If you’ve been watching closely, you would notice that within our outreach and community programming, we don’t use the phrase “at-risk” when talking about the populations that we work with. This is intentional, and important to us at the Circus Project. Instead, you may notice us using the phrases “marginalized,” “traditionally underserved,” “facing systemic barriers to participation” or, when we have enough time or space, to list the specific characteristics that we’re referencing, such as “youth experiencing homelessness and extreme poverty.”
The phrase “at-risk” came in to use in the 1980s with good intentions, but is on its way out in the world of youth development, and with good reason. The youth are at-risk of what?
Here are some reasons why we’re moving away from the phrase “at-risk:”
It’s vague. Does the program focus on youth experiencing homelessness? Students of color? The LGBTQ community? Children in foster care? “At-risk” lumps multiple different identities into one sweeping category, which can be invalidating and reductive to an individual’s identity.
It references the chance of something happening, instead of addressing the lived experience of program participants. It’s important to acknowledge the real challenges and history that participants bring with them to the program.
It focuses on the negative. Recently, there has been a push within the youth development world to use the phrasing “youth at-opportunity” or “at-potential” instead.
Gloria Ladson-Billings, pedagogical theorist, in her 2007 speech about the achievement gap, said “We cannot saddle these babies at kindergarten with this label [“at-risk”] and expect them to proudly wear it for the next 13 years and think, ‘well, gee, I don’t know why they aren’t doing good...’ Language matters. What you call something matters.”
It puts the blame on the individual. The phrase implies that the individuals are at-risk of making poor decisions, which in turn implies that they could, in theory, solve their problems by simply making better decisions. We prefer to use language that acknowledges societal structures and inequities that influence the lived experience of our participants. If we tease out the phrases a little bit more, consider the different implications between: someone “at-risk of making a bad decision” and someone “marginalized by structural inequalities.”
It may seem like a minor point to some, but language is powerful! The subtleties we use in language influence how we conceptualize issues, how we form identities and relationships and how policies and funding are handled. Small, day-to-day interactions have a large impact on social change. And, language is always evolving! In fact, “at-risk” was an intentional improvement upon the previously-used “delinquent.” But as our awareness of these issues is building, it’s time to take the next step and leave “at-risk” behind.
So, what’s a better option? If you need a quick substitute for “at-risk,” try something like “marginalized” instead. Even better, try to be more specific and talk about the actual communities that you are supporting. And, when possible, just call people by their names and acknowledge their full identities.
Some thoughts from our Voice Project participants
We realize that language is imperfect, but necessary. We strive to keep listening to the communities that we are serving, and reflecting and updated our language as needed. Here are some thoughts from a recent conversation with our program participants:
“When I hear “marginalized” it feels validating because people with these identities are kept on the outside of society and they have to reach further than other people do for resources and the care they need sometimes. But there is a flipside, and maybe the name “marginalized” helps to keep us on the margins of society, and really we should switch the framework to more “community care” where everybody has their needs met.”
“Naming identities is for the purpose of greater understanding, so you can get something right. Especially in programming, there is a need for greater understanding because some people need more help than other people do.”
“I’m queer and disabled and gay, and sometimes I do like saying: I’m doing all this stuff in my life despite of all the stuff I have to be queered by!”
“One of the ways that I’ve survived and coped most of my life is by pretending that I’m not the labels and diagnoses that I’ve been given, but then I find myself coming into needing resources and I need to label all of the things that make me vulnerable. Then, I get into a really uncomfortable relationship with those labels.”
“Marginalization has a lot to do with access. Like, we’re a group of folks that are doing a circus program that we wouldn’t have otherwise had access to. That language is less about our identities and is more about helping people who need the help.”
“Sometimes ‘marginalized’ is disempowering because it reiterates that I’m pushed to the margins. Maybe something better is “targeted” or “impacted by” or something else that frames it as humans being impacted by the systems that are creating a lack of access.”