The New York City Board of Correction is advancing a proposal to remove the word "inmate" from its jail regulations, replacing it with "person in custody" as part of a long-term shift toward person-first language.
The move builds on a 2021 commitment to stop defining individuals by their incarceration status. Officials concluded that people in custody should be recognized as people first, with their confinement treated as a circumstance rather than an identity.
Under the earlier initiative, the board began replacing "inmate" with terms such as "people," "persons," and "individuals in custody" across its Minimum Standards. The latest proposal extends those revisions into additional chapters of the rulebook.
The updated language appears throughout the regulations. A section once titled "Classification of Prisoners" is now "Classification of People in Custody," and definitions clarify that a "person in custody" means any person confined in a facility.
The proposal states the amendments continue work begun in 2021 to align board communications and standards with person-first terminology. Chapters 2 and 3 are the current focus of the revision effort.
New York City is not alone in reconsidering incarceration language. In 2022, state legislation replaced "inmate" with "incarcerated individual" across dozens of provisions in New York law, while the city adopted the distinct phrase "person in custody."
The terminology debate has gained visibility amid renewed attention on the city's correction system. A recent World Cup semifinal watch event at Rikers Island included remarks emphasizing that those held there remain New Yorkers before and after incarceration.
The language changes do not affect jail operations, housing assignments, or disciplinary procedures. The board has described the revisions as a modernization of regulations to reflect its stated philosophy.
The board has not detailed why it selected "person in custody" over the state's term, nor has it disclosed public feedback on the proposal. Requests for comment were directed to the correction officers' union and a criminal justice reform organization, both of which were asked to respond.
