” Whereas, helping behaviors primarily ease an
individual’s own experience of stigma, the activist orientation seeks to confront the stigma
against ex-prisoners more broadly by “breaking through social prejudice” (Siegel, Lune, &
4
McEvoy and Shirlow (2009) provide a fascinating case study of leadership and activism among ex-prisoners in the
transitional context of Northern Irish society, where former prisoners have played an instrumental role in the peace
process at every level of government. Although there are of course differences between these ex-prisoners (who
experienced a form of political imprisonment during the armed conflict in Northern Ireland) and non-political ex-
prisoners, McEvoy and Shirlow point out that there are significant potential lessons for former gang members and
other alliances of ex-prisoner groups in the experiences of released prisoners in Northern Ireland.

Meyer, 1998, p. 6). Rogers and Buffalo (1974, p. 105) refer to this type of stigma coping
orientation as the “fighting back” phenomena (see also Gill, 1997; Jones et al., 1984; White,
2001). For instance, the organizers of the ex-prisoner group “All of Us or None” argue that: “It’s
OUR responsibility to stop the discrimination, and to change the public policies that discriminate
against us, our families, and our communities” (http://www.allofusornone.org/about.html).
Likewise, in their Chicago research, McAnany and colleagues (1974, p. 27) found that the ex-
prisoner groups were “formed to confront the stigma, which these prisonized persons were
running away from.” Like the New Recovery Movement, these groups insisted that there is a
“common bond” between all persons who are formerly incarcerated and that “helping ‘the
brothers’ was essential for continued group identity” (McAnany et al. 1974, p. 28). By providing
a supportive community and a network of individuals with shared experiences, these groups can
be interpreted as transforming an ostensibly individual process into a social movement of sorts
(Hamm, 1997).
Anspach (1979, p. 766) uses the concept of “identity politics” to refer to social
movements that “consciously endeavor to alter both the self-concepts and societal conceptions of
their participants.” In a similar vein, Kitsuse (1980, p. 9) proposed the concept of “tertiary
deviance” to refer to the stigmatized person’s “confrontation, assessment, and rejection of the
negative identity imbedded in secondary deviation, and the transformation of that identity into a
positive and viable self-conception.” Collective action by groups of stigmatized persons to
change laws and other social policies have been documented for persons with physical
disabilities, gays/lesbians, persons with mental illness, persons with HIV/AIDS, and other
disadvantaged groups (Anspach, 1979, Kitsuse, 1980). For example, Van Tosh, Ralph, and
Campbell (2000) provide a history of the mental health “consumer movement,” which

emphasizes the importance of activism in helping those with mental illnesses overcome stigma.
These sorts of empowerment-oriented, proactive, and collective attempts to change public
perceptions and create a more positive identity are increasingly being thought to be stigmatized
persons’ “most effective and enduring route to reducing prejudice” (Major, Quinton, McCoy, &
Schmader, 2000, p. 217; see also Herman, 1993; Parker & Aggleton, 2003; Sayce, 2000; Shih,
2004). A benefit of social activism over individualistic strategies such as concealment is that any
improved treatment will spill over across a variety of situations and improve the lives of other
similarly stigmatized persons (Goffman, 1963; Major et al., 2000).
Moreover, like the altruism of the “wounded healer” orientation, there may be discernible
personal benefits for engaging in this sort of advocacy work. In research among other
stigmatized groups, Wahl (1999, p. 476) found that “involvement in advocacy and speaking out
are self-enhancing, and the courage and effectiveness shown by such participation help to restore
self-esteem damaged by stigma” (see also Shih, 2004). In addition, like helping behaviors,
becoming involved in advocacy-related activities can give meaning, purpose, and significance to
a formerly incarcerated person’s life (Connett, 1973, p. 114). For example, Nicole Cook, a
graduate of ReConnect – the Women in Prison Project’s advocacy and leadership training
program for formerly incarcerated women, states that:
One thing I recognize as an advocate: people respect you more when they see you are not
afraid to stand up for what you believe in….Now you have a chance to prove to yourself
and to everyone else, that “I made it—I was incarcerated, I felt worthless, hopeless, and
all the other negative emotions you go through when in prison”. To transform into a
person who speaks out and advocates for other women, that’s awesome (Correctional
Association of New York, 2008, p. 5).

