People whose lives have been shaped by public systems and institutions—those with lived experience—know firsthand how influential those systems can be. Recognizing their voices brings fresh perspective and smarter solutions to reform because no one understands the system’s realities better than the people who have lived them.

In recent years, some nonprofits and scholars have advocated for the value of lived experience when selecting leaders in the criminal legal space. Organizations like JustLeadershipUSA and the Formerly Incarcerated College Graduates Network work to empower people who have experienced the criminal legal system. A long-standing body of research founded by formerly incarcerated scholars (PDF) argues for expanding scholarship by system-impacted researchers. Now, organizations like the New York Department of Correction and US Bureau of Prisons have appointed formerly incarcerated people to key leadership roles.

With more organizations embracing the value of leaders with lived experience, philanthropic organizations have an opportunity to consider this type of expertise in their grantmaking. As universities and prisons partner to offer programs for incarcerated learners, there is increasing attention to lived experience at the intersection of criminal justice and education.

In partnership with Ascendium Education Group, the Urban Institute is exploring how philanthropies can consider lived experience as part of their grantmaking practices. Here we reflect on some lessons learned from the first phase of our work. Along  with taking a deep dive into existing research, we spoke with a dozen thought leaders in the criminal legal and education spaces—including those with and without lived experience, researchers, nonprofit leaders, and direct service providers—about how to think about lived experience and leadership.

What is lived experience?

A foundational question guiding our work is: Where does lived experience with incarceration start and stop?

There’s broad consensus in the criminal legal space that a person who’s served time in prison has lived experience in the criminal legal system. But what about someone who has spent a night in jail? Or who has an incarcerated family member? What if someone is under probation, a form of community supervision?

There are certainly levels to lived experience, and the field sometimes categorizes these as either direct or indirect.

Direct lived experience means someone has been incarcerated, whether in jail, prison, youth detention, or under community supervision such as probation or parole. Several of the thought leaders we spoke to described direct lived experience as unique and irreplicable, encompassing the daily realities and dehumanization associated with state control. They also emphasized that though people with direct lived experience may face similar challenges as a result of incarceration (e.g., trauma), each person’s experience is distinct and should not be generalized.

Indirect lived experience refers to having a close family member incarcerated or under supervision. This can profoundly shape a person’s perspective, empathy, and understanding of justice-related issues despite not having been incarcerated personally. Those we interviewed saw both forms of lived experience as influential in shaping engagement with criminal justice reform and education behind walls.

How is lived experience important for leading organizations?

Among the thought leaders we spoke to, there was significant agreement that leaders of organizations supporting currently or formerly incarcerated people should ideally have lived experience, whether direct or indirect. Such experience helps leaders better understand the communities they serve, develop more-empathetic and person-centered leadership styles, and set priorities that reflect the needs of those affected by incarceration. They also stressed the importance of including people with lived experience across all levels of the organization, such as on staff and advisory boards, rather than only in top leadership roles.

But lived experience on its own doesn’t make a leader. Leaders must also bring practical experience, education, and subject matter expertise, such as knowledge of the historical and social context of incarceration and trauma-informed practices. In cases where a person with lived experience has unrealized potential, co-leadership models that pair leaders with lived experience and leaders without it could be effective.

Finally, when organizations think about lived experience in leadership decisions, it’s important not to tokenize diverse individuals. Their value goes beyond one attribute or set of experiences.

How can philanthropy promote lived experience in grantmaking?

Before they can strategically invest in leaders with lived experience, funders need to know who they are.

Most foundations don’t explicitly track whether grantees have lived experience. When they do ask, they typically use open-ended application questions or rely on relationships, public biographies, or grant designs that target formerly incarcerated grantees.

Many of the thought leaders we spoke with were in favor of funders collecting demographic and lived experience data to reduce stigma, assess portfolio diversity, and inform decisionmaking. They argued that clear data can help philanthropies check their biases and demonstrate alignment between their values and spending. To fully capture the complexities of lived experience, the thought leaders said it’s important for funders to consider multiple dimensions (e.g., race, gender, and age) and context about a potential grantee’s leaders, boards, programs, and outcomes—not just a single leader’s identity.

At the same time, the leaders we spoke with had significant concerns about safety, identifiability, and politicization in the current climate. They said respondents should be able to opt out of sensitive questions and advocated for careful aggregation of survey data. Surveys can feel reductive and sterile, and they sometimes miss important context on those with intersecting identities and the collective nature of leadership.

Transparency is also important. Funders should clearly communicate with grantees why they’re collecting certain information and how they will store, use, and share it. If a philanthropy shares results externally, it should be careful to de-identify and aggregate grantee data to avoid harm.

Looking ahead

Based on these foundational lessons learned, Urban will grapple with a tough question: How can philanthropic organizations understand whether prospective grantees have relevant lived experience?

In the second phase of this work, Urban will create a survey funders can use to better understand the lived experiences of leaders and project teams at organizations in which they plan to invest. We will then pilot test the survey with some of Ascendium’s current grantees and use that information to generate recommendations for the field.

In doing so, we hope to generate evidence that helps both philanthropy and nonprofits support second chances for leaders with lived experience.