Statewide Prison Language Mandates: Where Intention and Implementation Diverge

Abstract

Person-centered language has increasingly been adopted in criminal legal contexts. Recognizing the harmful effects of stigmatizing language, some states have mandated correctional staff to use person-centered language instead of “prisoner” or “inmate.” However, little is known about the implementation of these mandates. To address this, the current study utilized interviews with 87 incarcerated people and 15 staff members in two prisons in a state that recently adopted a mandate. The findings suggest that the mandate has not substantially altered the terminology used or treatment people receive. This research builds understanding of how language affects the carceral experience, highlighting its limitations when unaccompanied by culture change.

Keywords

corrections prison incarcerated people correctional staff person-centered language mandates implementation

Introduction

Across disciplines, person-centered language has increasingly been adopted. One area with more recent language change is the criminal legal system, and specifically prisons and jails. Traditionally, people who are incarcerated have been referred to as “inmates,” “convicts,” “prisoners,” and “offenders.” Incarcerated people, scholars, advocates have criticized this language for promoting stigmatization. This language is the focus of the popular labeling theory in criminology (Becker, 1963). Labeling theory explores how labels are internalized by the individuals to whom they are attached. In recognizing the harmful effects of traditional carceral language, some scholars, activists, research groups, news agencies, and non-profit groups have opted to use person-centered language, like “incarcerated people” or “people in prison” (Cox, 2020; Ellis, 2020; La Vigne, 2016; Solomon, 2021).

More recently, some state legislatures have implemented laws that request official policies and carceral staff to use person-centered language (Cox, 2020). However, little is known about the implementation of these language mandates and if the new terminology is used by carceral staff. To address this gap in knowledge, the authors interviewed 87 incarcerated people and 15 staff members living and working in two prisons in New York, which recently adopted the term “incarcerated individual” in a move towards person-centered language. This study explores staff and incarcerated people's perceptions of the new term and the extent to which this term is used in practice by staff. Results from this study show that the language mandate did not have much impact on the terminology used or the treatment incarcerated people receive from staff. This calls into question the efficacy of the mandate to positively impact the incarcerated population. The authors use the intention-action gap framework developed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) to frame the analysis, which is useful in understanding why policies may fall short of their aspirations.

Literature Review

Reasons for Using Person-Centered Language

When society labels a person, that person is treated according to their label and the person who bears the label internalizes and accepts it (Becker, 1963). Application of a label results in changes to a person's self-perceptions and to society's reactions to that person. The stigmatization that accompanies some labels may cause status loss, discrimination, disadvantage, and alienation for the labeled person (Link & Phelan, 2001). In response to this, across disciplines, there has been a growing shift away from stigmatizing labels and towards using person-centered or person-first language (Cox, 2020). The “People First” movement began in the 1970s with the disability community (Wehmeyer et al., 2000). In recognizing the importance of avoiding stigmatizing language, especially for populations who are marginalized and oppressed, other groups and disciplines – most prominently medicine and psychology – have adopted a person-centered approach (AMA Manual of Style Committee, 2020; American Psychological Association, 2022). Part of the reasoning behind changing language is the potential for the new language to inspire a cultural shift as it is “a reflection of how people in a society see each other” (Blaska, 1993, p. 25; Cox, 2020; Crocker & Smith, 2019). Language changes are not just about preventing a person from being stigmatized, but about changing societies’ perception of marginalized populations.

Language and Incarceration

Individuals who are incarcerated are a marginalized and oppressed population. American prisons are historically places of degradation (Whitman, 2003), and, traditionally, those living in these places have been referred to as “prisoners,” “inmates,” and “convicts.” But, in recognizing the harmful effects of stigmatizing language, some research, news, and non-profit groups have eliminated this type of language. Instead, they opt to use person-centered language. For example, the Marshall Project, the Center for NuLeadership on Urban Solutions, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, and the Urban Institute have all committed to using person-centered language, such as, “incarcerated people,” “imprisoned people,” “people in prison,” and “people currently incarcerated” (Ellis, 2020; La Vigne, 2016; National Commission on Correctional Health Care, 2021; Solomon, 2021). In addition, various state legislatures have implemented laws that request official policies and carceral staff use person-centered language (Cox, 2020). Finally, others have focused on the importance of person-centered language in the reentry process, and one scholar found that person-centered language reduced stigmatization of recently released individuals and increased support for reintegrative services (Jackl, 2023).

However, despite this commitment by some groups and states to use person-centered language, there seems to be no general consensus among researchers, policymakers, activists, carceral staff, or incarcerated individuals themselves on what terminology should be used. For example, The Marshall Project surveyed their readers and asked them the best way to refer to people behind bars (Hickman, 2015). Of the terms given, 38% said “incarcerated person,” 23% said “prisoner,” 10% said “inmate,” and 30% selected some other option (Hickman, 2015). Additionally, individuals incarcerated in British prisons expressed the negative stigmatizing effect that “offender,” “criminal,” and “prisoner” has on them (Bidwell & Polley, 2023), and other scholars have found that people prefer being referred to by their first name or having their surname prefaced by “Mr.” (Hulley et al., 2012). Conversely, other individuals argue for reclaiming stigmatized terms as an act of empowerment and resistance. For example, the Convict Criminology section of the American Society of Criminology is a group of academics with lived experience in the criminal legal system (Cox, 2020; Tietjen, 2019). Many academics and non-academics have raised concern about the use of the term “convict” in the title of the group, but members of Convict Criminology push back against these critiques, arguing that “many of whom claim to be against oppression and stigmatizing language [are] perpetuating our oppression by attempting to police our language…they were convinced that they knew what was best for us convicts” (Ortiz et al., 2022, p. 256).

