Join Us Donate Search

Messaging And Report Category: Messaging Memo

Building a Narrative to Address Violence in the U.S.

​

This memo holds guidance for engaging strategic audiences in conversations about how to address violence and those who have been accused of or convicted of violence in the U.S. The recommendations here emerge from a thought partnership between The Opportunity Agenda, which has extensive expertise in communications and messaging, and Common Justice, which has a decade of experience working on and talking about violence and repair.

This advice is intended to help shape a larger story, or narrative, around violence, its causes, and the people involved and change hearts, minds, and policies around the issue.

These ideas are meant to serve as a jumping off point for more specific messages. The idea behind relying on common, or “big ideas” in talking about violence issues is to develop a familiar, pro-reform story that moves our target audiences. A compelling and coherent “echo chamber” helps to unite diverse voices and viewpoints, and helps to move audiences toward positive policy changes.

Narrative Principles

We recommend adopting a consistent core narrative rooted in the values that you share with your priority audiences and the themes that you want to communicate again and again in different forms and situations. You can then develop specific messages—whether for a press conference, a TV soundbite, a speech, town hall, or tweet—based on those core principles.

For reasons discussed more fully below, we recommend a narrative rooted in three main pillars:

  1. Preventing harm,
  2. Upholding the values of accountability, equal justice, and pragmatism, and
  3. Promoting rehabilitation, restoration, and repair.

Other relevant values include safety, opportunity, and community. These core themes can be adapted to promote the large majority of your goals, and to respond to a wide range of events and challenges.

Working from that foundation, a Core Narrative should:

  • Lead with shared values.
  • Highlight the systemic obstacles to those values that communities face.
  • Promote effective solutions, successes, and alternatives.

While virtually all communications should flow from the same core narrative, your specific messages should be customized for different audiences, spokespeople, issues, and contexts. The following principles can help to produce messages that are genuine, accurate, and strategic.

Engage Strategic Audiences

Key to developing and implementing a narrative that encourages commonsense criminal justice reform focused on prevention and fairness is engaging strategically with different audiences. We recommend considering priority audiences in terms of:

  • Persuading undecided audiences. Most people fall into this group, either because they are carrying competing narratives in their heads or simply haven’t thought very much about the issue. Nationally, for instance, Millennials, independent voters, and people of faith are disproportionately open and persuadable on criminal justice issues.
  • Activating the base. People who support reform but are not yet fully engaged in promoting or implementing it should be prioritized for organizing and calls to action. They can also be called upon to convince people in their networks who are not yet on board with reform.
  • Engaging those most affected. Survivors of crime are an important voice for reform and should be respectfully engaged. Public opinion research suggests that survivors of crime are increasingly disappointed by their treatment within the criminal justice system,[1]and many favor accountability through restorative justice, community supervision, or drug and mental health treatment instead of prosecution and incarceration.

Build a Strategic Message

One formula for building an effective message is Value, Problem, Solution, Action. Using this structure, we lead with the shared values that are at stake, outline why the problem we’re spotlighting is a threat to those values, point toward a solution, and ask our audience to take a concrete action.

Lead with values and vision. Most communicators agree: people don’t change their minds based on facts alone, but rather based on how those facts are framed to fit their emotions and values. Shared values help audiences “hear” messages more effectively than do dry facts or emotional rhetoric.

  • A central goal of any community is the safety of its members. 

Introduce the problem. Frame problems as a threat to your vision and values. This is the place to pull out stories and statistics that are likely to resonate with the target audience.

  • Currently, our prison system only exacerbates harm in communities by isolating people, separating families, and providing little or no rehabilitation. This doesn’t serve the needs of survivors, communities, or those who are imprisoned. That doesn’t make our communities safer.

Pivot quickly to solutions. Positive solutions leave people with choices, ideas, and motivation. Assign responsibility—who can enact this solution?

  • We need to take a close look at what really reduces violence in our communities, and how communities heal from its aftermath. We know that when survivors of violence, for instance, are involved in decisions about how we hold people who have engaged in violence accountable, some remarkable things happen that are much more in line with our goals and values than the mass imprisonment we’re seeing now.

Assign an action. Try to give people something concrete that they can picture themselves doing: making a phone call, sending an email. Steer clear of vague “learn more” messages when possible. Ask your audience to take action on your behalf, by sharing the information about your office with friends and family members, attending community events, and/or visiting your website.

  • Join us by [include a concrete action that your audience can take].

 Sample Messages

 Accountability, Restoration, and Repair

When people hurt others, they have to be accountable for the damage they cause. Then we have to make sure our response makes that violence less likely in the future. All too often, people equate punishment and accountability, even though the two are not the same. The result in the United States has been a globally unique and historically unprecedented level of punishment and a gaping lack of meaningful accountability among people who commit harm[2]. People grow and change over time in response to their circumstances, and those who commit crimes, including violence, can earn the chance for reconciliation, rehabilitation, and a new start by taking responsibility for their choices. This includes providing the conditions that allow people to develop, to rebuild, and to take full responsibility for their lives after serious and damaging mistakes. Our current outdated system instead favors locking people up with no opportunity — or really even expectation — for change.

We need effective approaches to holding people accountable for violence that are appropriate and proportionate to a person’s conduct and circumstances. And we must recognize that while responsibility is an often-rocky road that requires patience and compassion as well as swift and steady intervention, it is the most effective long-term solution to meet our goals of safety and healing.

Safe and Healthy Communities

We are committed to adopting policies and practices that enhance community safety and build healthy and safe communities.

There are real challenges in improving community safety in [City/County], and it’s important to adopt policies that are commonsense and focus on addressing cycles of violence and prevention.

A safe community is one where there is mutual respect, trust, and an understanding of and a looking out for each other. When people fear going to the police to report a crime, it makes us all less safe. We need policies that increase collaboration and make all community members safe.

Preventing Harm

Everyone wants to feel safe in their communities and feel comfortable talking to their neighbors, local police, and government officials.

Community safety is not just about crime and incarceration rates. We should be working toward a vision of community safety that is holistic and different from outdated models of measuring safety.

Pragmatism

We need to take a responsible approach when it comes to addressing and preventing violence in our communities. We need to implement policies that are both effective and practical.

This means taking a look at what our real goals are and should be around violence and violence prevention, looking at new ideas that will move us all forward, and relying on the knowledge and experience of survivors of violence to guide our policies.

Preventing Harm

We all want to live in safe and strong communities where we look out for each other. But currently, disruptive criminal justice practices often do more harm than good, neither preventing nor addressing violence. Instead, too often survivors of crime feel caught up in an ineffective system, and those who have committed violence are imprisoned for long periods of time without truly making amends for their actions.

There is a better way. We can craft policies that address survivor and community needs that hold people who commit violence accountable, while also making it possible for them to rejoin and contribute to the community once again.

Additional Messaging Recommendations

Put forth a shared vision. Audiences connect with messages that reflect their values and articulate a better world. Outline a transformative vision of what the country could look like with sensible policies to prevent and address violence and to work with those affected by it. We need attitudes and policies that create:

  • A country where fewer people are harmed by violence and fewer people are imprisoned.
  • A country where people who are harmed get what they need and deserve when they have been hurt.
  • A country that understands that healing and prevention are more effective strategies for keeping communities safe than high incarceration levels.
  • A country that knows that because most people are capable of change, we are better off by focusing on that capacity rather than punishment.