LeBel’s (forthcoming) research on a sample of over 200 ex-prisoners provides the most
systematic evidence to date of the benefits of involvement in advocacy as a coping orientation
for ex-prisoners. His survey research found that an activist or advocacy orientation is positively
correlated with one’s psychological well-being, and in particular their satisfaction with life as a
whole. Moreover, he found a strong negative correlation between one’s advocacy/activism
orientation and criminal attitudes and behavior. This indicates that advocating on behalf of others
in the criminal justice system may help to maintain a person’s prosocial identity and facilitate
ongoing desistance from crime.
Discussion: Miles Ahead or a Step Too Far?
The wider conversation about the reentry of large numbers of individuals from prison to
society tends to focus on the risks this process entails and the plethora of needs that people in
that situation have to minimally satisfy to ensure safe and successful reintegration. It is less
common to think of reentry in terms of the contributions that people returning from prison can
make to their communities and to the wider society. In this paper, however, we have outlined
some reasons why this focus might be valuable for discussions of crime reduction and
rehabilitation. Research suggests that there may be a link between engagement in helping
behaviors, advocacy work and other strengths-based activities and reintegration (see esp. LeBel,
2007, forthcoming). Such engagement might reduce the stigma that ex-prisoners face and this
stigma may be central to the recidivism problem (LeBel et al., 2008).
Strengths-based activities are, however, certainly not without their critics. Although, one
might expect that no one could object to ex-prisoners helping other prisoners or otherwise trying

to “give something back” to the community, research suggests that ex-prisoners trying to engage
in these sorts of activities face a large number of obstacles (see esp. Farrant & Levenson, 2002).
Due to risk considerations (see discussion in Burnett & Maruna, 2006), ex-prisoners are
frequently barred from going back inside prisons as counselors, for instance, and can often be
prohibited from working with young people or other at risk groups. Indeed, one of the
restrictions most parolees face is a prohibition against talking to other former prisoners, which is
a substantial impediment to mutual aid work.
When ex-prisoners seek to become activists/advocates on behalf of all ex-prisoners, of
course, they face even greater resistance. Indeed, research suggests that those walking this “third
mile” of social advocacy, are often have more non-traditional views than the “wounded healers”
of conventional strengths-based organizations. For instance, Irwin (1980, p. 93) argues that many
ex-prisoner self-help groups are “fundamentally conservative” organizations that tend to “avoid
recommendations or strategies aimed at effecting broad or fundamental changes in society’s
structures” (pp. 93-94). Certainly, mutual-aid groups like AA or NA are non-political and make
no explicit efforts to change public opinion in their core work. On the other hand, in their study
of former prisoner activist groups, McAnany and colleagues (1974, p. 26) found that most of the
interviewees in these “third mile” organizations perceived the prison experience “as a basically
unjust situation.” Indeed, many of the contemporary ex-prisoner advocacy groups align
themselves with the wider prison abolition movement and some portray themselves as militant
campaigners against a corrupt justice system.
To some critics, this “third mile” is a step too far. They argue that it is one thing for ex-
prisoners to provide help and support to others to succeed within the system, but it is another for
them to go about seeking to reform the system itself. In some cases, in fact, such activism might

lead to a further backlash against ex-prisoners and may not be as effective as educational
strategies around the problems of stigma (see Corrigan et al. 2002). Goffman (1963, p. 114)
writes:
The problems associated with militancy are well known. When the ultimate political
objective is to remove stigma from the differentness, the individual may find that his very
efforts can politicize his own life, rendering it even more different from the normal life
initially denied him—even though the next generation of his fellows may greatly profit
from his efforts by being more accepted. Further, in drawing attention to the situation of his
kind he is in some respects consolidating a public image of his differentness as a real thing
and of his fellow-stigmatized as constituting a real group.
Indeed, in some ways, there are parallels between the rebellion of the active criminal and that of
the critical reformer (see Maruna, 2001, chapter eight). Both believe the criminal justice system
(indeed wider society) is largely unfair and in need of transformation. Thus, particularly militant
or critical activism on the part of ex-prisoners might increase their stigmatization, leading some
to believe they have not changed their ways.
There is an important difference between the active criminal and the ex-prisoner activist,
however. Although both believe society is deeply flawed, the reformer has the requisite hope that
transformation is possible, whereas the professional criminal decides the only way of beating a
corrupt society is to join in its corruption. Therefore, although, “third mile” activists are
consistent in their basic feelings about society, at the same time, they clearly have undergone a
remarkable change in their self-identities and worldviews. This change – best understood as