Limitations of Language

Person-centered language is intended to incite a cultural change in how society perceives historically marginalized populations. However, cultural transformation can be a slow process, often extending over years or even generations (Stephenson, 2023). This suggests that while language may have long-term benefits, it may not provide many immediate benefits. Additionally, while some argue that language changes and shapes thoughts (e.g., Sapir, 1921; Whorf, 1956), this assumption is largely theoretical and not empirically based (Cox, 2020). Likewise, others have found that language unaccompanied by better and more fair treatment is an empty gesture (Gernsbacher, 2017). Further, language changes do not always change people's behaviors (Halmari, 2011). For example, Romero (2020) questioned the sincerity and role of “progressive prosecutors,” writing, “There is a danger in getting distracted by such terminology, used as a sort of security blanket to assure those of us that hoped for change… that change is, in fact, happening” (p. 817). Thus, there remain questions as to whether it helps and empowers the people who bear the labels.

This research suggests language mandates might be limited in their actual impact. This may be due to an intention-action gap, where someone intends to choose an option they see as “right,” but there is a barrier that stops them from achieving this goal (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). The intention-action gap posits that intentions to perform a behavior are a result of attitudes and subjective norms (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). It follows that attitudes and norms may be a barrier towards implementation of some broader goal, like using person-centered language. The intention-action gap could result when implementers – typically front-line staff – perceive little or no value in the practice they are supposed to implement (Damschroder et al., 2009). In carceral facilities, staff have immense discretionary power as they operate in the space “in between” explicit rules and ground-level decision-making (Jenness & Grattet, 2005; Lipsky, 1980). This can make implementation difficult when administrators mandate a policy but are unable to achieve staff “buy-in.” Using the intention-action gap framework, the authors seek to understand people's perceptions of and experiences with person-centered language mandates in a prison setting. The authors also consider if the new language includes labels the incarcerated population prefers.

Method

The data presented here come from a larger qualitative study aimed at understanding the experiences of people living and working in U.S. carceral settings. This project addresses a variety of topics, including living/working conditions, spaces and cultures, COVID-19 and health, support and coping, policies and practices, relationships, violence, programs and services, reforms, substance use, and language. For this investigation, the authors (and their extended team of researchers) interviewed 447 incarcerated people and 183 staff in eight prisons and five jails across eight U.S. states (Florida, Kansas, Michigan, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas). Data collection took place between September 2022 and March 2024. This article focuses exclusively on the data gathered from the two New York prisons because it is the only study state that adopted a language mandate.

Study Site Context

The New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) oversees 41 sex-segregated men's prisons, three sex-segregated women's prisons, two residential treatment facilities, and 62 local jails, in total supervising nearly 60,000 individuals. In 2022, the authors and their team of researchers visited two sex-segregated men's prisons, both of which were maximum security facilities. In 2021, the New York state legislature passed a bill that mandated that official laws and policies use the term “incarcerated individual” to refer to people held under the supervision of the state (The New York State Senate [NYSS], 2021). According to his official statement, state Senator Gustavo Rivera sponsored the bill because:

Penological terms such as felon, inmate, prisoner, offender, and convict have long been noted by many impacted by the criminal legal system as dehumanizing, degrading, and has perpetuated the idea that incarcerated people should be permanently demonized and stigmatized. Such words are often used to discriminate against people who are or have been involved in the criminal legal system. Using terms such as “incarcerated individual” recognizes the humanity of people and exemplifies the redeemable value of human beings. Trending studies have shown these terminologies have an inadvertent and adverse impact on individuals’ employment, housing and other communal opportunities. This can impact one's transition from incarceration, potential for recidivism, and societal perception. As a result, this bill seeks to correct outdated terminology used to refer to incarcerated individuals. (NYSS, 2021, para. 5)

The statement notes that prior labels like “inmate” or “prisoner” carry a harmful stigma. Senator Rivera suggested the potential positive impacts of the mandate and also saw this change as symbolic of a larger cultural shift in the DOCCS, noting, “This is another concrete step our State is taking to make our criminal justice system one that focuses on rehabilitation, rather than relying solely on punishment” (New York State [NYS], 2022). It is unclear whether this mandate explicitly requires carceral staff to use this new language. However, administrative leaders at the two prisons we visited noted that their institutions are using the term “incarcerated individual” on official documents, and that they are requesting all staff to use this new term. They cited the language mandate as the reasoning for this change.