Remind audiences about shared values. The goal of our criminal justice system should be to keep all communities safe, prevent harm, and uphold the values of fairness and equal justice. Remind people that to meet those goals, we have to align our policies with our values:

  • Accountability: Those who have committed violent crimes must make amends. Our policy makers and the criminal justice system must be accountable to communities and to people who have been affected.
  • Equal Justice: Emphasize this core value for us as Americans, which focuses on being treated equally by the system and guarding against anyone suffering from unfair disadvantages.
  • Community Safety: We need to make sure our policies truly are about keeping all communities safe.
  • Prevention: Describe the real causes of violence and the real solutions to preventing it. Emphasize prevention as a real way to keep communities safe.
  • Dignity: is about our inherent value and sense of respect.

Emphasize innovation and new ideas. Survivors, in particular, are widely supportive of prioritizing prevention, alternatives to incarceration and treatment programs, and case-by-case sentencing, particularly when they think those will advance safety. They are weary of the effectiveness of judges and parole boards in making those determinations (due in large part to many survivors’ own experiences with prejudice and recognition of the history of unfair treatment faced by communities of color, particularly black Americans). Despite this distrust in system actors, many survivors of violent crime are open to new ideas and recognize that incarceration does not necessarily lead to a safer society.

Highlight the need for systemic solutions for systemic problems. While news reports mention individual crimes, they do not talk about the systemic causes of crimes in the community. Few stories explain root causes in any detail, and forces behind the disparate impact of crime based on race, ethnicity, and gender are rarely explored. Take the opportunity to connect an inadequate health care? system, lack of social safety nets, and poverty, while offering solutions that prevent violence by investing in community opportunity and wellbeing.

Show the connections. The idea that we are interconnected and all in this together is crucial to the success of reform-oriented communications. Americans intuitively understand that increasing inequality and poverty hold back the economy and country as a whole, creating an environment in which serious social problems develop and worsen. But popular thinking on social issues easily defaults to an extreme “personal responsibility” and “bad decisions” frame. Showing and telling how we’re all affected and connected—through images, research, spokespeople, and storytelling, as well as specific messaging—is crucial.

Talk about race. Despite the evidence, many audiences are skeptical about whether racial bias still exists in America, and believe (or want to believe) that the criminal justice system treats everyone fairly. We therefore need to be specific about the mechanisms that lead to unequal treatment, gather comprehensive and reliable data, and prepare a stable of examples to make a convincing and compelling argument.

  • Highlight that many survivors of crime are people of color and are not served by the current system.
  • Understand that negative racial stereotypes and implicit bias are often an unspoken reality in conversations about crime and punishment. Properly raising them through an appeal to more positive conscious values is often the only way to overcome their effect.
  • Instead of leading with evidence of unequal outcomes alone—which can sometimes reinforce stereotypes and blame—we recommend documenting how people of color, including crime survivors, frequently face harsh and unequal treatment by the criminal justice system, and to lead with examples of the inequities faced by survivors of color to show how the current system fails them as well. Provide concrete examples of these barriers.

The Opportunity Agenda is a social justice communication lab working to build public support for greater and more equal opportunity. To learn more, and to access our free communications resources, go to www.OpportunityAgenda.org.

Common Justice develops and advances solutions to violence that transform the lives of those harmed and foster racial equity without relying on incarceration. To learn more, and to access our resources, go to www.commonjustice.org.

[1] 1 Alliance for Safety and Justice, Crime Survivors Speak (2016).

[2] Accounting for Violence: How to Increase Safety and Break Our Failed Reliance on Mass Incarceration (2017).

​

Tips for Talking Due Process & Immigration

Core Message: Due process is a human right central to the American justice system. American values of justice and fairness only stand strong when we uphold the right to due process.

Most audiences believe that due process in the legal system is a basic right, central to preserving and upholding American values of security, fair treatment, and freedom from government persecution.  However, while audiences hold the concept dear, they do not easily accept that violations occur.  This is in part because the idea is so central to their notion of what America stands for that they have trouble believing we would deny it to anyone here. This embrace of due process as integral to our nation’s identity is an opportunity to tell a story of American values in peril, and to make the case for how to protect and restore them through a commonsense approach to our immigration policies.[1]

  1. Lead with Values. Fairness, equality, America’s founding principles. Assert that the United States should protect due process in order to stand up for American values.
  2. It’s About All of Us. Research shows that arguments focusing on the goal of protecting our core values resonate better than a focus on protecting the specific rights of undocumented immigrants. Emphasize that due process is central to the credibility of our justice system, and that once we start denying rights for one individual or type of people, it puts all individuals’ rights at risk.
  3. Define the Term. While audiences are committed to the concept of due process, not all immediately understand the term itself.  Describing due process as giving someone a fair trial, or access to courts and lawyers, or a set of standardized rules and procedures to protect individuals from being unfairly treated or imprisoned helps to make the term more accessible.
  4. Include positive solutions. This is an opportunity to talk about what does work, not just attack policies that don’t.  Research shows that conversations about immigration that lack positive solutions can result in increased support for enforcement measures among some persuadables.  We should always describe what needs to happen in order to restore and protect due process, and what all Americans can do to support positive and effective changes to our immigration laws.
  5. Include key information about how the current system denies due process rights to immigrants. Participants are not aware of how laws can violate due process and have a hard time believing that this could be happening. Therefore, it is important to keep the language simple and straightforward. If the rhetoric strays from a simple description, the message’s credibility could be put into question.
  6. Find the Right Spokespeople. Because audiences don’t necessarily believe that undocumented immigrants are being denied due process, messenger credibility is important.  Law enforcement, judges and faith leaders will likely be more trusted than immigration advocates or immigrants themselves.
  7. Include the Right Pieces of the Story.  Elements of due process that audiences valued the most include timeliness in granting due process, being allowed to call a loved one and a lawyer, and fair treatment.

Sample Language

  1. Due process – access to courts and lawyers and a basic set of rules for how we’re all treated in the justice system – is a human right and central to our country’s values. We should reject any policies that deny due process, for undocumented immigrants or anyone else. Our American values of justice and fairness only stand strong when we have one system of justice for everyone. If one group can be denied due process, none of us will be safe to enjoy the rights that America stands for.
  2. The United States was founded on the belief that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and on basic notions of fairness and justice. Denying due process to any group violates these core values [of fairness and justice] and hurts us all.
  3. When it comes to our outdated immigration laws, we need real solutions that embrace fairness, equal treatment, and due process. Current laws are badly broken, but disregarding our values is not the answer to fixing them. Tell Congress it’s possible–and imperative–to both modernize our immigration laws and protect our core values at the same time.

[1] This advice is based, in part, on national research on Americans’ perceptions of human rights, which included focus groups specifically on due process, as well as focus groups held in the South around a range of immigration issues.  Belden Rusonnello & Stewart, 2009 and First Research, 2010.

Redefining Sanctuary

Introduction

This past February, as media reports began to circulate detailing a surge in Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) raids in communities across the country, Americans took to social media to offer support and warnings to their neighbors. In the days that followed, as the true scope of the raids became evident, city leaders issued defiant messages critiquing the raids and reaffirming their support of immigrant communities. These efforts on the part of members of the public and elected officials crystallize the providing of refuge and safety at the core of the principle of ‘sanctuary’— a principle that defines the communities across the country, currently providing much needed legal protection to undocumented immigrants and their families.

A sanctuary jurisdiction can be defined as a locality that limits its participation in federal immigration enforcement efforts as a matter of policy. There are an estimated 47 sanctuary jurisdictions in the United States as of December 2016,[1] which, alongside policies like Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), have enabled tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants to secure better paying jobs, and to pursue otherwise-unavailable education opportunities.[2]

Despite the integral role such immigration policies continue to play, the new administration has taken persistent steps to undo them. In recent months, there has been an increase in aggressive immigration enforcement policies, the latest of which includes the ending of DAPA and DACA programs initiated by President Obama.

