The Commodification of Lived Experience:

The arena of social justice advocacy is laden with organizations committed to criminal justice reform. Yet, an unsettling paradox persists—many such organizations, including the Fines and Fees Justice Center -FFJC and, until recently, the Fortune Society, are primarily led by white individuals. These white-led organizations often suffer from internal power imbalances that can dilute the impact of their advocacy work. This blog aims to scrutinize this complex issue, with a particular focus on a recent letter criticizing the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) proposed changes to the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program - IFRP.

The letter in question, although it aims to critique unjust practices in the IFRP, comes with its own set of issues. Most notably, it repeatedly refers to incarcerated individuals as "inmates," a term fraught with dehumanizing connotations. This language discrepancy becomes even more concerning considering that the letter was created by a prominent person who is served time himself who holds a significant position at FFJC. You think he’d know better. The use of such terminology raises serious questions about the sincerity of the organization's commitment to changing the systemic biases they claim to oppose.

Tokenization remains a significant concern within these white-led justice organizations. Individuals with lived experiences of incarceration are often employed but seldom occupy roles that allow them meaningful input into decision-making processes. Instead, their experiences are commodified to add gravitas to fundraising activities, policy proposals, and public relations efforts.

The glaring absence of formerly incarcerated individuals in senior leadership roles within these organizations not only maintains existing power imbalances but also impacts the organization's effectiveness and integrity. When these critical voices are sidelined from influential roles and high-level decision-making processes, it only serves to perpetuate systemic inequalities.

In light of the letter criticizing the Bureau of Prisons' Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, circulated by a prominent individual from FFJC, the need for internal organizational reform becomes glaringly evident. The language used in the letter—referring to incarcerated people as "inmates"—is not merely a lapse in judgment or an isolated incident. It is symptomatic of a broader issue that permeates many white-led justice organizations: the perpetuation of the very dehumanizing structures and systemic biases they purport to fight against.

If organizations like FFJC want to be true agents of change, they must begin by acknowledging and rectifying the imbalances within their own structures. This is not simply a question of semantics or political correctness. It is a matter of integrity and ethical consistency. An organization that fails to scrutinize the language it uses, or fails to include the perspectives of those it claims to represent, is perpetuating a cycle of systemic inequality, however unintentionally.

The call to action here is twofold: First, organizations must undertake a comprehensive audit of their internal and external communications to ensure that they are free from dehumanizing language and this can’t be in a pat way. This is a non-negotiable first step toward rebuilding credibility and trust. Second, the leadership of these organizations must be restructured to include individuals with lived experience in decision-making capacities. Nothing about us without us. I This isn't an optional inclusion for better optics; it's a necessary transformation for more effective, credible, and ethical advocacy.

In the fight for criminal justice reform especially, words matter, actions matter, and representation matters. True representation. True representation who get it. Any incongruence between these elements not only undermines the credibility of the organization but also hampers the very cause it aims to advance. Until these white-led organizations address these internal inconsistencies head-on, their advocacy will continue to be flawed, raising questions about their commitment to the equitable reform they claim to champion.