Data and Sample

The research team spent four days in the field, visiting each prison for two full days. In the days prior to arrival at each facility, the lead researcher worked with administration to distribute recruitment flyers to all housing blocks and staff areas. The flyer explained the nature and purpose of the study, and instructed individuals to sign up for an interview if they were interested in participating. Each morning, the lead researcher met with correctional officers (COs) to randomly select individuals (both incarcerated people and staff) for interviews, ensuring that COs were not pre-selecting them for interviews. The lead researcher informed COs and administration that there was a need for a variety of volunteers, and COs were willing and able to accommodate this. The sampling method includes both convenience (those who volunteered) and purposive sampling (where the lead researcher continually worked to include individuals in a variety of staff positions and living in a wide array of housing units). Palankis and colleagues note (2015, p. 535), that purposive sampling (as a form of maximum variation sampling), consists of “important shared patterns that cut across cases and derive their significance from having emerged out of heterogeneity.”

After developing a daily plan, COs recruited study volunteers (usually around 10) and escorted them to the gymnasium for interviews. Tables (each with two chairs) were set up in each corner of the room, about 40 feet apart. One researcher sat at each table, and COs were asked to station themselves at the front of the room to ensure confidentiality. As well, the size of the gymnasiums and the presence of noisy fans provided confidentiality but not anonymity. As one interview was completed, the interviewer signaled readiness for the next volunteer, with each new subsequent group escorted in until the data collection process was complete. Interviews with those confined to restricted housing units (RHUs) occurred in secure visitation rooms in the RHU and followed the same recruitment protocols discussed above. In addition, staff interviews were conducted whenever incarcerated people could not participate in interviews (like during scheduled counts or meals). Staff interviews occurred in the gymnasium or in private offices.

Before each interview, researchers read the recruitment script and discussed the informed consent process. All study participants gave verbal informed consent before the interview began. All recruited individuals met the eligibility criteria, including: 1) they spoke English; 2) they were not presenting with any active mental health symptomology, and 3) they had not collected a misconduct on the day of recruitment. All recruitment and interview protocols were reviewed and approved by Sam Houston State University's Institutional Review Board (#IRB-2022–144).

The team of researchers utilized a semi-structured interview guide. This method is often used to create more systematic data collection than unstructured interviews, while allowing room for rapport-building and casual conversation (Newman, 1958). Recording equipment was not permitted, so the research team took notes during the interview. This process also helps maintain the conversational tone of the interview (Newman, 1958). Each interview took approximately 45 minutes to one hour. Once the interview was complete, the team of researchers completed their notes to capture the depth and detail provided by each participant. Complete transcription of interview notes occurred within two weeks of each data collection trip.

Participant Demographics

Demographic information was also collected during the interviews. In total, there were 87 incarcerated people and 15 staff members interviewed across the two prisons. Table 1 below presents demographic information for incarcerated participants.

Table 1.

Study Sample and Participant Demographics – Incarcerated People (N = 87).

	Prison 1	Prison 2	Total
Study Sample
Prison Capacity	968	1611	2,579
Prison Population	819	1349	2,168
% Capacity	85%	84%	84%
Interviews Completed
GPU	35	45	80
RHU	0	7	7
Total Interviews completed	35	52	87
% of prison population interviewed	4%	4%	4%
Participant Demographics (n = 87)
Average Time Served (years)*	18	16	17
Average Age (years)*	39	42	40
Gender
Male	100%	98%	99%
Transgender Female	0%	2%	1%
Race
Black / African American	60%	46%	53%
Hispanic	17%	19%	18%
White	6%	13%	10%
Indigenous	3%	0%	1%
Multi-Racial / Multi-Ethnic	3%	8%	5%
Human	9%	6%	7%
Do Not Know*	3%	8%	5%
Education
Less than High School	0%	10%	5%
High School / GED	14%	19%	17%
GED (in progress)	3%	2%	2%
College	17%	12%	14%
Some College (prior to DOC)	3%	10%	6%
College (in progress)	37%	13%	25%
Graduate Education	3%	0%	1%
Do Not Know*	23%	35%	29%

*We were unable to gather time-served information for 22% of participants, age for 11% of participants, race for 5% of participants, and education for 29% of participants. This was either because they did not want to share that information or because the interviewer did not ask.

Roughly, 40% of participants were incarcerated in Prison One; 60% were incarcerated in Prison Two. Most (92%) people were living in General Population Units (GPU), although some (8%) were confined in the RHU. Participants had been incarcerated an average of 17 years; time-served ranged between four and 38 years. Several respondents were serving life sentences. The average age was about 40 – with ages ranging from 21 to 72 years. Most of the sample (99%) identified as male; the two prisons were sex-segregated men's facilities. Approximately one-fourth of the study sample was enrolled in college courses, while some individuals had obtained (or were obtaining) GEDs or other degrees.