In the face of these challenges, local governments, immigrant rights’ advocates, and policymakers have reaffirmed their commitment to the protection of immigrant communities. However, central to their continued success will be understanding how key audiences are currently thinking and talking about pro-immigration policies and immigration more broadly, and developing effective strategies to challenge anti-immigrant discourse. What issues and policies currently define the sanctuary jurisdictions debate? How does the current discussion of sanctuary jurisdictions intersect with DACA, and overall discussions of immigration in media coverage, social media discourse, and public opinion? How can pro-immigrant advocates ensure the continued support of immigrants and their families in an increasingly anti-immigrant climate? Finally, how can pro-immigrant advocates continue to uplift the voices and leadership of immigrants in a climate where many may feel reluctant to speak out?

In an effort to answer these critical questions, we embarked on a three-part analysis, which consisted of an examination of existing public opinion research, a content analysis of media coverage, and an analysis of social media discourse since January 2016.

Our analysis of existing public opinion research revealed that when asked specifically about deportation policies and levels of support for programs such as DACA, the majority of Americans support the protection of due process that sanctuary jurisdictions provide and, critically, oppose the types of aggressive deportation efforts promoted by the current administration. Our examination of social media data shows there is currently fertile ground for social justice advocates seeking to protect sanctuary jurisdictions and challenge misinformation that attempts to conflate the protection of undocumented immigrants with the promotion of crime. At the same time, our analysis of media coverage over a 20-month period suggests there is currently a pressing need for more coordinated messaging among pro-immigrant advocates.

This report begins with an overview of our findings from our analysis of social media trends over an 18-month period, followed by findings from our analysis of existing public opinion research, and mainstream media coverage. We conclude with a series of recommendations for messaging and audience engagement through social media outreach.

DOWNLOAD THE FULL REPORT HERE

Citations

[1] Kenna, Ruairi, Politico, “Sanctuary cities stand firm against Trump,” December 2016,

[2] Center for American Progress, “State-by-State Analysis of the Economic Impact of DACA, DAPA, and DACA Expansion,” June 2015. Retrieved June 19, 2017.

Quick Tips for Talking About Poverty and Taxes

We all want to live in a country where everyone enjoys full and equal opportunity. But recent tax cut proposals from leaders in Washington, D.C. would dramatically undermine the ability of all Americans to ensure their own economic security. Based on research by Topos Partnership, The Opportunity Agenda compiled the following quick tips for discussing these tax cuts and changes to our nation’s tax system.

1. Lead with Values. Emphasize the values of community and a strong and thriving society. Describe the foundations of a strong and prosperous society that taxes make possible. We all rely on roads, schools, first responders and so many other foundational aspects of our society that we jointly pay for through taxes.

Sample Language:

We all know the ingredients of a great community: Schools with good teachers, well-maintained streets, emergency response to keep us safe, access to high quality healthcare— these basics help communities thrive. Are we doing all we can to make sure our communities have them?[1]

2. Promote effective solutions and successes. After establishing values, follow with a systemic story about how these various public structures, along with other critical programs, can create a path from poverty to economic participation for many in our country.

Sample Language:

Reclaiming the promise of opportunity means demanding an economy that works for everyone, not just corporations/businesses. Robust employment opportunities are important, but even at a 4.9% unemployment rate, 43 million of us are still living in poverty. We need to work together to shore up programs like social security, welfare, and job training initiatives so that we all have a chance to live in economic stability.

3. Balance out a story of spending with a story about people paying their fair share. We need to close loopholes that give huge breaks to the wealthy so that everyone, including the workers who contribute to the profits of the very wealthy, gets the support they need to provide for their families. Our government’s role should be to make sure everyone has access to education, jobs, and healthcare, not to let the very wealthy out of paying their fair share at the expense of these things.

Sample Language:

You can’t get something for nothing. We all want and deserve thriving communities with great schools, parks, modern roads and bridges; and we chip in to pay for that. That’s what taxes are for. But our tax code needs serious reform; it is riddled with out-of-control tax breaks that are syphoning off the resources that would be better used in our communities. Should we be spending on things that benefit all of us and make our communities thrive, or on tax breaks that mostly benefit a few?[2]

4. Show how spending can lead to more equal access to economic opportunity. Most audiences don’t understand the root causes of poverty in any detail, particularly when it comes to the forces behind the disparate impact of poverty based on race, ethnicity, and gender. It’s therefore difficult for people to see how something like taxes can play a role in creating and sustaining a more equitable society. We have to tell a story that connects the dots from how particular government agencies, policies, and programs play a role in paving a path from poverty to economic participation, and also knocking down the barriers of racial, ethnic and gender discrimination that hold many back.

Sample Language:

We all want to live in a country where everyone enjoys full and equal opportunity. But we know that this isn’t true yet, and that a lot of opportunities depend on what someone looks like or where they came from. When you add together current circumstances caused by old prejudices—and the everyday bias and discrimination that we all know exists–some groups face a lot more barriers than others. One way we’ve addressed this is by passing laws so that we can protect people from housing and employment discrimination, or to make sure that kids can get a good education. We can all agree that these laws are central to equal opportunity and that we have to enforce them. Our taxes pay for that enforcement, and eliminating funds for the important agencies that do that work just makes it harder for us all to realize real equality and equal opportunity.

5. Build a message with VPSA. We recommend including four elements in your tax messages: Value, Problem, Solution, and Action.

Sample VPSA:

Value

Our nation aspires to be a place where everyone enjoys full and equal opportunity.

Problem

However, our economy is out of balance, with significant barriers impeding the ability of many people to care for their families. Moreover, current political circumstances are increasing threats to the political underpinnings of many of the elements that provide for a basic standard of living for millions of people. The release of the administration’s tax plan illustrates this problem: the very wealthy will pay less and less at the expense of policies designed to provide pathways out of poverty.

Solution

Instead of this step backwards, we need to protect and improve programs like social security, welfare, and Medicaid, which can provide the tools people need to make ends meet and move out of poverty.

Action

Contact your representatives and urge them to support tax policies that protect opportunity.

[1] Topos Partnership, Taxlandia. March 2016.

[2] ibid

Census Data and Storytelling

​

 U.S. Census data released today tells a story of the kind of progress that we can, and should, continue to make, when we invest in programs that expand opportunity. We also know that these successes will be short-lived if we see drastic cuts in these same initiatives. Below are a few tips for talking about the release of this important data, and the story it tells us.

Lead with Values: This data is important, but we have to spend a little bit of time telling audiences why that is; what it really stands for and the story it really tells us. Use a values lens to do this, focusing on Opportunity, Family, Dignity, Pragmatism/Common Sense, and American Ingenuity. Each of these represents why these programs really matter; what they protect and promote, and what they represent in terms of our American identity. Ask audiences what kind of country we want to be – the kind that promotes dignity, supports families, and uses our can-do spirit to find ways to continue to expand opportunity for everyone here? Or the kind that stops progress in its tracks, cutting off those in need in favor of tax cuts to corporations and the very wealthy?

Connect the dots: Show how decision makers, investments, policy choices, and outcomes are all related.

  • Audiences’ default thinking about “the economy” tends to view it as an uncontrollable phenomenon like the weather, or a wild animal that does as it pleases. We need to frame it as the result of policy choices by specific decision makers that can (and should) be crafted to meet the goals of opportunity for all. In particular, lift up the positive gains made during the Obama Administration and connect them to specific programs and investments.
  • Show how current administration’s proposals endanger this success, and the well-being of millions of ordinary people, so that corporations and the wealthiest can move away from paying their fair share. For instance, nutrition, health care, and energy assistance programs alone kept millions out of poverty. But the recently-proposed budget takes us backward on all of these fronts. Health insurance gains –largely driven by Medicaid expansion—are particularly at risk. While the repeal of the Affordable Care Act failed, waivers and attempts to sabotage insurance markets are threatening to reverse the progress we’ve made.
  • Be clear that these numbers tell only part of the story. Even in this improved environment, most Americans continue to face steep obstacles to economic security and basic opportunity like a job that pays decent wages or the chance to send their kids to college. We need solutions that preserve the gains while expanding opportunity for an economy that works for all of us.