“hope” – may be a product of personal redemption, and in that way it makes sense that “third
mile” activism would follow “second mile” efforts to make amends for one’s actions
5
.
Of course, only a relatively small cadre of individuals take part in “third mile” forms of
activism. Most returning prisoners probably want little more than to “fit in” with mainstream
society. To do this, many will conceal their past and strive for an identity as a normal citizen – a
taxpayer, a good father, a worker, and so forth. These efforts at “passing” are in some ways the
antithesis of the activist stance, which inherently involves some form of “coming out” (Jones, et
al., 2009; Siegel et al., 1998). However, both approaches share the same basic goal of stigma-
reduction. The phenomenon of “coming out” as activists, therefore, is “considered an important
device for social change because when it becomes common knowledge that ‘we are everywhere,’
by sheer numbers we cannot be oppressed” (Kanuha, 1999, p. 38).
Supporters of strengths-based reform efforts argue that reintegration is “a two-way street”
(Maruna et al., 2003). If society is asking individuals to change their ways, it may be necessary
for society to make changes as well. After all, there is a presumption in discussions of reentry
and social inclusion that the process of reintegration basically involves taking “bad” individuals
and reintegrating them into “good” society. Yet, society is of course imperfect, corrupt, and
unjust in many ways – and prisoners know this better than almost anyone (except perhaps for
their children and spouses).
To a degree, this will always be the case, and the ex-prisoner finds himself in the position
of the central character in Walter Mosley’s (1997) brilliant novel Always Outnumbered, Always
Outgunned -- a former prisoner who tries to live morally in a harsh, racist world. At the same
5
Some organizations, such as The Fortune Society in New York City, engage in both roles, with ex-prisoners working
as wounded healers counselling other prisoners, as well as doing advocacy and activism work to change laws
restricting ex-prisoner access to jobs, for instance.

time, it may make sense to think of the reintegration process as a process of concessions and
atonement on the part of both former prisoners and the wider society. Former prisoners have
been victimized themselves in many ways. They are frequently victimized by traumatic
experiences in prison (e.g., abuse by authorities or other prisoners), and have very often suffered
similar abuses in other state and non-state institutions prior to their incarceration. For this reason,
Robert Johnson (2002) eloquently argues that reintegration requires “a mutual effort at
reconciliation, where offender and society work together to make amends—for hurtful crimes
and hurtful punishments—and move forward” (p. 328). Strengths-based approaches to reentry
start from precisely this perspective with the goal of helping formerly incarcerated persons
transform from being part of “the problem” into part of “the solution” for society’s many
injustices. Eglash (1957) refers to this as a form of “poetic justice.”
References
Ahmed, E., Harris, N., Braithwaite, J., & Braithwaite, V. (2001). Shame management through
reintegration. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
Anderson, E. (1990). Streetwise: Race, class and change in an urban community. Chicago:
University of Chicago.
Anspach, R.R. (1979) ‘From stigma to identity politics: political activism among the physically
disabled and former mental patients’, Social Science and Medicine, 13 (A): 765-73.
Bazemore, G. (1999) ‘After shaming, whither reintegration: restorative justice and relational
rehabilitation’ in G. Bazemore and L. Walgrave (eds.) Restorative Juvenile Justice:
Repairing the Harm of Youth Crime (pp. 155-194). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Bazemore, G. and Stinchcomb, J. (2004). ‘A civic engagement model of re-entry: involving
community through service and restorative justice’, Federal Probation 68 (2): 14-24
Bazemore, G., & Karp, D. R. (2004). A Civic Justice Corps: Community service as a means of
reintegration. Justice Policy Journal, 1(3), 1-37.
Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders. New York: Free Press.
Boschee, J. and Jones, S. (2000) Recycling Ex-Cons, Addicts and Prostitutes: the Mimi Silbert