Race and ethnicity data are nuanced. To provide a holistic picture of the sample's race and ethnicity makeup, the authors sorted respondents’ answers into five common racial/ethnic categories based on their self-identification: Black/African American, Hispanic, White, Indigenous, Multi-Racial/Multi-Ethnic, and Human (explained in detail below). For example, one man said: “My mom is Native American and my dad is Black, so I identify as Black.” This person could have been categorized as Multi-Racial/Ethnic, but was listed as Black, as per the respondent's identification. Most study participants (53%) identified as Black or African American, while 18% identified as Hispanic, and 10% as White. Several declined to identify or chose to identify as “Human,” offering a variety of reasons, like, “Because of how society already perceives me, I try to stay away from stereotypes or participate in it” and “I don't like choosing. I'm human at the end of the day.”

Below, Table 2 below presents demographic information for prison staff.

Table 2.

Study Sample and Participant Demographics – Prison Staff (N = 15).

	Prison 1	Prison 2	Total
Study Sample
Interviews
Total Interviews Completed
Custodial Staff	2	6	8
Non-Custodial Staff	4	3	7
Total interviews completed	6	9	15
Participant Demographics (n = 15)
Average Time Worked (years)*	16	18	17
Average Age (years)*	48	45	46
Gender
Male	83%	67%	75%
Female	17%	22%	19%
Do Not Know*	0%	11%	7%
Race
White	33%	89%	61%
Hispanic	17%	0%	8%
Multi-Racial / Multi-Ethnic	33%	0%	17%
Do Not Know*	17%	11%	14%
Education
High School	17%	44%	31%
Some College	0%	22%	11%
Graduate Education	17%	22%	19%
Do Not Know*	67%	11%	39%

*We were unable to gather time-worked information for 7% of participants, age for 20% of participants, race for 14% of participants, and education for 39% of participants. This was either because they did not want to share that information or because the interviewer did not ask.

This study utilized 15 staff member interviews, with 40% of staff from Prison One, and 60% of staff from Prison Two. Roughly, 53% of staff had custodial jobs (e.g., CO); 47% of staff had non-custodial jobs (e.g., programming). Staff had worked in corrections an average of 17 years, had some form of education, and were about 46 years old. Most staff interviewees identified as male (75%) and White (61%), opting not to elaborate on race/ethnicity, compared to the incarcerated sample's responses.

Analysis

At the conclusion of data collection, Atlas.ti was utilized for data coding and analysis. Focused coding (Charmaz, 1996) was utilized to conduct the analysis informed by interview questions that asked about language. These questions were, 1) “What term(s) do the staff/incarcerated people here use to refer to you?”2) “What term(s) would you prefer individuals in prison (or outside prison) use to describe you as it relates to your position in this prison?” and 3) “Why do you prefer that term?” Individuals often elaborated on their answers to this question by sharing language that they did not like. The first stage of analysis utilized primary cycle coding to identify areas in the transcript where participants discussed language (58 mentions). During primary cycle coding, which captures the categories or themes produced by interviewees (Tracy, 2019), five focal codes were inductively derived from the data. These included 1) language prefer to be called (38 mentions); 2) language do not like to be called (9 mentions); 3) language explanation (17 mentions); 4) language supposed to be called (10 mentions), and 5) language actually called (37 mentions). Using these codes, the authors progressed into secondary coding cycles to move beyond the descriptive codes created in the primary coding cycle, and into more focused and interpretive coding (resulting in an additional 21 codes). From these codes, the authors were better able to understand what language participants preferred, their thoughts about current language, and the reasons why language was important to them. The analytic/interpretive findings are reported below, based on coding/analyses from both primary and secondary cycle coding. All participants are named using pseudonyms to assure confidentiality.

Findings

The interviews with incarcerated people and staff yield three main findings. First, many incarcerated people were ambivalent about the change in language because they believe it has not changed staff's mentality. That is, many felt they were still being treated the same way that they were in the past because it was administration, not line staff, who mandated the language change. Second, after the switch to “incarcerated individual,” staff still used stigmatizing language. This included terms like “inmate” or profanities, and a shortening of “incarcerated individual” to “II.” Finally, incarcerated people had mixed feelings about proper terminology, but most just wanted to be called by their name.

Ambivalence towards Language Change

Many expressed that changing the label from “inmate” or “prisoner” to “incarcerated individual” does not make a difference because staff's mentality does not appear to have changed after the language switch. For example, Jeremy pointed out that the new language is “just another moniker. What's it gonna change? It's still the same thing,” and Mike said that “The name change is just a name change; it's not a mentality change.” Part of these perceptions reflects that is was the administration, not the line staff, who chose this terminology. As Gerald pointed out, “Some [staff] try to make the transition to incarcerated individual, but it is the suits [upper administration] doing that. Not the blue or white uniforms.” Interviewees largely felt that staff need to do better in communicating with, and about, the individuals they supervise, because, as Darius said, “They don’t know how to address or talk to us. [They treat us like] we are not humans. They treat us like we’re Martians.” This suggests that the language mandate is not being implemented in accordance with the sponsor's and administrator's goals, highlighting how staff's attitudes and beliefs can interrupt implementation and result in an intention-action gap. Incarcerated individuals were not surprised that this gap resulted, given staff's lack of input or buy-in to the mandate. For some incarcerated people, the intention-action gap causes harm when they feel alienated by staff and perceive that some staff do not view them as deserving of person-centered language.

Continued Use of Stigmatizing Language

In addition, one of the largest issues raised about the language switch was that “incarcerated individual” is rarely applied in practice and exists only on paper. For example, John said that “COs don’t say ‘incarcerated individual.’ The only time they say that is on official tickets. They call us inmates and we call ourselves inmates.” During interviews, participants described how “COs are partially trying to use the term incarcerated individuals, but mostly they fail.” The group blamed this on a host of reasons, including that COs are used to the old terms, that the new term does not appeal to many people, and that, as discussed above, it was chosen by administration. One man suggested that the new language is more to look good on paper than anything else, saying, “The title ‘incarcerated individual’ is corny and cheesy and will probably change when someone else is put in office.” Additionally, during site visits, researchers noticed that many staff (including upper administration) were referring to incarcerated individuals as “IIs”, saying, “we’ll bring some IIs up for interviews for you,” or “we’ll start the interviews with the IIs again after count clears.” Signs were also posted around the facility, worded, “II visitation,” and, “II paperwork.” Notably, the sponsorship memo for the language bill states that terms “such as ‘incarcerated individual’ recognizes the humanity of people and exemplifies the redeemable value of human beings” (NYSS, 2021, para. 5). The shortened version of “incarcerated individual” to an impersonalized phrase is another example of the disconnect between the bill's intention and on-the-ground implementation.

Staff acknowledge that they do not typically use the term “incarcerated individual,” and they offered several reasons for why they do not use this new term. For example, CO Smith spoke for many staff when he noted, “I use inmate because it's what I’m used to…sorry.” Other staff believed that using new language will incite unrest, like CO Johnson who offered:

We have firearms and tear gas, but we don’t use them here because we don’t have those types of problems. I think we will get to that point though because it's getting more dangerous. It's the little things like calling inmates “incarcerated individuals.” It gives them an identity and they start feeling their oats.

CO Johnson believes that by changing the terminology, incarcerated people will start to have a sense of identity, and this will cause them to be cocky and arrogant. Other staff revealed that they also use expletives to refer to incarcerated people. For example, CO Anderson was discussing the facility cameras and commented:

The cameras do not help. They collect audio too which is usually not good for staff. In the heat of the moment when your adrenaline is up, we sometimes say things that do not look good. Some guys use the N-word, some say “fucker,” some say, “piece of shit.”

These findings suggest that administrative mandates requiring the use of “incarcerated individual” have not translated into change in the manner in which staff refer to incarcerated people or how they view the incarcerated population. Staff attitudes and norms appear to be a barrier to the bill supporters’ intended implementation and culture transformation goals. Further, many incarcerated people believe that any label, regardless of the intention behind it, is stigmatizing. For example, Andrew said that the state carceral system “decided ‘inmate’ was bad so it was changed to ‘incarcerated individual.’ But changing the label doesn’t change the perspective. It doesn’t recognize our humanity.” Although “incarcerated individual” is more humanizing than “inmate” or “prisoner,” participants generally believed that the system could do better in recognizing people as human. As Gregory said, “Terms are a tough question because with any label, anything you call a prisoner separates them from society.”

Preferred Language

When asked about preferred language most incarcerated participants wanted to be called by their name. This was important to many interviewees because it permitted them to have their own identity. For example, George requested that staff refer to him by his name,

Call me by name. Not incarcerated individual or inmate or something else. They say “you always gonna be an inmate to me” when I’m on the yard. But I have a name. I’d like them to use it.

Although he did not say outright that not being called by his name dehumanizes him, George is clearly displeased that staff do not call him by his name. Other incarcerated individuals shared similar sentiments. For example, Jamal observed, “I know they are saying ‘incarcerated individual’ now or ‘II,’ but I’d really prefer they just call me by my name” and William just wanted to be called anything that recognized his humanness. As he said, “I prefer person over anything. At the beginning and end, I’m a person.”

However, a few incarcerated people actually preferred to be called “prisoner” because it exemplifies a struggle for one's rights. This is interesting because “prisoner” is often thought of as a stigmatizing term. Yet, the interviewees viewed it as showing the inherent power imbalance within carceral settings. They also viewed “prisoner” as distinct from terms like “inmate” or “convict” because of this. Below, Sam describes the differences he sees between these three terms,

An inmate is a person who won’t stand up to COs and just complies. A convict is still in the crime mentality and doesn’t care about anything else. A prisoner fights for their rights and freedom.

According to Sam, there are distinct differences between these three terms, and “prisoner” is the most appropriate because he is fighting for his rights. Others share similar views. For example, Thomas retorted, “I’m not an inmate. Some are because they don’t advocate for themselves.” Shawn said, “I’m not an inmate, I’m a prisoner because I’m being held, not because I want to be here.” For some, “prisoner” was a more appropriate term than “incarcerated individual,” although it is important to remember that many, including those who viewed themselves as prisoners, prefer to be called by their name when discussing people individually and not in a group setting.

Discussion

Official statements from State Senator Rivera's office indicate that the state implemented the language mandate to recognize the humanity of incarcerated people and reduce the stigma associated with prior labels (NYSS, 2021). Senator Rivera's justification for the bill suggests the mandate was intended to inspire a cultural shift in perceptions of the incarcerated population. However, interviews with incarcerated people and staff found that staff attitudes are a clear barrier to proper implementation of the language mandate. This is not said to place all the blame on staff, as they were (presumably) trained and socialized to use “inmate” or “offender.” Further, staff were never given the opportunity to voice their opinion on the new term, but were mandated to use it by upper management. As well, dehumanization in prisons runs very deep (Whitman, 2003) and any culture is slow to change (Stephenson, 2023). These barriers explain why the mandate itself may be well-intentioned, but, in practice, the change does not appear to have had the intended positive results.

Further, the study findings concur with the intention-action gap framework (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), which holds that people (in this case, the state) intend to choose the “right” option (moving away from stigmatizing language), but there is some barrier (staff attitude) that prevents achievement of this goal. Front-line staff have tremendous discretion as they operate in the space “in between” explicit rules and ground-level decision making (Jenness & Grattet, 2005; Lipsky, 1980). As such, staff attitudes and subjective norms are likely to influence how they make decisions and implement certain policies. In this case, their hesitation to use the new terminology results in the continued usage of stigmatizing language. This suggests that to achieve this broader goal, a cultural or normative shift is needed, rather than a blanket mandate.

The intention-action gap framework and the language mandate's lack of impact are also important in understanding the current status of the person-centered movement generally. Senator Rivera saw the mandate as symbolic of a cultural shift in New York's approach to corrections. However, this study's sample of incarcerated individuals and staff members perceive that the culture – at least in prisons – is still punitive, and staff still hold stigmatizing views of incarcerated people. This highlights the disconnect between intention and implementation, and implies that without a cultural or normative shift, new terms and labels do not change the treatment or perception of historically stigmatized populations – at least not in the short-term –as scholars document that cultural change is slow (Stephenson, 2023). Further, the results substantiate Cox's (2020) assertion that the ability of language to change thoughts lacks empirical support and gives credence to Gernsbacher's (2017) and Romero's (2020) warnings that language that is not accompanied by better treatment is an empty gesture.

Implications for Practice

The issues uncovered in this study provide several issues in need of consideration and reform in future policy discussions. Primarily, the findings acknowledge that it will take much more than just a language mandate to change staff perceptions of, and responses to, incarcerated populations. While carceral administrators could attempt to enforce the mandate more strictly, staff attitudes remain a barrier to implementation. That is, staff continue to use old terminology, and there is little apparent ‘buy in’ to the stated goal behind the new language practice. Most important, since staff were never given a voice in implementing the new language mandate and may not have bought into its rationale, it is not surprising that they would perceive no advantage or value in changing the language and labels in everyday usage in prisons and jails.

Instead, in lieu of stricter enforcement, carceral administrators could hold dialogue sessions with staff and incarcerated people to create common ground and understanding of the issue. For example, a prison in the UK held “dialogue sessions”, where staff and incarcerated people came together to “wonder about how things occur and how they might happen differently” concerning carceral healthcare (Hill et al., 2004, p. 31). Similar sessions, called “reflecting dialogues” are held in some Norwegian prisons, where staff and incarcerated individuals come together and voice concerns (Viggen & Landrø, 2017). These dialogues provided a space for both sides to share their concerns and perspectives. The studies found that the sessions improved relationships and addressed some long-standing issues. As such, the practice could be beneficial in achieving the broader goals of the language mandate – reducing harmful stigma – by supporting a dialogue toward increasing mutual understanding and relationships among staff and incarcerated people.

Additionally, it is unclear as to whether incarcerated people's views on appropriate staff language were solicited by state legislators before deciding on the term, “incarcerated individual.” If the state did overlook the input or opinions of people in custody, this can be viewed as a means of limiting their power and reinforcing incarcerated people's perceptions of being treated inhumanely. This study's incarcerated sample suggested using “people” to describe the incarcerated population, and an individual's name when interacting with persons in custody. As the participants pointed out, a positively framed label is still a label. Clearly, state legislators or private organizations that are considering mandating person-centered language should consider the perspectives of those who are directly affected by language and utilize the terminology that is deemed most appropriate by them.

Implications for Research

Several research implications are proposed from the current study. First, researchers should be mindful that their interpretation of findings is “our story of their story” (Limerick et al., 1996, p. 450; Rudes et al., 2023). Using participant-advocated language may be one way to share these stories in a manner that accurately reflects their lived experience and position. In practice, this involves asking individuals how they want to be identified and using that language when writing about their experiences. This may mean that a researcher uses a term with which they do personally agree, like “prisoner,” because of an imperative “level of respect for an individual's right to claim or reclaim an identity” (Cox, 2020, p. 8). As illustrated in the responses, some incarcerated participants preferred terms like “prisoner” because, for them, the term reflects a struggle for one's rights. While the interviews yielded a variety of opinions about proper terminology, the majority wanted to be referred to by their given names. In recognition of this sentiment, the authors chose to use pseudonyms (to protect confidentiality) whenever possible.