Be strategic with language: Instead of talking about “the poor” or “people in poverty,” speak at a more personal level – ‘families like mine’ or ‘you and your family’ – to move audiences’ understanding from charity for others to personal advocacy. Talking about people/families “struggling to make ends meet” also connects with strategic audiences. Finally, focusing on families/people “facing” “hurdles” or “obstacles,” can highlight that the fault lies with the system, and not with the family.

Equal opportunity matters: In addition to overall progress on poverty, highlight findings about racial, ethnic, and gender equity, which may tell a different story—or multiple stories. At the values level, this means establishing greater and more equal opportunity as among the nation’s goals. As with the overall numbers, identify specific policy principles that contributed to any progress (or kept things from being even worse than they are); choices that held us back; and solutions going forward. This is especially important regarding racial inequality, as people tend to misattribute differing outcomes to differing work ethic and “culture,” or purely socioeconomic class differences.

Underscore the importance of this data: Highlight the importance of the Census in providing accurate, unbiased information about the health and prosperity of our nation, as well as our progress toward the goals of greater and more equal opportunity for all.

Highlight a positive role for government: Hurricanes Harvey and Irma and the terrible aftermath remind audiences of government’s crucial role, as well as the unpredictable economic and other challenges that we all face over the course of our lifetimes. Underscore the importance of government in providing support systems for Americans facing misfortune, while expanding opportunity for all.

Building a Message

We recommend structuring messages in terms of Value, Problem, Solution, and Action. You can use the themes and recommendations above to build a message around the specific policy solutions you need to highlight. For example:

Value: We need to build an economy that offers opportunity and economic security to everyone who lives here. Every family should have access to a quality education, a job that enables them to provide for their family, affordable healthcare, and a dignified retirement.

Problem: The latest numbers show that our nation made progress toward that goal over the last eight years. Smart policy decisions like The Affordable Care Act, investing in tax credits for working families, and state-level minimum wage increases helped bring our economy back from the brink of depression. [Specific illustrative data findings]. But we have a long way to go to ensure that every family in our country has the opportunity to live their dreams. [more data] What’s more, wrongheaded proposals by the administration and congressional leadership would not only endanger  the progress we’ve made but take us sharply in the wrong direction. Harmful proposals like a tax giveaway to the wealthiest corporations or an expensive and irrational border wall go against our values as a nation, and would pull resources away from real solutions.

Solution:  Experience tells us what works to expand opportunity and build economic security for all Americans. Solutions include [Illustrative policy solutions].

Action: Join the #HandsOff campaign and tell the President and Congress to help build an economy that works for all of us.

​

Communications to Protect Dreamers and our Nation’s Values

​Over the last several months, millions of activists, advocates, business leaders, and everyday people have shown enormous courage in fighting to maintain the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, demonstrating their commitment to our country’s values of dignity, human rights, and inclusion. For five years, DACA has opened a path for young people brought to the United States without documentation to live, learn, work, and contribute to the communities they call home. DACA has strengthened our nation, enabling the full participation of nearly 800,000 talented young Dreamers around the country.

But today, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced President Trump’s decision to end the DACA program after a “wind down” period.

We must condemn the President’s harmful and wrongheaded action, while pressing Congress to pass legislation that ensures the continued participation and dignity of these Dreamers. The Opportunity Agenda’s advice for talking about this critical issue includes:

  • Lead with Shared Values such as dignity, community, and diversity as our nation’s greatest strength.
  • Call for Solutions like the proposed bipartisan DREAM Act in Congress and local policies that facilitate the inclusion of immigrants and all young people.
  • Lift up the voices and leadership of Dreamers and their families, while avoiding the “Good Immigrant/Bad Immigrant” narrative that can unfairly vilify Dreamers’ family members and others.
  • Connect the Dots to the pattern of bigotry from the Trump administration that includes supporting white supremacists after the killing of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, the pardoning of Sherriff Joe Arpaio, the dismantling of civil rights protections at the Department of Justice, and many other actions.
  • Call for Action!  Americans are more willing than ever to take to the streets, to social media, and to the halls of Congress to voice their values and demand solutions. Give them concrete actions to take.
  • Avoid Mythbusting. Rather than repeat Sessions’ falsehoods about law and order, crime, and jobs, tell your affirmative story—including accurate facts.

We recommend structuring messages in terms of Value, Problem, Solution, and Action.  For example:

Value: Our nation is strongest when every one of us can contribute and share ideas, and when everyone’s basic rights and dignity are respected.  The DACA program does just that, enabling young Dreamers to fully participate in their education, work, and family life, and to contribute to our nation’s social fabric and economic engine.

Problem: President Trump’s wrongheaded decision to terminate DACA violates our country’s core values, and harms our national interest. It represents a doubling down on the divisive bigotry we heard from him after the white supremacist killing of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville.

Solution: Congress must immediately move forward with practical solutions like the proposed bipartisan DREAM Act and American Hope Act that uphold our nation’s values while moving us forward together. Those steps should go hand in hand with the commonsense policies that many cities and states are adopting to ensure that all young people can learn, work, and live their dreams.

Action: Tell your member of Congress to protect the Dreamers and our nation’s future.

In addition to this guidance, check out The Opportunity Agenda’s resources on talking about immigrant human rights, and the pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Tips for Talking about the President’s Pardon of Ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio

​

In 2011, the U.S. Justice Department sued then Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for a “pattern of unlawful discrimination” against Latino Arizonans that included discriminatory and unjustified stops, searches, and detentions. As a result, a federal judge ordered him to stop these practices. Last month he was convicted of contempt of court for refusing to do so, opting instead to continue his harassment and intimidation of Latino Arizonans.

By pardoning him, the president sends a message that civil liberties are only for some, and that he is fine with law enforcement flouting the very laws they are meant to uphold.  What’s more, on the heels of defending hateful demonstrators in Charlottesville, the president used his first official pardon to give impunity to a notorious violator of equal justice and our Constitution.

We recommend a two-pronged response to this news: 1) immediate condemnation of what Arpaio stands for: racism, racial profiling, and division – via a values lens; and 2) a pivot to the positive vision we have for a country that rejects racial profiling and every other form of racism.

Condemn the Arpaio mindset by describing the values at risk: equal justice, respect, safety, diversity. Frame the problem as a threat to these values.

  1. Racial profiling harms all Americans. It violates the American value of equal justice that we all depend on. It disrespects and discriminates against millions of young people and others around the country. It threatens public safety and can ruin people’s lives. It’s time to end racial profiling and focus law enforcement on evidence and public safety.
  2. We need to be clear: it is unacceptable for those who enforce our laws to stereotype people based on the color of their skin, religion, or nation of origin. Law enforcement should act on facts and evidence, not racial bias. If one group can be singled out based on race or ethnicity or religion, none of us will be safe to enjoy the rights that the United States stands for.
  3. We are stronger when we find ways to encourage participation and contribution, not ways to divide, exclude and discriminate. We have to condemn, in the strongest terms, those who engage in and encourage racist tactics.
  4. Is it right for a mother of Asian or Latino background who speaks with an accent to get asked for her papers—right in front of her children—when her white friend next to her does not? Is it right for a military veteran to be asked for his papers just because he’s of Mexican heritage? Is it right that immigrants who work hard and aspire to be citizens live in daily fear of being stopped, arrested, and deported away from their loved ones? Is it right to create a culture of suspicion in an America that becomes more diverse every day? No. Anyone who engages in or encourages discrimination is flat out wrong. That’s not who we are as a country.