Story. Institute for Social Entrepreneurs, Occasional Series, No.1.
http://www.socialent.pdfs/MimiSilbertStory.pdf
Braithwaite, J. (1989) Crime, Shame, and Reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Brown, J. D. (1991). The professional ex-: An alternative for exiting the deviant career.
Sociological Quarterly, 32, 219-230.
Burnett, R. and Maruna, S. (2006). The Kindness of Prisoners: Strength-based Resettlement in
Theory and in Action. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 6, 83–106
Clark, M. D. (2001) ‘Influencing positive behavior change: increasing the therapeutic approach
of juvenile courts’, Federal Probation 65(1):18-27.
Clark, M. D. (2005). The Strengths Perspective in Criminal Justice. In Saleebey, D. (ed.) The
Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice, 4th ed. (pp. 97-112). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Connett, A.V. (1973) ‘Epilogue’, In R.J. Erickson, W.J. Crow, L.A. Zurcher and A.V. Connett
Paroled but not Free. New York: Behavioral Publications, 106-16.
Correctional Association of New York (2008) ‘An advocates perspective: The Coalition for
Women Prisoners’ 2008 Advocacy Day’, CA Bulletin, Spring/Summer: 4-5.
Corrigan, P. W., Rowan, D., Green, A., Lundin, R., River, L. P., Uphoff-Wasowski, K., White, K.,
& Kubiak, M. A. (2002). Challenging two mental illness stigmas: Personal responsibility
and dangerousness. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 28(2), 293-309.
Crape, B. L., Latkin, C. A., Laris, A. S., & Knowlton, A. R. (2002). The effects of sponsorship in
12-step treatment of injection drug users. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 65, 291-301.
Cressey, D. R. (1955). Changing criminals: The application of the theory of differential
association. American Journal of Sociology, 61(2), 116-120.
Cressey, D. R. (1965). Social psychological foundations for using criminals in the rehabilitation
of criminals. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 2(2), 49-59.
De Leon, G. (2000). The therapeutic community: Theory, model, and method. New York:
Springer.
Dickey, W. J. and Smith, M. E. (1998) Dangerous Opportunity: Five Futures for Community
Corrections: The Report from the Focus Group. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Eglash, A. (1957). Creative restitution--A broader meaning for an old term. Journal of Criminal
Law and Criminology, 48, 619-626.

Eglash, A. (1958). Adults anonymous: A mutual help program for inmates and ex-inmates.
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 49, 237-245.
Eglash, A. (1977). Beyond restitution: Creative restitution. In J. Hudson & B. Galaway (Eds.),
Restitution in criminal justice (pp. 91-129). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Erickson, R. J., Crow, W. J., Zurcher, L. A., & Connet, A. V. (1973) Paroled but Not Free. New
York: Behavioral.
Farrall, S. & Maruna, S. (2004). Desistance-Focused Criminal Justice Policy Research. Howard
Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 358-367.
Farrant, F. and Levenson, J. (2002) Barred Citizens: Volunteering and Active Citizenship by
Prisoners. London: Prison Reform Trust.
Garfinkel, H. (1956). Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies. American Journal of
Sociology, 61, 420-424.
Gartner, A., & Riessman, F. (1984). The self-help revolution. New York: Human Sciences Press.
Gecas, V. and Schwalbe, M. L. (1983) ‘Beyond the looking-glass self: social structure and
efficacy-based self-esteem’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 46: 77-88.
Gill, C.J. (1997) ‘Four types of integration in disability identity development’, Journal of
Vocational Rehabilitation, 9: 39-46.
Goffman, E. (1963) Stigma: On the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Grant, J. D. (1968). ‘The offender as a correctional manpower resource’, in F. Riessman and
H.L. Popper (eds.) Up from Poverty: New Career Ladders for Nonprofessionals, pp. 226-
234. New York: Harper and Row.
Halsey, M. (2008). ‘Risking Desistance: Respect and Responsibility in Custodial and Post-
Release Contexts’ in Carlen, P. (ed) Imaginary Penalities, Willan: Collumpton, pp. 218-
51.
Hamm, M. S. (1997). The offender self-help movement as correctional treatment. In P. Van
Voorhis, M. Braswell, & D. Lester (Eds.), Correctional counseling and rehabilitation (4th
ed., pp. 211-224). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.
Herman, N.J. (1993) ‘Return to sender: reintegrative stigma-management strategies of ex-
psychiatric patients’, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22 (3): 295-330.
Humphreys, K. (2004). Circles of recovery: Self-help organizations for addictions. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hutchinson, D. S., Anthony, W. A., Ashcraft, L., Johnson, E., Dunn, E. C., Lyass, A., et al.

(2006). The personal and vocational impact of training and employing people with
psychiatric disabilities as providers. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 29(3), 205-213.
Irwin, J. (1980). Prisons in turmoil. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
Irwin, J. (2005). The warehouse prison: Disposal of the new dangerous class. Los Angeles:
Roxbury Publishing Company.
Jones, R. S., Ross, J. I., Richards, S. C., & Murphy, D. S. (2009). The First Dime: A Decade of
Convict Criminology. The Prison Journal, 89, 151-171.
Johnson, R. (2002) Hard Time, 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Johnstone, G. (2001) Restorative Justice: Ideas, Values, Debates. Cullompton: Willan.
Jones, E.E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A.H., Markus, H., Miller, D.T. and Scott, R.A. (1984) Social
Stigma: The Psychology of Marked Relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kanuha, V. K. (1999). The social process of “passing” to manage stigma: Acts of internalized
oppression or acts of resistance? Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 26(4), 27-46.
Kitsuse, J. I. (1980) ‘Coming out all over: deviants and the politics of social problems’, Social
Problems, 28 (1): 1-13.
LeBel, T.P. (2007) ‘An examination of the impact of formerly incarcerated persons helping
others’, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 46(1/2): 1-24.
LeBel, T. P. (forthcoming). "Formerly Incarcerated Persons Use of Advocacy/Activism as a
Coping Orientation in the Reintegration Process." In Veysey, B, J. Christian and D. J.
Martinez (Eds.), How Offenders Transform their Lives. London, UK: Willan.
LeBel, T.P., Burnett, R., Maruna, S. and Bushway, S. (2008) ‘The “chicken and egg” of
subjective and social factors in desistance from crime’, European Journal of
Criminology, 5 (2): 130-158..
Lemert, E. M. (1951) Social Pathology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lifers Public Safety Steering Committee of the State Correctional Institution at Graterford,
Pennsylvania (2004). Ending the culture of street crime. The Prison Journal, 84(Suppl.
4), 48-68.
Lofland, J. (1969) Deviance and Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Major, B., Quinton, W.J., McCoy, S.K. and Schmader, T. (2000) ‘Reducing prejudice: the target’s
perspective’, In S. Oskamp (ed) Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 211-37.
Maruna, S. (2001) Making Good: How Ex-convicts Reform and Rebuild their Lives. Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.
Maruna, S. & LeBel, T. (2003) ‘Welcome home? Examining the re-entry court concept from a
strengths-based perspective.’ Western Criminology Review 4(2) 91-107.
Maruna, S., LeBel, T. P., & Lanier, C. (2003). Generativity behind bars: Some “redemptive truth”
about prison society. In E. de St. Aubin, D. McAdams, & T. Kim (Eds.), The generative
society: Caring for future generations (pp. 131-151). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Maruna, S., LeBel, T.P, Mitchell, N. and Naples, M. (2004) ‘Pygmalion in the reintegration
process: desistance from crime through the looking glass’, Psychology, Crime and Law,
10 (3): 271-281.
Maton, K. I. (1988). Social support, organizational characteristics, psychological well-being and
group appraisal in three self-help group populations. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 16(1), 53-77.
McAdams, D. P., Hart, H., & Maruna, S. (1998) ‘The anatomy of generativity.’ In D. P. McAdams
& E. de St. Aubin (eds), Generativity and adult development. (pp. 7-43). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
McAnany, P. D., Tromanhauser, E., & Sullivan, D. (1974). The identification and description of
ex-offender groups in the Chicago area. Chicago: University of Illinois.
McCullough, M. E. (2008). Beyond Revenge: The evolution of the forgiveness instinct. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McEvoy, K. and Shirlow, P. (2009). Re-imagining DDR: Ex-combatants, leadership and moral
agency in conflict transformation. Theoretical Criminology, 13, 31-59.
McIvor, G. (1998) ‘Pro-social modelling and legitimacy: lessons from a study of community
service’, in S. Rex and A. Matravers (eds.) Pro-social Modelling and Legitimacy: The
Clarke Hall Day Conference. (pp. 53-62). Cambridge: Institute of Criminology, University
of Cambridge.
McMurran, M. (2002). Motivation to change: Selection criterion or treatment need? In M.
McMurran (Ed.), Motivating offenders to change (pp. 1-14). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
McMurran, M, Theodosi, E., Sweeney, A, and Sellen, J. (2008). What do prisoners want? Current
concerns of adult male prisoners. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14, 267 – 274
McNeill, F. (2003) ‘Desistance-Focused Probation Practice’, in W-H Chui and M. Nellis (eds)
Moving Probation Forward: Evidence, Arguments and Practice. (pp. 146-162). Harlow:
Pearson Longman.
McNeill, F. (2006) ‘A desistance paradigm for offender management.’ Criminology and Criminal
Justice 6 (1) 39-62.