Limitations and Future Research

This research has several limitations that suggest topics for future study. First, the research team asked just three questions concerning language, and there was no specific inquiry regarding the mandated language change. The topic often came up organically in conversation, but any future interview instrument should reframe questions to better garner understanding the incarcerated population's perceptions of language mandates. Second, this study was conducted in one state system, and in just two of its male prisons. Therefore, the results are neither comprehensive nor generalizable regarding the application of the language mandate in the study state prison system (or other state systems that have implemented similar policies). Nevertheless, the study does offer insights into the reasons for the policy's failures as supported by a maximum variation sample that 1) enabled accessing staff and incarcerated people from all housing units in both institutions, and 2) yielded a diverse/heterogeneous group of participants. Likewise, the authors did not interview any of the bill's supporters; their insight would be useful in understanding more of their reasoning and desired impacts from the implementation of the mandate. Third, this investigation is also limited to one point in time. Follow-up interviews could be useful in assessing the language change status after a longer period of implementation. Fourth, this study primarily represents the perceptions of men in custody. Future research should include women's perspectives and experiences to determine if there are differences in staff terminology and the degree to which they are gender-based. Finally, while this study offers some insight into staff perceptions of the language mandate, future research should explore the general issue of staff receptivity to state-mandated changes in carceral practices and operations.

Conclusion

Based on conversations with people living and working in prisons, the authors sought to understand the implementation of person-centered language mandates. Three main issues arose. First, incarcerated individuals are ambivalent about the change in language because it does not seem to have changed staff's mentality towards them. Moreover, both incarcerated people and staff state that “incarcerated individual” is rarely used, and staff continue to use stigmatizing language. Staff and incarcerated people offered several reasons for this, including that staff are “used to” the old terminology, and they were not consulted in the drafting and implementation of the mandate or its terminology. Also, there was no formal accountability process and no assessment mechanism to ensure that staff use the new language. Finally, when asked about their preferred terminology, incarcerated people provided mixed responses. Above all else, they valued terms that recognized their humanity. Specifically, they want to be called by their name. In sum, these findings suggest that the language mandate may not have any direct positive effect for the incarcerated population. These results are also important in understanding the current state of the person-centered language movement at large. While the benefits of person-centered language are notable, without a cultural or normative shift or systemic changes to training, policies, and procedures accompanied by accountability mechanisms, new terms and labels are more placating than transformative.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Authors have no known conflict of interest to disclose. The funder of this study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of this manuscript.

Funding

This research received funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (15PBJA-22-AG-00031-MUMU).

Notes

Author Biographies

Bryce Kushmerick-McCune, MA, is a doctoral student in Criminal Justice and Criminology at Sam Houston State University and a Research Assistant at the Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence (ACE!). As a primarily qualitative researcher, her interests include incarcerated people's coping and adjustment to incarceration, carceral staff discretion and well-being, and carceral administrations. She earned her B.S. and M.A. from George Mason University in Criminology, Law & Society in 2021 and 2023, respectively.

Sydney N. Ingel, MA, is a doctoral student in Criminology, Law and Society at George Mason University. She previously worked as a graduate research assistant at the Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence (ACE!) on qualitative projects related to peer recovery specialists, probation officers, and people who live and work in correctional facilities. She currently has a Doctoral Research Scholar assistantship from George Mason University's Provost Office to complete her dissertation.

Danielle S. Rudes, PhD, is a Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Sam Houston State University. She is also Deputy Director of the Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence (ACE!). Dr. Rudes is an expert qualitative researcher whose work examines how social control organizations understand, negotiate, and at times, resist change.

Wyatt Brown, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Instruction in the School of Criminal Justice at Texas State University. His research broadly focuses on understanding the disparities present in the criminal justice system. His interests are driven by the expanded use of punishment and the consequent inequalities that have surfaced in the past decades.

References

AMA Manual of Style Committee (2020). AMA manual of style: A guide for authors and editors (11th ed.). Oxford University Press.

American Psychological Association (2022, July). General principles for reducing bias. APA Style. https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/general-principles .

Becker

H. S.

(1963). Outsiders. Studies in the sociology of deviance. Free Press.

Bidwell

Polley

(2023). ‘Mind your language’: What people in prison think about the language used to describe them. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 62(3), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12515

Blaska

(1993). The power of language: Speak and write using “person first”. In Nagler

(Ed.), Perspectives on disabilities (pp. 25–32). Health Markets Research.

Charmaz

(1996). The search for meanings: Grounded theory. In Smith

J. A.

Harre

Van Langenhove

(Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 27–49). Sage.

Cox

(2020). The language of incarceration. Incarceration, 1(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2632666320940859

Crocker

A. F.

Smith

S. N.

(2019). Person-first language: Are we practicing what we preach? Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 12, 125–129. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S140067

Damschroder

L. J.

Aron

D. C.

Keith

R. E.

Kirsh

S. R.

Alexander

J. A.

Lowery

J. C.

(2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50

10.

Ellis

(2020). An open letter to our friends on the question of language. Fordham Law School. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=pp .

11.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.

12.

Gernsbacher

M. A.

(2017). Editorial perspective: The use of person-first language in scholarly writing may accentuate stigma. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(7), 859–861. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12706

13.

Halmari

(2011). Political correctness, euphemism, and language change: The case of ‘people first’. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(3), 828–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.016

14.

Hickman

(2015, April 3). Inmate, prisoner, other, discussed. The Marshall Project. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/04/03/inmate-prisoner-other-discussed .

15.

Hill

Hare

Ball

(2004). “We’ve all come together as one – prisoners, staff and managers”: Prison dialogue as a means of facilitating patient/public involvement and implementing new standards in prison healthcare. Prison Service Journal, (151), 30–35. https://www.prisondialogue.org/files/files/Research/we've%20all%20come%20together%20(1)%20(1)%20(1).pdf.

16.

Hulley

Liebling

Crewe

(2012). Respect in prisons: Prisoners’ experiences of respect in public and private sector prisons. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 12(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895811423088

17.

Jackl

H. M.

(2023). The effects of language on the stigmatization and exclusion of returning citizens: Results from a survey experiment. Punishment & Society, 25(2), 471–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745211059318

18.

Jenness

Grattet

(2005). The law-in-between: The effects of organizational perviousness on the policing of hate crime. Social Problems, 52(3), 337–359. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2005.52.3.337

19.

La Vigne

(2016, April 5). People first: Changing the way we talk about those touched by the criminal justice system. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/people-first-changing-way-we-talk-about-those-touched-criminal-justice-system .

20.

Limerick

Burgess-Limerick

Grace

(1996). The politics of interviewing: Power relations and accepting the gift. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 9(4), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839960090406

21.

Link

B. G.

Phelan

J. C.

(2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363

22.

Lipsky

(1980). Street-level bureaucracy. Russell Sage Foundation.

23.

National Commission on Correctional Health Care (2021, February). Use of humanizing language in correctional health care. https://www.ncchc.org/position-statements/use-of-humanizing-language-in-correctional-health-care-2021/#:∼:text=NCCHC%20recommends%20that%20people%20who,in%20written%20and%20oral%20communication.

24.

Newman

D. J.

(1958). Research interviewing in prison. Criminology and Police Science, 49(2), 127–132. https://doi.org/10.2307/1140922

25.

New York State (2022, August 8). Governor Hochul signs legislative package to promote greater fairness and restore dignity for justice-involved individuals. New York State Office of Governor Kathy Hochul. https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-signs-legislative-package-promote-greater-fairness-and-restore-dignity-justice .

26.

New York State Senate. (2021). Senate bill S3332. The New York State Senate. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S3332 .

27.

Ortiz

J. M.

Cox

Kavish

D. R.

Tietjen

(2022). Let the convicts speak: A critical conversation of the ongoing language debate in convict criminology. Criminal Justice Studies, 35(3), 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2022.2066661

28.

Palinkas

L. A.

Horwitz

S. M.

Green

C. A.

Wisdom

J. P.

Duan

Hoagwood

(2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y

29.

Romero

(2020). Rural spaces, communities of color, and the progressive prosecutor. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 110(4), 803–822. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/48595415 .

30.

Rudes

D. S.

Magnuson

Shaw

Smith

Kushmerick-McCune

Hartwell

T. N.

Appleton

Foudray

(2023). Recognizing and remedying: Reflexive and inclusive approaches to engaging in research with individuals in carceral settings. In Rudes

D. S.

Kras

Carter

T. J.

Armstrong

(Eds.), Handbook on prisons and jails, vol. 8 (pp. 399–408). Routledge.

31.

Sapir

(1921). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. Harcourt, Brace & World Inc.

32.

Solomon

(2021, April 12). What words we use — and avoid — when covering people and incarceration. The Marshall Project. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/04/12/what-words-we-use-and-avoid-when-covering-people-and-incarceration .

33.

Stephenson

(2023). Cultural change. In Stephenson

(Ed.), Culture and sustainability: Exploring stability and transformation with the cultures framework (pp. 125–151). Palgrave Macmillan.

34.

Tietjen

(2019). Convict criminology: Learning from the past, confronting the present, expanding for the future. Critical Criminology, 27, 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-019-09436-w

35.

Tracy

S. J.

(2019). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. John Wiley & Sons.

36.

Viggen

Landrø

(2017). Reflecting dialogues in a Norwegian prison: A qualitative study. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 28(4), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/08975353.2017.1301157

37.

Wehmeyer

Bersani

Gagne

(2000). Riding the third wave: Self-determination and self-advocacy in the 21st century. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 15(2), 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/108835760001500206

38.

Whitman

J. Q.

(2003). Harsh justice: Criminal punishment and the widening divide between America and Europe. Oxford University Press.

39.

Whorf

B. L.

(1956). Science and linguistics. In Carroll

J. B.

(Ed.), Language, thought, and reality (pp. 1–10). Technology Press of MIT.