Remind audiences that President Trump’s pardon of Arpaio reinforces a pattern of bigotry and discrimination in the wake of Charlottesville and long before.

  1. President Trump’s pardon of Arpaio doubles down on his defense of bigotry and discrimination in the wake of the Charlottesville hate march and Heather Heyer’s killing.
  2. The President’s pardon of Arpaio’s unconstitutional discrimination, his defense of hate mongers in Charlottesville, and his ban on transgender Americans serving our country are part of an unacceptable pattern of bigotry in his rhetoric, among his advisors like Stephen Miller and Kris Kobach, and in policies like the Muslim ban and the undermining of voting rights.
  3. People of good will, particularly in our government, must go beyond rejection or condemnation of the president’s words and deeds, and take action within the full limits of the Constitution to prevent him from inflicting greater discrimination, division, and harm.

Counter the Trump/Arpaio mindset with a vivid picture of what our country looks like when we work together and replace that suspicion with respect and cooperation.

  1. We are better, as people and as a country, when we welcome our neighbors, care for each other, and help those in need. We are better when we embrace our differences.
  2. We are stronger when we work together and when we learn from each other’s experiences, united as Americans. When people from different backgrounds join together, we all benefit from the diversity of those perspectives. It helps us find new ways to deal with old challenges. But we are not taking full advantage of this source of strength.
  3. Our country is changing, getting more and more diverse. It might make some of us uncomfortable, but it is our reality and a constant throughout our history. Politicians play on this fear, trying to divide us. They push unwise and divisive ideas like sending federal troops to police our cities, building a border wall, or singling out Muslim Americans because of their religion. If we take the bait on this, it makes our country weaker, not stronger. Our nation is stronger when every one of us can contribute and share ideas, and when everyone’s basic rights and dignity are respected. We need to embrace ideas that unify us as a diverse people and make our country stronger, and we need to speak out against discrimination wherever we see it.

​

Rejecting Bigotry, Demanding Action

​

Shouting racist and anti-Semitic slurs, white supremacists brought hatred and violence to Charlottesville, VA, this weekend, culminating in the murder of Heather D. Heyer, an anti-racist activist. The hatred and attacks drew outrage, activism, and condemnation. But President Trump, incredibly, refused to name or condemn white supremacists, and blamed hatred, bigotry, and violence “on many sides”—a phrase he repeated twice. His statement two days later was vague, full of platitudes, and failed to call Ms. Heyer’s killing terrorism.

Protests, condemnations, and mourning must continue. Alongside these actions, it is important to call for leadership and concrete lasting change that includes, but goes far beyond, addressing this recent and terrible resurgence of white supremacist violence. We can’t remain caught in this moment of anger and disbelief. We have to continue our work to tell the story about what “America” really means.

Together with UnidosUS, The Opportunity Agenda completed public opinion and messaging research with this goal in mind: to tell a story of American diversity that reflects our values and our aspirations as a country stronger because of our myriad backgrounds, ethnicities, races, experiences – because of the parts of us that may make us different, but ultimately also make us stronger. This research provides guidance for those using their platforms to reject bigotry while demand action.

Lead with Values

Leading with shared values helps to persuade the disengaged and undecided while mobilizing the base of people who support equity, rights, and inclusion. Particularly important values here include Dignity, Respect for Human Rights, Equal Justice, and Diversity as one of our nation’s greatest Strengths.

Link diversity to problem solving, strength, and healthy communities rather than economic competition. Talk about how we need to take advantage of our source of strength in diversity. Be aspirational, positive, and talk about embracing our differences. And explicitly talk about those differences—e.g., “no matter what race someone is, where they come from, their religion, or whom they love.”

Consider these examples:

Our country’s strength stems from its diversity and the contributions made by men and women of different faiths, races, sexual orientations and political beliefs. America’s leaders must honor our fundamental values by clearly rejecting expressions of hatred, bigotry and group supremacy, which run counter to the American ideal that all people are created equal.

— Kenneth C. Frazier, chairman and CEO, Merck

Mr. President – we must call evil by its name. These were white supremacists and this was domestic terrorism.

— U.S. Senator Corey Gardner (CO)

Our nation is defined by the march of progress. Our strength lies in our diversity. We must reject hate.

– U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (CA)

Name White Supremacy, Bigotry, Hate, and Terrorism

It’s important to accurately call out white supremacy and supremacists, racists and racism, Nazis and Nazism, bigotry, and hate where they exist.  Terms like “nationalism” and “alt-right” do not carry the power or accuracy of these more specific terms. Similarly, we should name “terrorism” wherever it occurs, and whoever the alleged perpetrators.  For example:

White supremacist violence is an unconscionable part of our nation’s history, but we cannot allow it to poison our future. Our nation’s leadership, on both sides of the aisle, must not only forcefully condemn it, but work actively and affirmatively to stop it.

—NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund

What happened in Charlottesville is an act of terrorism pure and simple. This is one all too familiar to our country’s history. We’re standing with the peaceful protesters in Charlottesville, with our 1 million members across the country and with everyone tonight heartbroken like us. Let’s work together to ensure that tomorrow we don’t continue to replicate the horrors of the past.

—Color of Change

Call out the history and spectrum of systemic racism in this administration and beyond

While the events in Charlottesville were terrible and dramatic, bigotry, white supremacy and bias are imbedded in our political and other institutions in ways that must be called out and explicitly linked. They include:

  • Documented white supremacists in positions of power in the Trump Administration, including White House advisors Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka; Kris Kobach, vice chair of Trump’s election commission, who has documented connections to hate groups and a history of anti-immigrant and voter suppression activism, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has spent his career undermining civil rights, and according to congressional testimony “used the n-word and joked about the Ku Klux Klan, saying he thought they were ‘okay, until he learned that they smoked marijuana.’”
  • Donald Trump’s long and well-documented history of racism and bigotry, including denying that President Obama was born in the U.S.; contending that Judge Gonzalo Curiel could not rule on a case against him because of the Judge’s Mexican heritage; failing to disavow the support of Klansman David Duke; continually referring to U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren as “Pocahontas”; disparaging Muslim Americans; labeling Mexican-Americans as “rapists” and other slurs.
  • The Trump Administration’s unconstitutional “Muslim ban,” held by federal courts to be intentionally discriminatory based on religion.
  • Action by the Trump Administration and Justice Department, led by Jeff Sessions, to abandon vigorous civil rights enforcement through consent decrees and other approaches; to challenge higher education diversity policies as discriminatory against whites; slashing civil rights enforcement by the Departments of Labor, Education, EPA, and other entities.
  • The Trump Administration’s bogus “Election Integrity” Commission, led by Kris Kobach, rooted in a falsehood about non-existent voting problems, which has sought invasive voting information from the states and is clearly designed to infringe the voting rights of citizens of color.
  • Attempts in many states to violate the voting rights of people of color, to exclude Muslims, and persecute immigrants, as well as the many hate crimes that have occurred around the country over the past year and have been ignored by this President and his administration.

Consider these examples of effective messaging:

President Trump’s press conference and tweets today are not enough. He must take responsibility for his role in propagating white nationalist ideology and fueling their movement. We call on him to immediately denounce the white supremacy movement by name and remove those who condone white supremacy, like Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka, from the White House. Their mere presence, and their prime roles in fanning these flames of bigotry, is a silent endorsement of this violence. There is only one side of hate, vulgarity, and violence.