Metz, E., McLellan, J., & Youniss, J. (2003). Types of voluntary service and adolescents’ civic
development. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 188-203.
Mieszkowski, K. (1998). “She Helps Them Help Themselves.” Fast Company 15:54-56.
Mosley, W. (1997) Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned, London: Serpent’s Tail.
Parker, R. and Aggleton, P. (2003) ‘HIV and AIDS-related stigma and discrimination: a
conceptual framework and implications for action’, Social Science and Medicine, 57: 13-
24.
Pearl, A. and Riessman, F. (1965) New Careers for the Poor: The Nonprofessional in Human
Service. New York: The Free Press.
Petersilia, J. (2003) When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Piliavin, J. A. (2003). Doing well by doing good: Benefits for the benefactor. In C.L.M. Keyes &
J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing, positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 227-247).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Richie, B. (2001). Challenges incarcerated women face as they return to their communities:
Findings from life history interviews. Crime & Delinquency, 47, 368-389.
Roberts, L. J., Salem, D., Rappaport, J., Toro, P. A., Luke, D. A., & Seidman, E. (1999). Giving
and receiving help: Interpersonal transactions in mutual-help meetings and psychosocial
adjustment of members. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(6), 841-865.
Robinson, G. (2008). Late modern rehabilitation: The evolution of a penal strategy. Punishment
and Society, 10, 429-445.
Rogers, J.W. and Buffalo, M.D. (1974) ‘Fighting back: nine modes of adaptation to a deviant
label’, Social Problems, 22 (1): 101-18.
Sabin, E. P. (1993). Social relationships and mortality among the elderly. Journal of Applied
Gerontology, 12, 44-60.
Sayce, L. (2000) From Psychiatric Patient to Citizen: Overcoming Discrimination and Social
Exclusion. New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc.
Schiff, M., & Bargal, D. (2000). Helping characteristics of self-help and support groups. Their
contribution to participants’ subjective well-being. Small Group Research, 31, 275-304.
Shih, M. (2004) ‘Positive stigma: examining resilience and empowerment in overcoming
stigma’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 591: 175-85.
Shumer, R. (1994). Community based learning: Humanizing education. Journal of Adolescence,
17, 357-367.

Siegel, K., Lune, H. and Meyer, I.H. (1998) ‘Stigma management among gay/bisexual men with
HIV/AIDS’, Qualitative Sociology, 21 (1): 3-23.
Silbert, M. H. (1984). Delancey Street Foundation: A process of mutual restitution. In A. Gartner
& F. Riessman (Eds.), The self-help revolution (pp. 41-51). New York: Human Sciences
Press.
Sowards, K. A., O’Boyle, K, & Weissman, M. (2006). Inspiring hope, envisioning alternatives:
The importance of peer role models in a mandated treatment program for women.
Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 6(4), 55-70.
Toch, H. (2000). Altruistic activity as correctional treatment. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44, 270-278.
Tocqueville, A. (1835/1956). Democracy in America. New York: Knopf. (Original work
published in 1835).
Travis, J. (2000). But They All Come Back: Rethinking Prisoner Re-entry, Research in Brief-
Sentencing and Corrections: Issues for the 21st Century, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Travis, J. (2005) But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Uggen, C. & Janikula, J. (1999). Volunteerism and arrest in the transition to adulthood. Social
Forces, 78, 331-362.
Van Tosh, L., Ralph, R.O. and Campbell, J. (2000) ‘The rise of consumerism’, Psychiatric
Rehabilitation Skills, 4 (3): 383-409.
Wahl, O.F. (1999) ‘Mental health consumers’ experience of stigma’, Schizophrenia Bulletin, 25:
467-78.
White, W. L. (1998). Slaying the Dragon: The history of Addiction Treatment and Recovery in
America. Bloomington, IL: Chestnut.
White, W. L. (2000). The history of recovered people as wounded healers: II. The era of
professionalization and specialization. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 18(2), 1-25.
White, W.L. (2001) Toward a New Recovery Movement: Historical Reflections on Recovery,
Treatment and Advocacy. Retrieved 2 June 2009, from http://www.recoveryadvocacy.org
White, W., Boyle, M., & Loveland, D. (2004). Recovery from addiction and recovery from
mental illness: Shared and contrasting lessons. In R. Ralph & P. Corrigan (Eds.),
Recovery and mental illness: Consumer visions and research paradigms (pp. 233-258).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A., & Yates, M. (1999). Religion, community service, and identity in

American youth. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 243-253.
Zemore, S. E., Kaskutas, L. A., & Ammon, L. N. (2004). In 12-step groups, helping helps the
helper. Addiction, 99, 1015-1023.