Imposing Identity

Use language that does not impose a negative identity.

How Workforce Development Denigrates

Terms like Workforce Development and Job Readiness set a low standard and presume a basic lack of abilities and ambition; they have come to refer to reductive programs that funnel people into mostly low-wage, low-skill positions in which employers do not invest. Service providers and funders should be encouraged to use more aspirational terms that acknowledge skills and potential, and suggest assessment and differentiation that meets people where they are and develops their potential.

A Soft Skills Makeover

Hard Skills refer to specific abilities required for a specific job or career. For many entry- and low-level positions employers prefer to train employees to perform these skills in a way that aligns with the particular business operations and imperatives. Soft Skills, on the other hand, describe a general set of capacities that help people navigate day-to-day challenges, calibrate emotions and behavior, secure and maintain living-wage employment, adapt to changing and unforeseen circumstances, and the like. Soft-Skills are the kind of capacities that most people with ready access to a quality education, supportive networks and services, and a wide variety of enriching opportunities, develop as a matter of course - and they're the qualities all employers look for in job candidates. Such Critical Life Skills are anything but "soft"; rather, they are critical and essential for success in any culture or job market, and language should reflect their primacy and importance.

The Unfair Burden of Reentry

Reentry is a static term that places the onus on the individual returning to society, who often lacks the recent experience and relevant knowledge to navigate what for them may be a changed and intimidating new environment. Reintegration and Inclusion are more dynamic and interdependent. Not only does the returning citizen have to actively reintegrate, but the larger society, too, has to play an active and supportive role in welcoming back the returning citizen.

The Problem With Second Chance

Second Chance policies, endorsed by scores of well-known brands, encourage businesses to recruit and hire formerly incarcerated people; yet by all accounts the movement has failed to maintain traction or to deliver intended results. One major factor for this lack of success may be attributed to the term itself, which instead of uplifting formerly incarcerated job candidates, re-confers their low status and marginalization. Where people of even modest privilege have Opportunity, those with criminal convictions are granted a Chance. [See Don't Give People Returning From Prison a "Second Chance" and An Opportunity for Industry Wide ROI in The Business Advantage of Hiring Justice-Impacted People.]

Similarly, while Second Chance laws were created with the admirable intention of forestalling discrimination based on a criminal record, the way these laws are titled and constructed arguably exacerbate negative perceptions and impose shame that deters employment for returning citizens.

The Rehabilitation Myth

Rehabilitation suggests an incapacity, usually physical, in the process of repair; when we say people need to be rehabilitated, it identify them as fundamentally damaged or impaired. In fact, as humans we are all imperfect creatures, forever struggling to overcome our challenges and mend our emotional, spiritual, and psychological flaws. When we seek help with this, we call it Treatment or Mental Health Therapies - not rehabilitation. Through employers and government health insurance channels, most of us can access trained professionals to provide us with what we each need. Why should justice-impacted people be viewed differently, or denied consistent access to proven diagnostic services, treatments and therapies that help make us more healthful and productive?

Why a Corrections Officer?

Formerly known as Jailers, Guards or Warders, the title of Corrections Officer has become widespread. However the term is a misnomer: Corrections Officers (COs) and their training has never genuinely focused on "correcting" behavior or mental health, or helping to build life skills - nor should it. Acquiring such expertise requires a different type of training - though in fact some have suggested that every CO shift should include a licensed social worker. In contrast, a study from the College of Humanities and Public Affairs at Missouri State University found that CO respondents understood the primary goals of their role to include "retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation." Unless we define vengeance as the goal of justice, it is hard to square how such actions could be seen as corrective; on the contrary, they have proven to help breed environments of antagonism, animus, and lack of mutual respect.

In fact, what we mistakenly call Corrections Officers could actually represent an example of a Community Based Organization, or CBO. The University of Michigan's School of Public Health describes CBOs as a group of community members that address the main concerns of community residents. In the case of so-called Corrections Officers, that would include ensuring safe and healthful common spaces and activities, the delivery of essential services, and performing other functions in ways that engage and respond to the legitimate concerns of local residents. While these functions might include interdiction to enforce community norms, use of force and punishment should not be the primary actions or functions of these jobs. As Corrections Officer does not accurately describe these responsibilities, Community Safety Officer could be an alternative that helps better frame the role, reset training criteria and facilitate cooperation and shared goals.

The Authority to Forgive or Redeem

The Restorative Justice movement is a positive development and long overdue. A diverse field, many Restorative Justice practices incorporate centuries-old native tribal traditions. Most crimes, particularly violent ones, are very personal, and key elements of Restorative Justice are rightfully very personal - between the victim(s) and the person(s) who caused the harm. The power to forgive, an essential component of redemption, lies with the victim(s) and their personal community, and power to self-forgive lies within each individual. Civil society imposes accountability, and has neither the power nor the authority to forgive or redeem. While it should support and make space for Restorative Justice practices, no justice system should be in the business of forgiving or redeeming anyone. Rather, to fully re-integrate and re-embrace anyone who has transgressed or offended our collective norms, society needs to accept and welcome them into the larger community – whether in an incarceration facility or back into free society.

Empowerment and Dependency

Programs serving incarcerated and formerly-incarcerated people often claim to empower participants. However, the language of empowerment is one of granting or ceding power; in this dynamic empowerment is dependent and potentially vulnerable. In contrast, Self-Empowerment is derived from an individual’s self-assertion, and is self-defined and owned by that individual.

Shedding Clients

Clients suggest a provider-recipient relationship of dependency. Participant connotes an active, necessary, and valued contribution that determines efficacy and outcome.

Charity vs. Investment

Donations and Charity suggest giving money away, and beyond the initial act a kind of severance and disinterest. We should instead consider our charitable donations as we do any other financial investment, deploying such funds for a clear purpose and an expectation of ROI (Return on Investment, though not necessarily a financial return). Investing and Contributing - of money, expertise, goods, time, or any other resource of value - is active and engaging support that holds the recipient responsible for putting such resources to best use.