—Muslim Advocates

I’m sure white supremacists remain reassured that they have a friend in the White House. A president who spews vitriol and heaps scorn on his enemies virtually every day – and who has no trouble calling Mexicans killers and “rapists” – still can’t break off the unholy alliance with bigots that he’s been cultivating since he first claimed President Obama’s birth certificate was bogus.

— Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law Center

Reject Attempts to Dodge or Divide

Call out attempts to divide us, without repeating the other side’s message. An effective message from our research includes:

Our country is changing, getting more and more diverse. It might make some people uncomfortable, but it is our reality, and a constant throughout our history. Politicians play on this fear, trying to divide us. They push unwise and divisive ideas like sending federal troops to police our cities, building a border wall, or singling out Muslim Americans because of their religion. If we take the bait on these, it makes our country weaker, not stronger. Our nation is stronger when every one of us can contribute and share ideas, and when everyone’s basic rights and dignity are respected. We need to embrace ideas that unify us as a diverse people and make our country stronger, and we need to speak out against discrimination and prejudice when we see it.

Lift up Positive Solutions

After condemning the problem, turn to positive solutions, including systemic change. This can include, for example, removing white supremacy and its proponents, root and branch, from the government; aggressive civil rights and anti-hate crimes enforcement; upholding voting rights and dismantling the discriminatory “election integrity commission”; abandoning wrongheaded attacks on university diversity policies; ending the “Muslim ban” and halting attacks on sanctuary cities.

Beyond the administration, it’s crucial to demand that all policymakers and institutions reject and proactively eradicate supremacist, discriminatory, and exclusionary policies. It is unacceptable for any leader—governmental, business, faith, or otherwise—to remain silent in the fact of this crucial moment for the country. We must demand that leaders and institutions throughout our nation take a stand against white supremacy and bigotry, including inside their institutions.

Building Values-based Messages

We recommend structuring messages with a Values, Problem, Solution, Action formula. For example:

Value
Our country’s greatest strength is the diversity of our people and the principles of equal dignity and inclusion that unite us all.

Problem
The hatred and terrorism that we saw in Charlottesville are terrible reminders that white supremacy is a dangerous threat to our nation and our values. President Trump’s flawed and feeble response only reinforces the unacceptable pattern of bigotry in his rhetoric, among his advisors like Steve Bannon and Kris Kobach, and in policies like the “Muslim ban” and the undermining of voting rights.

Solution
The President must not only condemn white supremacy, bigotry, and violence, but also rid his administration of supremacists and their ideology, and commit to a policy agenda of equal justice and inclusion.

Action
Contact President Trump today to demand clear action for unity and inclusion in his administration and throughout our country.

​

10 Facts About Public Attitudes Toward Economic Opportunity

​Freedom, opportunity, respect, and dignity – just some of the core values that many Americans say define them as individuals and a country. It was these same values that bubbled to the surface in a series of focus groups we held at the beginning of the year in three regions of the country. In collaboration with UnidosUS[1] and Lake Research Partners, we set out to examine how Americans were thinking and feeling directly following the November 2016 election. We found many people united in their concern about the divisive tone of politics and the treatment of people of color, and a shared willingness to act in support of positive change.

This memo draws on the results of this collaborative research project and provides an overview of key findings from a national online dial survey administered to a total of 1,000 registered voters nationwide in March 2017, with oversamples of 100 African Americans, 100 Latinos, and 100 millennials. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percent for the overall sample and larger for subgroups.

In this memo, we focus primarily on segments of the population defined as the base, opposition, and persuadables[2]. Our base, opposition, and persuadables were created using a statistical cluster analysis that identified groups of like-minded voters based on the patterns of their responses to series of questions about their attitudes toward economic opportunity, diversity, racial inequality, and a variety of related topics. As of March 2017, roughly 33 percent of registered voters made up our base, 17 percent the opposition, and the remaining 50 percent represented persuadable audiences. While these segments correlate to some degree with political party affiliation, they are not entirely predictive of one another. For example, strong Republicans were more likely to fit the profile of persuadable than those who merely lean Republican. More information about the demographics of the base, opposition, and persuadables can be found in the Appendix.

Due to the sample size, we were unable to draw conclusions about three subgroups: Native Americans, those lacking a high school diploma, and those with non-college, post-secondary education. The sample size of each group was too small to make any reliable inferences.

Key findings from our latest analysis include:

1.  Americans are united in their concern about the level of respect people in our country have for those from different cultures. Survey participants were asked how concerned they were about the level of respect people have for those from different cultural backgrounds on a scale of 0 (not concerned) to 10 (very concerned). A score of 5 was neutral. The majority of Americans across racial groups, political party affiliation, age groups, and education levels identified as concerned (i.e. reported a concern level of 6 or higher).

Across racial groups, Black Americans and Asian Pacific Islanders were most concerned, with 88 percent of Black Americans and 87 percent of Asian/Pacific Islanders expressing levels of concern 6 or higher. This compares to 83 percent of Latinos, and 79 percent of White Americans. Across political party affiliation, an overwhelming majority of “strong” Democrats[3] (90 percent) expressed high levels of concern about the current level of respect given to people from different cultures, compared to 71 percent of “not strong” Republicans. Across age groups, those under 30 were more likely to express concern than those aged 50-64, with 85 percent of voters under 30 expressing concern, compared to 79 percent of voters aged between 50-64.

2.  Persuadables and the base report similar levels of concern over the tone of politics and political conversation. Roughly 87 percent of persuadables and 88 percent of the base reported a level of concern of 6 or higher on a scale of 0 to 10, where 5 was neutral. In contrast, only 67 percent of the opposition reported a similar level of concern.

3.  Persuadables express serious concern with their ability to trust the media. When asked how concerned they were about their ability to trust the media, roughly 79 percent of persuadables reported a concern level of 6 or higher on a scale of 0 to 10, where 5 was neutral. In contrast, only 60 percent of the base and 70 percent of the opposition reported a similar level of concern.

When asked specifically about their level of trust in 12 different news sources, persuadables expressed significantly higher levels of trust in friends and family than traditional news media sources. However, persuadables express more trust in sources such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN than right-leaning sources such as Fox News and Breitbart.

4.  Persuadables have similar social media habits to the base, and both groups make more use of social media than the opposition. As Figure 2 indicates, the social media habits of persuadables track more closely to the base than the opposition. The most common social media platforms among the base and persuadables are YouTube, Twitter, and Instagram. In addition, persuadables and the base report more social media usage overall than the opposition. Roughly 18 percent of the opposition abstain from social media compared to only 11 percent of the base and 9 percent of persuadables.

5.  In contrast to persuadables and the base, the opposition reports more concern over “opportunity”, less over “inequality”. When asked their views about how serious a variety of topics currently are, a greater proportion of the opposition reports concern over the lack of opportunity (72 percent) than inequality (65 percent). Persuadables and the base not only have higher levels of concern overall, they also show similar levels of concern for both the lack of opportunity and inequality. Ninety-two percent of persuadables and 95 percent of the base reported concern over the lack of opportunity; 95 percent of persuadables and 98 percent of the base reported concern over inequality.

6.  Persuadables have conflicting attitudes towards wealth, inequality, and the role of government. Ninety-one percent of persuadables believe that government has an important role to ensure opportunity for all. Further, 58 percent believe that wealthy Americans achieved their success because they had more opportunities rather than because they worked harder. At the same time, 74 percent believe that government assistance created a culture of dependency, and 68 percent believe that turning to government to solve problems will do more harm than good.

7.  Persuadables are more likely to support social safety nets when a populist framework focused on the role of wealthy individuals and corporations is adopted. We randomly assigned half of survey participants to respond to the following question:

Which of two statements more closely reflects your views: A) there is “too much focus on helping people who take advantage of government assistance,” or B) the wealthiest corporations and individuals should “pay their fair share”. When framed as an issue of the wealthiest not contributing their fair share, 52 percent of persuadable respondents favored option B and agree that the wealthy should contribute more, compared to 39 percent who favored statement A.

The other half of survey participants were given a similar choice, but option B was modified: A) there is “too much focus on helping people who take advantage of government assistance,” or B) “everyone benefits when we help the people who need it most.” When framed this way, persuadables are more divided on their views, with 49 percent favoring statement A, and 41 percent favoring statement B.

8.  Persuadables have conflicting views about people of color, personal responsibility, and discrimination in America. The overwhelming majority of persuadables believe that discrimination against Black Americans (88 percent), Latinos (73 percent), and Muslims (80 percent) is a problem. At the same time, 74 percent believe that “Too often minorities use racism as an excuse for their own failures” and 62 percent believe that “Blacks and other minorities who can’t get ahead in this country are mostly responsible for their own condition”. In contrast, only 27 percent of the base believes “minorities use racism as an excuse”, and only 41 percent believes “minorities are mostly responsible for their own condition.”

9.  Persuadables believe strongly in the power of diversity to strengthen, unite, and  better our country. Ninety-five percent of persuadables agreed that embracing diversity makes us strong as a country, and 93 percent agreed that it makes us united. Eighty-seven percent agreed that people from different cultural backgrounds make positive contributions to American society. This trend carries across political parties, racial groups, and age groups, with each subgroup responding very positively to diversity and its impact on the country.

10.  Persuadables nearly unanimously believe we should counteract bigotry but are skeptical racial attitudes will actually change. Ninety-five percent of persuadables agree that “Everyone should try to do what they can to interrupt bigotry and prejudice,” and that “Everyone should try to do what they can to heal the wounds of bigotry and prejudice.” At the same time, 73 percent agreed that there is nothing “we” can do to change racial attitudes in America, and 74 percent agreed there is nothing “I” ( they personally) can do to change racial attitudes in America.

The overwhelming majority of Americans are excited to mobilize and bring about change. Eighty-five percent of the base is excited to “join together with other people to take action and bring about change.” Similar levels of motivation were reported across political parties, racial groups, education levels, and age groups. However, there was significant variation among education levels and age groups. More education and higher age are both associated with lower levels of excitement.

Audience Considerations

These findings have several implications for galvanizing support and collective action for social justice movements:

  • Act now and give clear instructions. The survey strongly suggests that people are eager and ready to mobilize—the question is do they know how? On prejudice, for example, the majority agrees we should do everything we can to counteract it, but some voters remains skeptical that attitudes will change. Giving people concrete actions, or policies to support and explaining the positive impact those actions will have makes it more likely they will engage.
  • Keep messaging positive. The majority of survey participants are concerned about the tone of politics and political conversation. Further, they do not trust the media. Leading with the problem is likely to dissuade potential persuadable audiences, who our research shows are currently eager to hear of ways they can positively engage. At a time when trust is low and people are concerned about the spirit of politics, focusing our messaging on the affirmative story and core values we want to uplift is critical to reaching persuadable audiences.
  • Empower persuasion among family and friends. At a time when media trust is low, people are turning to family and friends as a source of news and political analysis. Therefore, empowering trusted constituents to move family and friends is an effective way to grow the base.
  • Prioritize social media. Persuadables and the base have similar social media habits and use social media at greater rates than the opposition. Thus, communicating through platforms such as YouTube, Twitter, and Instagram is a cost-effective way to reach both the base and persuadable audiences already making heavy use of these platforms.
  • Adopt a populist framework. Donald Trump’s successful presidential campaign is a clear indication that the populist framework is currently resonating with a large segment of registered voters. However, our findings also indicate that it is possible to move people toward progressive policy solutions by making use of a populist framework. The survey suggests that people are more amenable to government support of marginalized populations once reminded that government also subsidizes wealthy corporations and individuals. Further, the idea that the wealthy should “pay their fair share” was popular among both base and persuadable audiences, and can be used to encourage support for numerous social justice programs.
  • Emphasize strength in diversity. Although survey participants have conflicting attitudes towards people of color, they have consistently positive attitudes toward diversity. The overwhelming majority of persuadables believes that diversity makes America strong and united. Further, they believe that people from diverse backgrounds make positive contributions to society. Advocates seeking to research persuadable audiences should link diversity to strength and problem solving, while also acknowledging that some people might be uncomfortable with change.

APPENDIX

Demographics: Base, Opposition, Persuadables

[1] Formerly the National Council of La Raza

[2] Persuadables are individuals who have attitudes that overlap with both the base and opposition. For a full breakdown of their demographic characteristics, see appendix.

[3] Those who strongly self-identified as Democrats.

​

5 Key Facts: Online Discussion of Immigration in The Trump Era

​

 Introduction

As we enter the half way point of Donald Trump’s first year as president, the ripple effects of the new Administration’s policies have been far reaching. From the Muslim travel ban, to attempts to dismantle women’s reproductive rights, healthcare, and social safety nets—few have gone untouched in the past 6 months. In the face of these challenges, people across the country have rallied together to challenge the Administration’s attacks on freedom and democracy. Just this week, 45 states refused to provide Trump’s administration with voter data.

It is clear that transformative change is still possible and a collective future based on the shared values of diversity and inclusion is still very much within reach. However, central to our success will be understanding how to effectively reach persuadable audiences, and help them distinguish between legitimate policy concerns and the fearmongering that has come to characterize the Trump era. This requires a nuanced understanding of how Americans are currently thinking and talking about immigration, diversity, and demographic change.

In an effort to provide immigrant advocates, activists, and policymakers with a fuller understanding of attitudes toward immigration and related issues in the current social and political climate, we conducted a social media analysis of online discussions in the United States between January 1st 2015 and January 1st 2017.

The objectives of this research were:

  • To map trends and shifts in online discussions of immigration, immigrant communities (specifically Latino and Muslim communities), and demographic change over a two-year period;
  • Identify potential narrative openings to counter negative stereotypes and key influencers currently challenging toxic rhetoric online;
  • Identify persuadable audiences and narratives that appeal to this segment of the online population.

Our findings indicate that online discussion of immigration, diversity, and demographic change have become more interconnected with discussion of terrorism and crime. The presidential campaign and election of Donald Trump appear to have played a direct role in this new interrelationship. Despite these troubling findings, social media is also emerging as a space where communities of color, Muslim Americans, women, and other traditionally marginalized groups are turning to express their own fears and challenge divisive rhetoric.

Methodology

The analysis of social media data was conducted using Crimson Hexagon, a leading social media analytics software which provides access to publicly available social media data including, but not limited to Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, blogs, forums/popular message boards such as Reddit, and mainstream news article comments, reviews, and YouTube comments. Crimson Hexagon enables users to create monitors for any topic or set of phrases and establish customized timeframes for data analysis. Once a monitor is established, Crimson Hexagon’s algorithm categorizes relevant social media data – identifying content volume trends, patterns in conversation, demographics, sentiment shift over time, and audience segment interests/affinities. Interests and affinities are generated by analyzing the social media habits of audiences partaking in particular online discussions (i.e. what brands, topics, or media sources this audience segment tends to share, which can then be compared to other audience segments.)

Using Crimson Hexagon, we examined online discussions of immigration, immigrant communities, and race/diversity in relation to issues of terrorism and crime between January 1st 2015 to January 1st 2017. In order to track how discussions concerning immigration and particular immigrant communities have shifted in the last two years, we created a buzz monitor[1] that included the phrases “immigration,” “immigrant,” “undocumented immigration,” “diversity,” and related terms. The goal of examining these broad terms was to examine how general discussions of these issues and communities have shifted in the last two years, identify when and how immigration and particular immigrant communities are discussed in the context of crime or terrorism, and identify potential openings for countering stereotypes and fear-based narratives.

The two-year timeframe enabled us to examine longitudinal data and identify more long-term patterns in the data. In the overall data population (which consisted of 59,246,987 posts), the majority of analyzed data originated from Twitter (76 percent of total sample), forums and blog post comments (18 percent of total sample), news article comments (6 percent of total sample), and other social media sites such as Facebook and Google Plus (3 percent of total sample). Sampled social media posts are accompanied by a Klout score, which is a number from 1 to 100 that represents how influential the person sharing the content is. Based on share of audience and reach, the more influential a person, the higher the Klout Score.

Key findings from our latest analysis include:

1. There has been a steady increase in the volume of online engagement around immigration and related topics within the last two years, with significant spikes in engagement following extremist attacks.

Over the past two years, over 59 million tweets, Facebook posts, and forum/blog/news comments have been written about immigration, immigrants, race and diversity in the U.S. On average, roughly 2 million social media posts involving immigration, immigrants, and broader discussions of diversity and race were posted each month in the United States during the period of time we studied.

Between June 2015 and November 2016, there was a steady increase in the level of engagement in online discussions of immigration, immigrants, and related topics and three significant spikes in the volume of posts: November 2015, June 2016, and November 2016. The first two spikes in online engagement were a direct result of international and domestic attacks carried out by extremists – the first taking place in Paris, France in November 2015 and the second in an Orlando, Florida nightclub on June 12th 2016. The final spike in online engagement took place in November 2016 as a result of Donald Trump’s unexpected victory over Hillary Clinton in the presidential election.

2. The framing of online discussion of immigration has shifted dramatically since the start of Trump’s presidential campaign, with sharp increases in references to “illegal immigrants”, “illegal alien”, and “Muslim” within online content.

Reactions to domestic and international attacks on civilians and inflammatory statements made by Donald Trump have set the tone for the vast majority of online discussions concerning immigration and related topics in the last 12 months. Figures 2 to 4 depict a cluster of the most common phrases associated with immigration and immigrants in the United States from January 2015 to November 2016, with the larger words representing phrases which feature more heavily in online content.

As seen in Figure 2, at the onset of 2015, while discussions of “illegal,” “aliens,” and “Muslim” in relation to “terrorism” were present in online discourse, talk of “reform,” “amnesty,” and “uslatino” also featured heavily in online content. However, by December 2015 following the attacks in Paris, there was a significant shift in online discourse with “trump” and “realdonaldtrump” emerging as central phrases linked to overall discussions of immigration, alongside a more direct link between references to “immigration” with “terrorism,” “illegal,” and “ban”. As of November 2016, references to “trump” feature heavily as well as talk of “illegals” and a closer link between discussions of “Muslims” with “Latino” and “Hispanic” people.

Between January 2015 and January 2017, the percentage of posts making reference to “illegal immigrants” or “illegal alien” increased from 4 percent to 10 percent of total posts within our monitor. As shown in Table 1, as of December 2016, references to “Muslims” and “illegal immigrants” dominate online discussions of immigration and immigrant communities within our monitor.

 

Table 1: Topic List: December 2016 Showing data from 10,000 posts

3. The majority of audiences engaging in online discussions concerning immigration reside in states with the highest concentration of immigrants in the country.

Using Crimson Hexagon’s demographic feature, we examined the location, gender, age, and race of audiences engaging in discussions about immigration and related issues online. From the total sample, 30,786,770 posts had an identifiable location. The majority of audiences engaging in online discussions concerning immigration, immigrants, and related topics are located in California (15.39 percent of sampled content), New York (10.28 percent), Texas (10.14 percent), Florida (7.29 percent), and the District of Columbia (4.23 percent).

4. A significant portion of individuals engaging in online discussion of immigration are people of color.

Roughly 75 percent of those engaging online are 35 and above (based on an analysis of 1 million posts), 8 percent are between 25-34, 10 percent are 18-24, and 7 percent are 17 or younger. In terms of race and ethnicity, online users skew heavily white, however there is a significant portion of Asian and Black people engaging in these online discussions. Currently, roughly 65 percent of online audiences discussing immigration and related issues are white, 16 percent are Black, 11 percent Asian, and 7 percent are Latino[1].

5. While conservative media outlets represent a significant portion of Twitter mentions and retweets, progressive and pro-immigrant voices have gained significant traction in recent months in terms of share of the total online conversation.

This following section provides an overview of the key Twitter influencers driving some of the online discussions around immigration, immigrant communities, race, and diversity more broadly. Top influencers on Twitter are the most active authors in a conversation over a particular time period, regardless of their influence (Klout) score. Influence on Twitter is determined by an author’s volume of tweets related to a given topic.

Recently, top mentions on Twitter related to immigration and immigrant communities, including discussions of Muslim and Latino communities, have been dominated by right-wing media outlets such as Breitbart and FoxNews (as seen in Figure 5).  However, many of these mentions emerge in the context of individuals critiquing these outlets for anti-immigrant coverage. In addition, a significant portion of retweets from the month of December 2016 have come from progressive activists, comedians, or political commentators calling for unity and resistance in the wake Donald Trump’s election. JLUSA founder Glenn Beck, Modern Family actor Jesse Tyler Ferguson, and writer and political activist Shaun King are just some of the progressives speaking out in recent months and actively countering anti-immigrant and racist rhetoric.

Recommendations

These findings present several important implications for messaging and audience engagement around immigration and diversity in America.

  • Educate active online progressives to steer clear of myth-busting: Myth-busting currently occupies a significant portion of online communications made by the progressive community, particularly in reaction to political events. For instance, online discussions of immigration see significant spikes in the wake of domestic or international attacks carried out by extremists, particularly those self-identifying (or are identified by the media) as Muslim. Progressives online often seek to dispel or counter negative stereotypes in the wake of these attacks, but are unknowingly contributing to the negative association of immigration/immigrant communities with terrorism. Online progressives need to be educated about the pitfalls of myth-busting and reinforcing the narratives of the opposition.
  • Focus on implicit bias and structural discrimination: In recent months, discussions of implicit bias and attempts to define racism have become prominent in online discourse related to immigration and diversity in America – representing an important shift in the level of sophistication around these issue areas. As seen in the two sample tweets below, talk of implicit bias and structural racism has gained significant traction among key online audiences (particularly fans of progressive comedians and actors such as Aziz Ansari). This represents an important opening for advocates seeking to promote new campaigns or activate key online audiences.

  • Leverage collective concern: Much of the online discussions since the election of Donald Trump have focused on people expressing their fear and anxiety about the new administration. This form of expression has been highly intersectional and focused on the collective concern faced by women, Latino and Muslim communities, people of color, and LGBTQ people. For example, in November 2016, the following tweet from Mason Smith was shared over 100K times, while a tweet shared on the same day by activist Shaun King was shared over 42,000 times. Leveraging this emerging collective concern is critical to advocates seeking to develop messaging that galvanizes concerned audiences while uplifting positive values of diversity and unity.

  • Activate Christians and faith leaders: References to “Christians” now occupy roughly 4 percent of overall discussion on immigration and immigrant communities (as seen in Table 1). Many online commentators have pointed to the seeming disconnect between the teaching of Christianity and the rising anti-immigrant sentiment that has come to characterize Trump’s rise to prominence. In addition, the pro-immigration messages of Pope Francis have been shared frequently in recent weeks, highlighting the rising importance of faith leaders and communities in countering anti-immigrant rhetoric.

 

[1] However, the lower percentage of Latinos is likely due the limitations of Crimson Hexagon’s racial categorization, specifically the difficulty in accurately assigning racial/ethnic categories to Latino users.

​

close search

Hot Topics: