Search

Messaging And Report Category: Messaging Memo

Talking About Economic Justice

Background

Our nation aspires to be a place where everyone enjoys full and equal opportunity. However, our economy is out of balance, with significant barriers impeding the ability of many people to care for their families. At the same time, recent political developments threaten the basic standard of living for many people.

Public opinion research shows that there is shared concern about economic inequality and poverty, despite differences in how to resolve those issues. To build support for our solutions, we need to proceed strategically in our messaging. At the same time, public opinion research also shows that many Americans hold seemingly contradictory ideas about how to address poverty as well as negative stereotypes about welfare dependency, government ineptitude, and irresponsible individual choices, as well as implicit and explicit racial, ethnic, and gender biases.

This memo offers communications guidance for talking about anti-poverty initiatives, and economic equality generally, with a range of audiences. It draws on available opinion research, practical experience, and communications principles.

Talking About Poverty

Tell Affirmative Stories: There are a lot of frustrating and incorrect stories about people experiencing poverty and the reasons for it. However, it’s important to avoid restating false arguments. Repeating misinformation, even to refute it, can cause audiences to remember it better, but not necessarily remember that it was wrong. This is particularly true when information is stated in the affirmative, as happens with the “Myth/Fact” format of disputing untruths, for example: “Myth: The flu vaccine can sometimes cause the flu. Fact: The flu vaccine does not cause the flu.” The better approach is to proactively put forward what is true: “The flu vaccine prevents the flu.” Or, “This policy change assumes that poor people are lazy. They’re not.” A better approach: “We all want economic security so that we can provide for our families, but this policy would create huge new barriers in our communities.”

Focus on Shared Values and Messaging to Uplift Each Other’s Voices and Concerns: Emphasize the value of Equal Opportunity, i.e. what you look like, your accent, or your zip code should not predetermine your chances in life. Shared messaging should build on public concerns about growing inequality, low wages, and long-term unemployment while educating audiences about less visible forces like racial and gender bias, globalization, and tax/labor policies. Other key values: Community (we are all in it together and share responsibility for the common good); Family/Security (we should all have access to the resources necessary to provide for ourselves and our families); Pragmatism/Prevention (focusing on what works from a commonsense perspective and addressing root causes before they lead to even bigger problems. Cost saving and efficiency arguments frequently tap this value).

Focus on Real-World Economic Challenges: Move beyond official government definitions and, instead, touch on the real-world challenges facing many Americans, while also highlighting the solutions. For instance, talk about the challenges of holding down two jobs and still having to make choices between groceries and school supplies.

Document and Explain Unequal Obstacles—not only unequal outcomes or disparities. Although there is greater understanding than in the past, many Americans (including many low-income Americans) are not aware of the unequal obstacles facing people trying to move out of poverty. Avoid talking about gaps and instead focus on barriers and obstacles that we have the power to remove through sensible policies.

Highlight Systemic Solutions For Systemic Problems: We need to move audiences beyond an individual understanding of poverty, i.e. the extreme “personal responsibility” narrative that blames poverty almost exclusively on the work ethic and decision making of individuals. Fortunately, most Americans agree that “the primary cause of America’s problems is an economic system that results in continuing inequality and poverty.” We need to build on this and describe how our solutions can reduce or eliminate poverty. We also need to describe those solutions in human terms (i.e. “people living in poverty”) not with acronyms or jargon (i.e. “TANF” or “SNAP”).

Show the Connections: Americans intuitively understand that when our economy is out of balance and favors some more than others, it holds us back as a country and creates an environment in which serious social problems develop and worsen. Showing and telling how economic actors and policies have thrown our economy out of balance and how that affects all of us—storytelling, data and real world examples—is crucial.

Acknowledge and Confront Deep-Seated Stereotypes: Conversations about poverty tend to be racialized and gendered—meaning that audiences bring subconscious stereotypes to terms like “welfare,” “food stamps,” “homelessness,” and even “poverty.” They tend to over-associate poverty with people of color (especially women of color) and the negative stereotypes surrounding them. Remind audiences that achieving racial and gender equity upholds our values and benefits our entire society. Over-document the barriers to equal opportunity—especially racial bias. Lead by talking about how studies have found that employment agencies frequently preferred less qualified white applicants to more qualified black applicants. Acknowledge the progress we’ve made, which helps to persuade skeptical audiences to lower their defenses and have a reasoned discussion rooted in reality rather than rhetoric. Select stories that demonstrate systemic causes and solutions over stories that largely focus on individual choices.

Build on Policies with High Levels of Support: A number of anti-poverty strategies receive high levels of support from the public, i.e. raising the federal minimum wage and increasing taxes on those earning over $1 million annually.

Possible Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

Q:  Times are tough for everyone. Why should we give a handout to people who haven’t helped themselves?

A:  You and I know our society is at its best when everyone has the opportunity to fulfill their potential and pursue their dreams. America succeeds when every worker can be paid enough to care for his or her family, when every child can move forward with a good education, and when every American can retire in dignity. America works best when we look out for each other and work together as one nation, indivisible. (Messaging via Center for Community Change).

Q:  Why are “poor people” so dependent on government assistance?

A:  Public structures like Social Security, Medicaid, and Head Start have empowered millions of Americans to get back on track after hardships, retire in dignity, and move from poverty to prosperity. That’s especially important now, with our economy so far out of whack for everyday people. When corporations don’t have to pay people a decent wage, when millions of young people don’t have access to a good education, and when retirement savings can’t keep up with rising costs and stagnant wages, we need public structures that keep the doors to opportunity open for everyone in our country.

Q:  Why are so many “poor people” African-American or Latinx?

A:  It’s important to have an accurate picture of poverty in the United States. Many different kinds of people in this country are living on the brink. Nearly twice as many white people live in poverty as African-American people, and almost 1.5 times the number of white people are living in poverty as Latinx people. All of these communities are facing barriers to economic stability, and it’s in our interest and power to remove these barriers so that we all have an opportunity to care for our families and have a decent life.

Q:  Aren’t there other ways to reduce poverty, like through job creation?

A:  Reclaiming the promise of opportunity means demanding an economy that works for everyone, not just large corporations. Robust employment opportunity is 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, food assistance, and job training initiatives so that we all have the opportunity to live economically stable lives.

For additional communications advice or information on anti-poverty work, we recommend:

Talking About the Muslim Ban

On Monday, June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed portions of President Trump’s Muslim ban to go into effect, continued to prohibit other portions from going forward, and agreed to fully consider the constitutionality of the ban this fall.

The High Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of the ban, but has let parts of it go forward while it considers the ban’s legality.  It’s important to call out why the ban’s religious discrimination is not only unlawful but bad for our nation. We hope the following quick tips, based on communications research, experience, and input from partners around the country, helps with this task as we all move forward.

Building a Message – Value, Problem, Solution, Action

Values

Communications research shows that audiences are more receptive to new arguments when they are framed by shared values. For the Muslim ban, there are three sets of recurring values that we want to keep at the center of the conversation:

1) Our Core National Values

Remind people of the kind of country we want to be, drawing on our best ideals. For some audiences, describing times in our history when  we have done the right thing is inspiring.

Values: Opportunity, freedom, justice, our founding legal documents.

We see tonight what I believe is a clear violation of the Constitution, and so clearly tonight we have to commit ourselves to the longer fight. Clearly tonight, we have to commit ourselves to the cause of our country. Clearly tonight, we have to be determined to show this world what America is all about.”

– Senator Cory Booker

Trump’s actions are hurting Netflix employees around the world, and are so un-American it pains us all…It is time to link arms together to protect American values of freedom and opportunity.”

– Netflix CEO Reed Hastings

A nation founded with the promise of religious freedom. This nation wants to ban Muslim immigrants? ‪#NoBanNoWall”

– Franchesca Ramsey, Youtuber

2) Our Moral Responsibility

Remind audiences of our responsibilities to our fellow humans and how we must rise above fear and xenophobia to find our “better angels” as Abraham Lincoln once said. We share responsibility for one another and for protecting and uplifting human rights.

Values: Empathy, compassion community.

America is better when we lead with freedom, not fear. We cannot allow fear to dictate our decisions. We must act with requisite caution, but also with compassion and moral clarity.

– National Immigration Forum

We need to protect all our brothers and sisters of all faiths, including Muslims, who have lost family, home and country.

– Bishop Joe S Vásquez, US Conference of Catholic Bishops

Even though Dory gets into America, she ends up separated from her family, but the other animals help Dory. Animals that don’t even need her. Animals that don’t have anything in common with her. They help her, even though they’re completely different colors. Because that’s what you do when you see someone in need – you help them.

– Ellen DeGeneres, using the plot from her film Finding Dory to comment on the border wall.

3) Our “Can-do” Spirit

Audiences are hungry for solutions in times like these. We have to remember to highlight what we want moving forward – and how we can get there – in addition to pointing out what we’re against. Sympathetic audiences need to be primed to feel proud of our country’s capacity to accommodate all kinds of people, and our history of providing opportunity for those seeking it. Those in our base need to hear forward-leaning messages about  working together to counter, demolish, and replace bad policies.

Values: Pragmatism, common sense, innovation, determination to do the right thing, our shared responsibility to fix flawed policies, solidarity

It doesn’t make sense to spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money on something that is really not necessary. This is a 15th century solution to a nonexistent problem. We need a 21st century, common-sense border policy that upholds the dignity of our border residents.

– Vicki Gaubeca, Director, ACLU New Mexico Regional Center for Border Rights, New Mexico.

I think this is a problem that will need diplomatic solutions, political solutions, military solutions, educational, social, and other solutions. So, this is a problem that is multi-faceted and therefore requires a multi-faceted solution. Muslims are an integral part of that solution.

-Dr. Khalid Qazi, Muslim Public Affairs Council of Western New York.

There is something more important and powerful than all three branches of government. It is you – the people.

– New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio in support of protesters.

Problem

Frame problems as threats to our shared values. This is the place to pull out stories and statistics that are likely to resonate with the target audience. But choose facts carefully. We all have a lot of evidence to support our claims. However, facts do not tend to change minds if the facts are not couched in values.

We vehemently oppose any proposal or statements calling for a ban on refugees, as well as discrimination based on religion or nationality. As a nation founded in part by refugees and immigrants, these kind of discriminatory policies dishonor our history, beliefs and values.

– Welcoming America

[The Muslim ban is] a stunning violation of our deepest American values, the values of a nation of immigrants: fairness, equality, openness, generosity, courage… As an immigrant and the child of refugees, I join them, with deep feeling, in believing that the policies announced Friday tear at the very fabric of our society.

– Massachusetts Institute of Technology president L. Rafael Reif.

Solution

Pivot quickly to solutions. Positive solutions leave people with choices, ideas, and motivation. They are the hero of the story and rescue the values at stake. In the case of this Muslim ban, our existing laws and their enforcement, our resiliency, and our values will all point us in the right direction when it comes to solutions.

Restricting a religion… is as short-sighted as it is immoral. More intelligent would be to increase resources dedicated to regional refugee process centers so security checks occur in timely fashion.”

– National Immigration Forum

The United States is a nation governed by the rule of law and not the iron will of one man. President Trump now has learned that we are a democratic republic where the powers of government are not dictatorial. They are limited. The courts are the bulwark of our democracy that protects individual rights and guards against the overreaching of an administration that confuses its will for the American public’s.”

– American Civil Liberties Union

Action

Assign an action. What can this specific target audience do? Try to give them something concrete that they can picture themselves doing: making a phone call, sending an email. Steer clear of vague “learn more” messages, when possible. For people who have only recently become active due to the events of the past few months, it is particularly important to be explicit about action. Include specific steps and assurances that they can help make a difference by following through.

Additional Tips

Balance Individual Stories with System-Wide Solutions

Storytelling features, at its core, heroes and heroines who bring issues such as immigration to life, so stories about individual triumph and tragedy are an obvious component. However, without sufficient context, audiences can limit a story’s implication to the individual level, attributing successes and failures to personal responsibilities and actions that have little to do with the system-level change we are seeking in our immigration policies.

Telling Affirmative Stories

We’re all faced with misleading, inaccurate, and untruthful statements about our issues. And we certainly can’t allow misinformation to go unchallenged. But the best way to counter false information is to tell our affirmative story in ways that overcome the other side’s falsehoods. By contrast, we should avoid myth busting, or restating the false argument and then explaining why it’s wrong.

In fact, repeating misinformation, even to refute it, can cause audiences to remember it better, but not necessarily remember that it was wrong. This is particularly true when information is stated in the affirmative, as happens with the “Myth/Fact” format of disputing untruths, for example: “Myth: The flu vaccine can sometimes cause the flu. Fact: The flu vaccine does not cause the flu.” The better approach is to proactively put forward what is true. “The flu vaccine prevents the flu.” Or “This order assumes that refugees don’t already go through a comprehensive vetting system, but they do.” A better approach: “Refugees undergo months of vetting and interviews before they are considered for entry into the U.S. And perhaps as a result, rates of unlawful behavior among these groups is lower than among people who were born here. They are on average one of the most law-abiding groups of people you could hope for in your community.”

Messaging for Current Conversations

Recent executive orders pose grave threats to our communities and our values. As we organize to counter, undo, and prevent further damage, strategic messaging is more important than ever. We hope the following quick tips, based on communications research, experience, and input from partners around the country, helps with this task as we all move forward.

Building a Message – Value, Problem, Solution, Action

Values

Communications research shows that audiences are more receptive to new arguments when they are framed by shared values. For recent Executive Orders, there are three sets of recurring values that we want to keep at the center of the conversation:

1) Our Core National Values
Remind people of the kind of country we want to be, drawing on our best ideals. For some audiences, describing times in our history when we have done the right thing is inspiring. Values: Opportunity, freedom, justice, our founding legal documents.

We see tonight what I believe is a clear violation of the Constitution, and so clearly tonight we have to commit ourselves to the longer fight. Clearly tonight, we have to commit ourselves to the cause of our country. Clearly tonight, we have to be determined to show this world what America is all about.

– Senator Cory Booker

Trump’s actions are hurting Netflix employees around the world, and are so un- American it pains us all…It is time to link arms together to protect American values of freedom and opportunity.

– Netflix CEO Reed Hastings

A nation founded with the promise of religious freedom. This nation wants to ban Muslim immigrants? #NoBanNoWall

– Franchesca Ramsey, Youtuber

2) Our Moral Responsibility
Remind audiences of our responsibilities to our fellow humans and how we must rise above fear and xenophobia to find our “better angels” as Abraham Lincoln once said. We share responsibility for one another and for protecting and uplifting human rights. Values: Empathy, compassion community.

America is better when we lead with freedom, not fear. We cannot allow fear to dictate our decisions. We must act with requisite caution, but also with compassion and moral clarity.

– National Immigration Forum

We need to protect all our brothers and sisters of all faiths, including Muslims, who have lost family, home and country.

– Bishop Joe S Vásquez, US Conference of Catholic Bishops

Even though Dory gets into America, she ends up separated from her family, but the other animals help Dory. Animals that don’t even need her. Animals that don’t have anything in common with her. They help her, even though they’re completely different colors. Because that’s what you do when you see someone in need – you help them.

– Ellen DeGeneres, using the plot from her film Finding Dory to comment on the border wall.

3) Our “Can-do” Spirit
Audiences are hungry for solutions in times like these. We have to remember to highlight what we want moving forward – and how we can get there – in addition to pointing out what we’re against. Sympathetic audiences need to be primed to feel proud of our country’s capacity to accommodate all kinds of people, and our history of providing opportunity for those seeking it. Those in our base need to hear forward-leaning messages about working together to counter, demolish, and replace bad policies. Values: Pragmatism, common sense, innovation, determination to do the right thing, our shared responsibility to fix flawed policies, solidarity

It doesn’t make sense to spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money on something that is really not necessary. This is a 15th century solution to a nonexistent problem. We need a 21st century, common-sense border policy that upholds the dignity of our border residents.

– Vicki Gaubeca, Director, ACLU New Mexico Regional Center for Border Rights, New Mexico.

I think this is a problem that will need diplomatic solutions, political solutions, military solutions, educational, social, and other solutions. So, this is a problem that is multi- faceted and therefore requires a multi-faceted solution. Muslims are an integral part of that solution.

– Dr. Khalid Qazi, Muslim Public Affairs Council of Western New York.

There is something more important and powerful than all three branches of government. It is you – the people.

 – New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio in support of protesters.

Problem

Frame problems as threats to our shared values. This is the place to pull out stories and statistics that are likely to resonate with the target audience. But choose facts carefully. We all have a lot of evidence to support our claims. However, facts do not tend to change minds if the facts are not couched in values.

We vehemently oppose any proposal or statements calling for a ban on refugees, as well as discrimination based on religion or nationality. As a nation founded in part by refugees and immigrants, these kind of discriminatory policies dishonor our history, beliefs and values.

– Welcoming America

[The Muslim order is] a stunning violation of our deepest American values, the values of a nation of immigrants: fairness, equality, openness, generosity, courage… As an immigrant and the child of refugees, I join them, with deep feeling, in believing that the policies announced Friday tear at the very fabric of our society.

– Massachusetts Institute of Technology president L. Rafael Reif.

Solution

Pivot quickly to solutions. Positive solutions leave people with choices, ideas, and motivation. They are the hero of the story and rescue the values at stake. In the case of these Executive Orders, our existing laws and their enforcement, our resiliency, and our values will all point us in the right direction when it comes to solutions.

Restricting a religion… is as short-sighted as it is immoral. More intelligent would be to increase resources dedicated to regional refugee process centers so security checks occur in timely fashion.

– National Immigration Forum

The United States is a nation governed by the rule of law and not the iron will of one man. President Trump now has learned that we are a democratic republic where the powers of government are not dictatorial. They are limited. The courts are the bulwark of our democracy that protects individual rights and guards against the overreaching of an administration that confuses its will for the American public’s.

– American Civil Liberties Union

Action

Assign an action. What can this specific target audience do? Try to give them something concrete that they can picture themselves doing: making a phone call, sending an email. Steer clear of vague “learn more” messages, when possible. For people who have only recently become active due to the events of the past few months, it is particularly important to be explicit about action. Include specific steps and assurances that they can help make a difference by following through.

Additional Tips

Balance Individual Stories with System-Wide Solutions

Storytelling features, at its core, heroes and heroines who bring issues such as immigration to life, so stories about individual triumph and tragedy are an obvious component. However, without sufficient context, audiences can limit a story’s implication to the individual level, attributing successes and failures to personal responsibilities and actions that have little to do with the system-level change we are seeking in our immigration policies.

Tell Affirmative Stories

We’re all faced with misleading, inaccurate, and untruthful statements about our issues. And we certainly can’t allow misinformation to go unchallenged. But the best way to counter false information is to tell our affirmative story in ways that overcome the other side’s falsehoods. By contrast, we should avoid myth busting, or restating the false argument and then explaining why it’s wrong.

In fact, repeating misinformation, even to refute it, can cause audiences to remember it better, but not necessarily remember that it was wrong. This is particularly true when information is stated in the affirmative, as happens with the “Myth/Fact” format of disputing untruths, for example: “Myth: The flu vaccine can sometimes cause the flu. Fact: The flu vaccine does not cause the flu.” The better approach is to proactively put forward what is true. “The flu vaccine prevents the flu.” Or “This order assumes that refugees don’t already go through a comprehensive vetting system, but they do.” A better approach: “Refugees undergo months of vetting and interviews before they are considered for entry into the U.S. And perhaps as a result, rates of unlawful behavior among these groups is lower than among people who were born here. They are on average one of the most law-abiding groups of people you could hope for in your community.”

Ten Lessons for Talking About Criminal Justice Issues

​

Now, more than ever, our criminal justice system must keep all communities safe, foster prevention and rehabilitation, and ensure fair and equal justice. But in too many places, and in too many ways, our system is falling short of that mandate and with devastating consequences. The United States is saddled with an outdated, unfair, and bloated criminal justice system that drains resources and disrupts communities.

Below are ten tips for moving people to action on changing our criminal justice policies so that they focus on safety and fairness, and serve all communities well.

1. Consider Audience and Goals. In any communications strategy, it’s important to start with who you’re trying to reach and what you want them to do. In putting together messages, consider:

  • Who are you hoping to influence?
  • Narrowing down your target audience helps to refine your strategy.
  • What do you want them to do?

Determine the appropriate action for your strategy. Sometimes you may have direct access to decision makers and are working to change their minds. Other times you may have access to other people who influence the decision makers.

  • What do you know about their current thinking?
  • Look to public opinion research, social media scans, their own words, etc.
  • What do you want to change about that?
  • Consider the change in thinking that needs to happen to cause action.
  • Who do they listen to?

Identify the media they consume and the people who are likely to influence their thinking. This may be an opportunity to reach out to partners and allies to serve as spokespeople if they might carry more weight with certain audiences.

2. Lead with Values. Audiences connect with messages that reflect their values and articulate a better world. Research and experience shows that many strategic audiences connect with the following values when it comes to the goals of our criminal justice policies. We can introduce ideas about transforming the criminal justice system by talking about how policies do or don’t live up to and reflect these values.

  • Basic Rights/Human Rights – the guarantee of dignity and fairness we all deserve by virtue of our humanity. In our justice system, this means ensuring:
  • Equal Justice – the assurance that what you look like, the accent you have or how much money you make should not affect the treatment you receive in our justice system.
  • The provision of Due Process – a basic legal right that includes action based on evidence, a day in court, and a fair trial.
  • That we observe and protect our Founding Principles/The Constitution – the Bill of Rights outlines important rights and ideals that we should strive to uphold. While we have often fallen short of these ideals, they should still guide how we treat people.

Examples:

The Eighth Amendment’s protection of dignity reflects the Nation we have been, the Nation we are, and the Nation we aspire to be. This is to affirm that the Nation’s constant, unyielding purpose must be to transmit the Constitution so that its precepts and guarantees retain their meaning and force.1

– Justice Kennedy, Majority Opinion, Hall v. Florida

These are men and women … re-­‐enunciating a powerful message of freedom and equality during this newest phase of the continuing struggle to bring the United States’ practices into alignment with its core principles.

– Formerly Incarcerated and Convicted People’s Movement (FICPM)2

  • Community – the notion that we share responsibility for each other, and that opportunity is not only about personal success but about our success as a people. We are better off when everyone can contribute and participate. In relation to our criminal justice policies, this means ensuring:
  • Real safety and security – the chance to live in communities where our family and property are safe, where individuals also feel safe from the police, and where police feel safe while doing their jobs.
  • Prevention – commonsense programs and supports like real access to jobs, education, and comprehensive healthcare, including for mental health and substance abuse issues.
  • Voice – that we should all have a say in the decisions that affect us and our communities.
  • The opportunity for redemption and starting over so that individuals can contribute to and participate in our communities after making amends.

Example:

New York is a state of opportunity, where individuals from all backgrounds and circumstances are given a fair chance to pursue their goals… The work of this Council increases the ability of our fellow citizens with criminal convictions to contribute positively to their families and communities, which creates a fairer and safer New York.

–Governor Cuomo3

  • Pragmatism – taking a responsible approach to our criminal justice system to implement policies that are both effective and efficient. This means relying on:
  • Solutions – ideas we know will work, and will move us all forward.
  • American Ingenuity -­‐ the know-­‐how to fix what’s wrong with our criminal justice system.
  • Common Sense –It’s time to take practical steps and stop wasting resources.

Example:

[We work] with Californians from all walks of life to replace prison and justice system waste with common sense solutions that create safe neighborhoods and save public dollars. [We are] bringing together business and community leaders, policymakers, law enforcement, health professionals, educators and crime-­‐prevention experts to replace costly, old ways of doing business with new justice priorities that improve public safety without draining resources from our schools, hospitals and other community needs.

– Californians for Safety and Justice.4

3. Share your vision. Outline a transformative vision of what the criminal justice system should be and what our policies should achieve: Invest in safe communities, ensure equal treatment that upholds the Constitution, reduce the effect of social harms, hold people accountable, and also give them a chance to start over.

  • When critiquing the current system, it’s important to include a big picture of what a transformative system means to communities, safety, and justice.
  • Removing what’s wrong isn’t enough and may leave audiences wondering how we should enforce laws and hold people accountable. Without an alternative vision to turn to, some audiences may feel too comfortable sticking with the status quo.
  • Whether you are talking about small changes or a vast overhaul, it’s equally important to share your big picture thinking so that audiences understand the steps that are needed to end up at a system that ensures both justice and safety.

Examples:

[We] envision a just society in which the use and regulation of drugs are grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights, in which people are no longer punished for what they put into their own bodies but only for crimes committed against others, and in which the fears, prejudices and punitive prohibitions of today are no more.

– The Drug Policy Alliance5

We offer an alternative moral vision of a justice system that operates in … accord with our values …. This vision includes the presumption of innocence, fair judicial proceedings, the merciful restoration of those who have broken the law, the renunciation of torture and other abusive practices, and a fundamental commitment to the dignity and humane treatment of everyone in our society….

– Unitarian Universalist Association6

4. Redefine the idea of safety. Everyone wants to be safe in their homes and in their communities. If people don’t feel safe, they feel fear, a sentiment that has been exploited for decades by “tough on crime” advocates. Yet we know that many of the policies enacted during this time do not actually lead to real safety. We need to tell a full story of the factors and policies that create truly safe communities.

  • Start by reminding audiences what communities really need, beyond the enforcement of laws, to be safe. There are a number of important factors necessary to meeting this goal, ranging from community cohesiveness and economic stability to laws that protect people’s rights and property. The criminal justice system is part of the equation, but its role is currently overemphasized at the expense of other equally or more important factors.
  • Emphasize themes like prevention, supporting practical programs like expanding access to mental health treatment and alternatives to imprisonment, collaborative approaches to policing, and restorative justice that keep all communities safe and uphold our values of equal justice and accountability.
  • Show how our current system is outdated, unfair and bloated; it drains resources and disrupts communities, none of which keeps us safe.

Examples:

Criminal justice is strong medicine: it can help, but applied too heavily or in the wrong way, it can hurt. It’s now clear that too much incarceration, aggressive, disrespectful policing, and other missteps can damage individuals, families, and communities and undermine relationships between neighborhoods and law enforcement. Law enforcement should do its work in ways that do not cause that harm.

–National Network for Safe Communities7

We hope that the nation will adopt the strategy that emphasizes opportunity rather than punishment as the guiding theme of our vision for public safety.

–The Sentencing Project8

5. Emphasize priorities and pragmatism. Research indicates the importance of emphasizing societal priorities: the idea that we make choices about how we invest our resources, and those decisions should reflect our values and needs.

  • Talk about a “responsible approach” to making the country safer, and about how we should best allocate resources. For instance, prioritizing prevention and rehabilitation is a common sense and responsible approach while needlessly incarcerating millions because of inflexible sentencing policies is not.9
  • Give examples of what works. Put forward achievable shorter-­‐term goals and solutions, then show how they support the larger vision.
  • Note that this is slightly different than a “cost effectiveness” argument that revolves around money only. A pragmatic argument about priorities emphasizes the overarching approach including, but not limited to, economic considerations.

Example:

Incarceration is costly. It can be done better. What we have to always ask, as Americans and as leaders, is what can we do better? How can we look at the issue and figure out how we can change it? We don’t need to incarcerate everyone. There are some individuals we do need to incarcerate, but there may be another way, and we know what it is. And we see those best practices in places like Texas and Kansas and other places that have used the Justice Reinvestment Initiative to work. 

–Sen. Lena Taylor (D-­‐Milwaukee) on “Tell Me More,” NPR News

6. Highlight Alternatives and Solutions. We know that one size solution doesn’t fit all when it comes to holding people accountable, but too often we rely solely on imprisonment as a solution. We need alternatives.

  • Talk about how our current justice system doesn’t take into account so many of the realities of today’s complex world. Our criminal justice system should focus on reducing the harms of addiction, mental illness, and poverty, rather than exacerbating them.
  • Outline alternatives to harsh sentences, particularly those related to young people, people with mental health issues, and those who have been convicted of less serious crimes. (Do this to show that there are many options available, not to create unnecessary divides or to abandon groups who are most difficult to talk about, such as those who have been convicted of violent crimes.)
  • Underscore that the criminal justice system is not, and should not be considered, the solution for many of the problems facing our communities. We have the know-­‐how to address the real issues without funneling people needlessly into a system that is not living up to our values.
  • Avoid unnecessary divisions. Audiences tend to be most supportive of alternatives to incarceration for young people, people suffering from mental illness, and people whose offenses did not involve violence. There is also rising support for decriminalization and legalization of some drugs. But in arguing for these reforms, we should avoid undermining support for less popular reforms and populations. For example, don’t emphasize reform for “non-­‐violent offenses” when it’s unnecessary to make that distinction.

Examples:

Each person who commits a crime is unique, and prison or jail time may not always be the most effective response. If courts have options other than incarceration, they can better tailor a cost-­‐effective sentence that fits the person and the crime, protects the public, and provides rehabilitation.

– Families Against Mandatory Minimums10

What you have to do is look at who’s going to the prison system in the first place, and about 70 percent of the people who go into prisons have a substance abuse problem. So instead of sending those people with substance abuse problems into the prison system, if we instead did a better job of providing substance abuse treatment to them in the communities, fewer of them would end [up] interfacing with the criminal justice system in the first place.

– Jeffrey Beard, California Secretary of Corrections on “Weekend Edition,” NPR

7. Discuss the importance of racial equity and equal justice. Experience shows that most criminal justice problems cannot be truly fixed without addressing questions of race. In this era of social movements, moreover, effectively discussing racial justice can help mobilize an active base of supporters.

  • 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 move 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 frequently face harsh and unequal treatment by the criminal justice system. Provide concrete examples of these barriers.
  • Know that some 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.

Example:

Black youth are arrested for drug crimes at a rate ten times higher than that of whites. But new research shows that young African Americans are actually less likely to use drugs and less likely to develop substance use disorders, compared to whites, Native Americans, Hispanics and people of mixed race.

– Time Magazine11

8. Lift up and respect the voices and perspectives of people more directly affected by the system. People who have been caught up in the criminal justice system, who have been convicted of crimes, and who are emerging from prison or jail have an important perspective on the ways the system needs to change. They are key leaders and communicators on these issues. It’s important to not talk of “making room at the table” or “including voices,” but sincerely understanding the role they play in the criminal justice reform movement and to ensure their voices are a central part of the narrative we put into the world.

  • If your campaign or coalition hasn’t already, partner with an organization that focuses on building leadership among people who have been in prison or jail. Understand how messages work or don’t for them and find ways to expand spokesperson opportunities so that audiences also understand the importance of their voices.
  • Point out that those affected are key, and often missing, spokespeople for the movement.

Example:

We believe what has been missing from the discussion is an ingredient that is included in every civil rights movement within the United States, every movement, which is leadership from people it impacts, the voices of people who have been most impacted by the system being elevated and being allowed to speak out about how the system has affected them. Seventy million people have a criminal record on file, but where are those voices? Where are those leaders?

– Glenn E. Martin, Executive Director, Just Leadership USA12

9. Use the right metaphors. Frameworks Institute suggests using explanatory metaphors they term “justice gears” and mazes to help to explain the complexities of the current criminal justice system and move audiences to fix it. In their report Mazes and Gears: Using Explanatory Metaphors to Increase Public Understanding of the Criminal Justice System and its Reform, the organization’s Nathaniel Kendall-­‐Taylor explains that these metaphors help audiences understand systemic problems and solutions and emphasize that a one-­‐size-­‐fits-­‐all approach is not workable or efficient when it comes to criminal justice issues.

Examples:

Right now our justice system is stuck using only one gear – the prison gear. Think about how a bicycle needs to use different gears for different situations to work effectively and efficiently. The criminal justice system is trying to deal with a wide variety of situations using only the prison gear. We need to have other justice gears for people who come into the system, like mental health or juvenile justice services. We need to change the criminal justice system to make sure it has different gears for different purposes and that it can use the right gear in the right situation. If we do use more justice gears, we can improve outcomes and all get where we need to go.

Even in the most difficult mazes, there’s a way to get in and out. But the criminal justice system is designed without enough paths that come out of the maze. A lot of people, no matter where they come into the criminal justice system, get on a path that goes straight to prison and has no way out. We know that other routes, such as those to mental health services, addiction services or juvenile justice services, must be made available. These must be two-­‐way paths so that people can get to where they need to go. We need to redesign the justice maze with clear multiple routes so that people can get where they need to go in the most effective and efficient way possible.13

For a full explanation and examples of the use of these metaphors, go to http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/assets/files/pscj_metaphors.pdf.

10. Use Individual Stories Carefully and Strategically. When telling stories about people who have been involved in the criminal justice system, or when telling your own story, it’s critical to remember a few points about balance. While these stories are crucial to building public support, and important to tell, we must do this carefully to avoid some common pitfalls of telling stories about individual experiences.

  • When including people’s stories, be aware of audiences’ tendencies to over-­‐ focus on individual success and failure. Examine each story to ensure that it can transcend that focus and bring audiences to systemic and policy solutions that we all are responsible to enact. Make sure all the stories you include connect to support the larger vision.
  • Talk about people, not labels, when sharing individual stories. For example, instead of “juvenile offender” or “inmate,” talk about “young person in detention,” someone who has “committed crimes in the past,” “emerging from prison” or, in context, “a returning citizen.”
  • Emphasize growth and redemption -­‐-­‐ the idea that people grow and change over time, and that we all deserve a chance to start over after missteps or misfortune.
  • Make sure that spokespeople understand and are fully prepared, are offered appropriate support for the potential emotional and legal consequences of sharing their personal stories, and have access to legal and other resources.

Examples:

I don’t want my country to tell any child that he or she is irredeemable. It sounds so obvious to say that you aren’t the same person you were when you were a kid, but I saw people in prison who were punished forever as if they’d never be more than the worst thing they had done as a kid -­‐-­‐ as if, no matter what, they’d never change or be worthy of the chance to prove they might deserve release.

– Jason Baldwin, one of the West Memphis 3 14

Mr. Owino, 37-­‐years-­‐old, has been in immigration detention since 2005 with no bond, nearly a decade after he completed his sentence for his crime. … Mr. Owino’s detention is emblematic of how arbitrary mandatory detention is in our broken immigration system. Mandatory detention violates the international human rights law prohibition against arbitrary and indefinite detention. It imposes an additional punishment on individuals who have already paid their debt to society, one which is often harsher because -­‐-­‐ unlike criminal incarceration -­‐-­‐ there is no definite release date.

– Families for Freedom15

1. Supreme Court decisions database

2. KFFI, Formerly Incarcerated and Convicted People’s Movement

3. New Yorker, Governor Cuomo Announces Executive Action to Reduce Barriers to Employment

4. Safe and Just website

5. Drug Policy Project website

6. Unitarian Univeralist Church Policy on Criminal Justice

7. The National Network for Safe Communities Mission

8. Sentencing Project, How to Build a Better Criminal Justice System

9. Simon, A. F., & Gilliam, F. D. (2013). Framing and Facts: Necessary Synergies in Communicating About Public Safety and Criminal Justice. Frameworks Institute.

10. Families Against Mandatory Minimums; Alternatives in a Nutshell

11. Time Magazine, Whites for Likely to Abuse Drugs than Blacks

12. The Atlantic, April 2014. Will Rikers Be Closed?

13. Kendall-­‐Taylor, N. (2013). Mazes and Gears: Using Explanatory Metaphors to Increase Public Understanding of the Criminal Justice System and its Reform. Frameworks Institute.

14. Huffington Post, July 6, 2012; Kids Shouldn’t Face Dying in Prison

15. Families for Freedom press release on Kenyan Torture Survivor

​

SCOTUS Decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

On June 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Fisher v. University of Texas, upholding the University of Texas’s consideration of racial diversity in its admissions process. In a 4-3 decision, the Court held that carefully crafted admissions policies that consider racial diversity as one factor in creating a well-rounded student body are constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.

This is a major victory for universities, students, and our nation. In communicating about the case, our messaging should promote the importance of diversity policies to the country, make clear that the decision is consistent with Court precedent in upholding the compelling state interest in diversity, and praise the majority’s recognition of the educational benefits of diversity. After reviewing the justices’ decisions, it may also be appropriate to critique the dissenting opinion as a short-sighted interpretation that would have held our increasingly diverse nation back at a critical time.

More broadly, our communications about diversity policies and this decision should emphasize the following themes:

  • Expanding Opportunity: It’s in everyone’s interest to see that talented students from all backgrounds get a close look and a fair shot, and have the chance to overcome obstacles to educational opportunity.
  • The Benefits of Diversity: Learning with (and from) people from different backgrounds and perspectives benefits our students, our communities, our work force, our military and our country as a whole.
  • Preventing Racial Isolation: It is important that schools are able to build student bodies that foster meaningful diversity that does not isolate any one group.
  • Our National Interest: Fostering educational diversity and greater opportunity is critical to our nation’s future in a global economy and an increasingly interconnected world.
  • Broad Support: Diversity policies, and the UT policy in particular, are supported by a broad cross-section of American society, including military leaders, major corporations, small business owners, educators, and students from all backgrounds.

Core Messages

  • This is a victory for equal opportunity and the future of our nation. We are thrilled the Court ruled in favor of equal opportunity in higher education and recognized again that it is critical that schools remain able to create diverse and inclusive student bodies. It’s in our national interest that talented students from a variety of backgrounds get a close look and a fair chance at overcoming obstacles to higher education. Providing a diverse learning environment benefits students, our workforce, and the country as a whole.
  • Fostering diversity and expanding opportunity reaffirmed. The Fisher decision is another in a line of recent Supreme Court decisions that reaffirms the importance of diversity as a compelling state interest as settled law. The Court has again held that it is Constitutional for universities to craft carefully, narrowly tailored admissions plans designed to ensure the educational benefits of diversity for all students.
  • Universities, businesses and other institutions should recommit to expanding opportunity for all. UT’s plan is one that was carefully crafted to meet the goal of ensuring the educational benefits of diversity on its campus. Many students of color face obstacles to success, often without resources available to other students. When students do well despite those obstacles, universities should be able to offer them a chance to succeed. In this way, universities and all students benefit from the exchange of ideas and perspectives that diverse student bodies bring. We encourage America’s educational, business, and other institutions to engage in similar thoughtful and fair planning around ways to foster diverse participation.

Addressing Questions

When speaking to the press, remember that your goal is to get your message out, not to answer their questions. In addressing potentially divisive questions from reporters and others, we typically recommend responding briefly to the question and then pivoting back to your main point.

Q. Do universities have to revise their policies in light of this decision?

A: “Whenever there’s a Supreme Court decision on a higher education topic it’s wise for universities to take a look at their policies to make sure they comply, and this case is no different. We are confident that universities across the country will undertake a thoughtful, lawful process like the University of Texas did to create policies that ensure the educational benefits of diversity for all students.

Q: Does the Court’s opinion create a new legal standard for colleges and universities seeking to implement diversity admissions programs?

A: No. The Court reaffirmed the importance of diversity as a compelling state interest and upheld the use of race in a carefully crafted admissions plan designed to ensure the educational benefits of diversity for all students.

Q: Don’t these policies hurt Asian American students?

A: Asian Americans, like all students, benefit from an application process that considers all of each candidate’s qualities, including factors such as language spoken at home. Getting rid of affirmative action would hurt many Asian American applicants who continue to face educational barriers. Asian Americans also benefit from affirmative action because it enables them to learn in diverse environments with students of different backgrounds and perspectives. These benefits extend beyond the school environment, so that students of all races who become leaders, employers, and co-workers are better equipped to lead, interact with, and value the contributions of people of all races. Indeed, Asian Americans are themselves an extremely diverse group, from a range of economic backgrounds, experiences, and national origins. And like all of us, they both contribute to and benefit from the national diversity that helps make America.

Q: What does this mean for affirmative action cases in the pipeline?

A: This decision is one in a line of recent decisions that reaffirms the importance of diversity as a compelling state interest. We believe that universities that carefully craft their admissions plans to ensure the educational benefits of diversity for all will continue to be working within the bounds of the Constitution.

This document was prepared by The Opportunity Agenda, the Asian American Justice Center | AAJC, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights/The Leadership Conference Education Fund, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Talking about the Supreme Court’s Decision in Fisher v. University of Texas

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Fisher v. University of Texas, upholding the University of Texas’s diversity admission policy. In a 4 to 3 decision, the Court held that carefully crafted admissions policies that consider racial diversity as one factor in creating a well-rounded student body is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.

This is a major victory for universities, social justice, and our nation. In communicating about the case, our messaging should promote the importance of diversity policies to the nation and praise the Court’s recognition of their importance. After reviewing the Justices’ decisions, it may also be appropriate to critique the dissenting opinion as short-sighted interpretations that would have held our increasingly diverse nation back at a critical time.

Topline Message:

Today’s decision is good news for all Americans. We are thrilled that four members of the Court ruled in favor of equal opportunity in higher education and recognized that, in this post-University of Missouri America, it is critical that schools remain able to encourage diverse and inclusive student bodies. As the leading opinions noted, the national interest demands that talented students from a variety of backgrounds get a close look and a fair chance at overcoming obstacles to higher education. Providing a diverse learning environment benefits students, our workforce, and the country as a whole. Indeed, the Court’s decision makes clear that more of America’s educational, business, and other institutions should be pursuing fair and thoughtful ways of fostering diverse participation.

More broadly, our communications about diversity policies and this decision should emphasize the following themes:

  • Expanding Opportunity: It’s in everyone’s interest to see that talented students from all backgrounds get a close look and a fair shot, and have the chance to overcome obstacles to educational opportunity.
  • The Benefits of Diversity: Learning with (and from) people from different backgrounds and perspectives benefits our students, our communities, our work force, our military and our country as a whole.
  • Preventing Racial Isolation: In a post-Ferguson, post-University of Missouri America, it is more important than ever that schools build student bodies that foster meaningful diversity that does not isolate any one group.
  • Our National Interest: Fostering educational diversity and greater opportunity is critical to our nation’s future in a global economy and an increasingly interconnected world.
  • Broad Support: Diversity policies, and the UT policy in particular, are supported by a broad cross-section of American society, including military leaders, major corporations, small business owners, educators, and students from all backgrounds.

Finally, while hailing the Fisher II decision, communicators should note that the Court’s affirmance of the Fifth Circuit’s decision in U.S. v. Texas by an equally-divided court, while creating no precedent, will exact significant hardship on families, communities, the economy and our nation. Praise for Fisher II should not spill over into praise for the Court in general, given today’s mixed outcomes.

Talking United States v. Texas Supreme Court Case on DAPA and expanded DACA+

#FightForFamilies

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on President Obama’s executive actions on the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program (DAPA) and the expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA+) on April 18. This case is of extreme importance to millions of immigrants and their families, to communities across the country, and to our national identity.

Here are a few tips on talking about the case and the oral argument:

  • Lead with values.
    • Family: At its core, DAPA is about keeping families together. Eighty-nine percent of those eligible for the program are parents of American citizens.
    • Justice: These programs are about justice for millions of workers, parents, students, and neighbors who just want to contribute to and participate in this country, like anyone else.
    • Our National Identity: This case is about who we are as a country―one who welcomes or one who excludes. We can’t allow the rhetoric of fear and hate win out over common sense and inclusion. The extremists who brought this case to the court are blocking real solutions that affect real people and families, and they’re doing it to make a political point.
  • Stress that DAPA and DACA+ are commonsense solutions and well within the law.
    • It is the president’s lawful right to take executive action to set priorities on immigration enforcement. President Obama is enforcing existing laws passed by Congress, using discretion granted to him by Congress. President Obama’s deferred action initiatives are practical, legal, and in line with actions taken by other presidents from both parties.
    • Every president since Eisenhower has taken executive action to shape immigration priorities over the last 50 years, including presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
    • Most Americans would agree that a father or mother of a U.S. citizen or a young person who came to this country as a child are not priorities for deportation, which is what DAPA and expanded DACA establish.
  • This case is about all of us.
    • Ensuring full economic participation and contribution of millions of American families will create jobs and add billions to our tax coffers.
    • A ruling against DAPA and expanded DACA won’t just impact immigrant families―it will impact everyone. Our communities don’t want to experience the chaos of tearing families apart or making it harder for some folks to work and support a family. Inclusion and participation make our communities strong. Targeting parents of American citizens for deportation only weakens them.

Based on recommendations from the DAPA/DACA+ Communications Workgroup Messaging Guide.

Background on United States v. Texas

On November 20, 2014, President Obama issued a series of executive actions that clarified immigration priorities. These executive actions expanded the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) and initiated the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program (DAPA). These initiatives allowed qualified individuals to come forward and request a grant of deferred action on deportation, de-prioritizing their deportations. These programs also granted recipients with temporary work authorization.

Shortly after Obama’s announcement of these executive actions, Texas and several other states challenged the actions. The judge in the Texas lawsuit, Judge Andrew S. Hanen, issued a preliminary injunction in favor of Texas and the other plaintiffs. Judge Hanen held that Texas had standing because DAPA and the expanded DACA would require Texas to issue more state driver’s licenses, and thus presented a sufficient legal injury on the state of Texas. The court also held that the federal government did not comply with the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Because of the preliminary injunction, millions of qualified immigrants are currently unable to seek relief under the expanded DACA and DAPA programs.

The United States government challenged the ruling and requested that the preliminary injunction be lifted pending its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. However, the Fifth Circuit upheld Judge Hanen’s holding, and the programs are still inactive pursuant to the preliminary injunction.1

The Supreme Court is now reviewing the challenge to the President’s executive actions. The outcome of this case will impact millions of immigrants. This case will also likely impact the discourse around immigration and may be an opportunity for political candidates to further articulate their positions on immigration.

1. Texas v. United States, 787 F.3d. 733 (5th Cir. 2015).

Talking About Policing Issues: Border Communities

​The U.S.-­‐Mexico border and the communities surrounding it represent many things: billions of dollars in trade, shared histories and cultures between the countries, and home to millions of people. But these communities are also a pawn in political discourse and misguided calls to “secure the border,” all while avoiding a meaningful dialogue on reforming immigration policies and policing practices. The resulting buildup in border enforcement and policing has a profound effect on the individuals and families in the region, including those living up to 100 miles away from the actual border, and beyond. While this buildup disproportionately affects communities on our southern border with Mexico, many of Border Patrol’s misguided policies and tactics also affect the quality life for communities across our northern border with Canada. In fact, roughly two-­‐thirds of the U.S. population lives within 100 miles of an international border.

This memo includes guidance for telling a story about policing in border communities that will bolster public opinion for positive policies that grow and sustain communities rather than policies that disrupt and divide them.

Current Public Opinion

Although policymakers most often connect border policy to conversations about immigration, it’s important to recognize that, for the millions of residents who call border communities home, holding U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) accountable to policing best practices is also a matter of promoting public safety and community trust. With roughly 44,000 armed officers, including Border Patrol, CBP is our nation’s largest law enforcement agency.

Support for increased enforcement in border communities is based on how politicians and the media portray those communities. The story that generates people’s concerns and bolsters support for enforcement is one of a chaotic border with little order, dangerous people, and drug and gang activities. That is not, however, the border region that most people living there would recognize. In fact, we know that most border residents feel safe in their communities, and that those communities are, in fact, among the safest in the country. 1 2

Misperceptions of border communities—and connecting their issues only to the larger debate about immigration—serve to fuel a dominant narrative that we must “secure the border.” As a result, we see a lack of support for commonsense policies at the border as current public opinion reflects concerns about the state of the border and translates to support for increased enforcement and policing.

We need to change the underlying story about border communities and policing in order to influence public opinion and change policy. Immigration advocates and others talking about border policies must move away from “border security first” messaging. We have to replace this failed messaging with an emphasis on economic opportunity, public safety, human rights, and community trust. Doing so will build opportunity for both immigration policy reform and policing reforms in border communities that put an end to military-­‐style and discriminatory policing that offends American values of equality and justice. Below are three tips to consider when telling a new story.

 

1. Control the Context: Community vs. Chaos, People vs. Political Rhetoric

Telling stories about particular Border Patrol abuses and human rights violations is not sufficient to change the overarching story about the border region. As storytellers, it’s key to shape the entire narrative, centering it on stories about communities and people. That way, audiences have a picture in their heads of a community similar to their own, with similar concerns, challenges, and opportunities. It’s through this lens that they can better understand why excessive policing is a problem and why a militarized force is undesirable.

Sample Language

The border region is economically vibrant and culturally diverse. It’s home to millions of people, from San Diego to Brownsville, who want to be able to enjoy life in their communities the same as any of us. Families whose roots here go back centuries share the region with newcomers from around the country and around the world. It’s an economic cornerstone and international trade hub, and 1 in 24 jobs across the country depend on it. It is a region where responsible investment can be prosperous for the entire nation.

The border is more than a line. Millions of people live in border communities and many more know someone who does. Border communities have much to offer the nation economically and culturally, but these contributions have been stunted or overshadowed by an irresponsible buildup of border enforcement.

Focus on Goals, Values, and People

Research completed by a coalition of immigrant rights and border region groups in 2013 recommends relying on two main themes while telling this story: goals and people. Our goals should be to maintain the safety of our communities while upholding our values. And we should consistently insert people into the story to remind audiences that we are talking about communities, not barren desert or battle zones, as some of the rhetoric would suggest.

Goals: Values + Safety

We want immigration laws and law enforcement to uphold the American values of justice and fairness for all, while ensuring public safety. The current system is ineffective and it violates our values—it is unfair and inhumane.

People: Families, Workers, Children, Community Members

People sacrifice so much coming to America to make a better life, sometimes to escape desperate poverty and violence. Many are families with children. They work hard, pay taxes, and volunteer in their communities. They love America and want to contribute to our country.3

Border communities want safe, efficient, and effective border policies that respect the culture and community of the borderlands. When Border Patrol agents racially profile and detain community residents who are commuting to work and school at checkpoints located up to 100 miles away from the international border, their biased policing offends American values of equality and justice and hurts public safety by creating mistrust.

Additional Sample Language

Throughout the Southwest border region, there are urban and rural communities with deep roots and a long history of diversity, economic vibrancy, and cooperation. Border communities, like communities throughout the country, are entitled to human rights, due process, and policies that recognize their dignity, humanity, and the constitutional protections that this nation values.

Unfortunately, policymakers have far too often thrown border communities under the bus by pursuing policies that are ineffective and wasteful for security. These injustices, which go against equality, fairness, and law and order, are frustrating to Americans and completely avoidable. We can and should make commonsense policy changes to uphold human rights and due process in all of our communities.

We live in a democracy, and Americans strongly believe that we should all have a say in decisions that affect us. But when it comes to policies that affect border communities, policy makers often ignore community voices and needs. For example, over protests from the community, the border has grown increasingly more militarized as we dump money into drones, checkpoints, and guns. Instead, let’s look at policies that bolster trade and protect human rights at the border through investment in critical infrastructure projects and greater accountability for border agents.

2. Frame the Problem: A Threat to Values

Law enforcement abuses, excessive policing, and militaristic strategies on American soil are central issues in border communities, but they are only part of the problem. The core problem to focus on in telling a new story about border communities and policing is how these tactics threaten the values we hold dear as a country, including protecting due process and human rights, respecting the integrity of communities, and spending our resources wisely.

Rights Violations

Research shows that when talking about these issues, more people are persuaded by conversations that begin by examining what kind of country we want to live in and what kind of values we want to uphold, than by those starting with a focus on the rights of certain groups or individuals, or on specific rights violations—like illegal searches and seizures.

Community Disruption

Paint a picture of checkpoints and daily routines disrupted because of misguided enforcement. Show how racial profiling affects community members, and how law enforcement’s shameful treatment of U.S. citizens and immigrants in border communities does not reflect the kind of country we want to live in.

Sample Language: Op-­Ed Excerpt

Unchecked abuse and corruption within Customs and Border Protection (CBP) must be part of any discussion regarding the US southern border and the time has come to talk about reforming the agency. The Obama administration has the means to move us forward and should do so immediately.

Earlier this summer, the administration released a report calling for significant reforms to CBP to prevent widespread corruption and expand much-­‐needed oversight. CBP has come under increased scrutiny as a nationwide debate continues around law enforcement’s relationship to communities, especially communities of color.

For years, CBP has failed to hold its officers accountable when they use excessive force and kill unarmed civilians. The agency fails to document and report racial inequities in who its officers stop and search, and fails to detect and deter counterproductive racial profiling that undermines values of fairness and equality. These excesses infringe daily on the rights and dignity of border communities and their residents, who go about their daily lives up to 100 miles away from the physical border yet experience CBP permanent checkpoints and patrols in their neighborhoods. For example, a recent report based on more than 50 complaints in New Mexico and Texas discovered abuses such as racial profiling, unjustified searches and detentions, physical and verbal abuse, intimidation, and interfering with emergency medical treatment. Ninety percent of people reporting these abuses were U.S citizens and 81 percent were Latino.

These incidents are not isolated. An investigation by Politico Magazine found that “between 2005 and 2012, nearly one CBP officer was arrested for misconduct every single day;” that CBP rapidly recruited agents without proper vetting or supervision, making systemic misconduct highly likely; and that, by 2014, the number one criminal priority of the FBI’s McAllen, Texas office was investigating Border Patrol agents.

A review of over 800 complaints provided by CBP’s Office of Internal Affairs reveals that CBP failed to hold officers accountable in 97 percent of the cases in which Internal Affairs completed an investigation. Almost 80 percent of the total complaints are based on physical abuse or excessive force. The rest are based on abuses including misconduct, mistreatment, racial profiling, improper searches, inappropriate touching during strip searches, or sexual abuse. In May, the former Chief of Internal Affairs, James Tomsheck, came forth as a whistleblower, saying that he witnessed a “spike” of more than 35 sexual misconduct cases between 2012 and 2014 and an agency culture that ignored and swept away corruption. A lawsuit brought by mothers and children seeking asylum last summer alleged that CBP officers applied coercion to dissuade them from getting an attorney and asserting their legal rights, in violation of domestic and international law.

Unacceptable Tactics: Racial Profiling

Explain why profiling harms us all, not just people of color or immigrants. This includes harm to our national values of fairness and equal justice, harm to public safety, and harm to Americans who are wrongly detained, arrested, or injured by law enforcement.

  • To work for all of us, our justice system depends on equal treatment and investigations based on evidence, not stereotypes or bias.

Define the term racial profiling and fully explain that it is based on stereotypes and not evidence in an individual case. Explain why racial profiling is not an effective police tool and is a rights violation, and counter those who believe racial profiling may be acceptable if it somehow keeps communities safe.

  • Too often, law enforcement, including Border Patrol, use racial profiling, which is singling people out because of their race or accent, instead of based on evidence of wrongdoing. That’s against our national values, endangers our young people, and reduces public safety. Border Patrol—part of our nation’s largest police force—should stop claiming to play by different rules than those expected of local police and hold its agents accountable to end this ineffective, harmful practice.

Offer multiple real-­‐life examples. The idea of racial profiling is theoretical for some audiences. It’s important to provide multiple examples that include “unexpected” people of color—e.g., business people, faith leaders, honor students—who’ve been wrongly stopped.

Wrong Priorities: Misguided Spending

Current border policies and spending violate our values. We are a country that believes in community, fairness, and human rights. But misguided policies that allocate spending toward drones, weapons, and family detention facilities do not uphold these values.

Sample language

  • For decades, failed border enforcement policies have exacerbated migrant deaths, destabilized local economies, and debilitated protections to civil liberties.
  • Instead of pouring more money into unnecessary and excessive drones and police forces, we need investments in the ports-­‐of-­‐entry and infrastructure. Instead of giving Border Patrol free reign and tacitly accepting human rights violations, we need to hold agents accountable and charge them with protecting human rights.

3. Redirect: Talk Choices and Alternative Solutions

Remind audiences of the goals for any policing policy: what does any community want and need from law enforcement? Safety, respect, transparency, and accountability.

When people are detained or profiled, we want to make sure they are treated fairly and that law enforcement respects rights like due process, equality before the law, and access to courts and lawyers—bedrock American legal values.

Keep Solutions Front and Center

Audiences need ideas about what does work and they don’t respond well to attacks on bad policies alone. The public does not respond well if they believe a speaker is only suggesting that existing laws not be enforced and conversations without positive solutions can quickly turn to support for enforcement measures.

Instead, focus on and give context to everyday border residents—college students, mothers and fathers, or business owners—who feel the effects of biased and military-­‐ style policing by Border Patrol and are relatable to your audience. Americans understand that policing based on evidence versus bias is not only more effective, but also upholds our values of fairness and equality. Many communities nationwide also relate to concerns of military-­‐style policing that emphasize using force over prioritizing de-­escalation and protecting the paramount value of human life. When we contextualize Border Patrol abuses as offending our values and hurting everyday border residents, we help our audience broaden their lens and understand more fully who is affected by irresponsible policing practices.

Clearly State Who Should Do What

We need to assign responsibility when talking solutions, making sure we are clear about what we are asking of different entities.

Sample Language

  • The White House should direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to prohibit the use of racial profiling. CBP should document racial and other inequities in who officers stop, question, and search and publicly share that data. It should also train its officers on Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures, on prohibitions against racial profiling, and on implicit bias.
  • CBP should scale back military-­‐type tactics and equip its officers who interact with the public with body-­‐worn cameras paired with privacy protections. CBP should also reduce its zone of operations from 100 to 25 miles from the actual border, and determine in which areas an even shorter distance is reasonable.
  • DHS should establish an independent Border Oversight Task Force that includes border communities and has subpoena power over government officials so it can investigate and hold accountable abusive officers. It should also mandate greater oversight in order to end inhumane detention conditions; physical, sexual, or verbal abuse; and inadequate access to medical care. These are just the first steps of many that should be taken.

1. Border Network for Human Rights, Polling Report

2. USA Today, On Border Violence

3. Southern Border Communities Center; CAMBIO, Updated Narrative Messages

​

Talking Policing Issues

A central goal of any community is the safety and security of its members. Police can play an important role in achieving this goal. But, like many aspects of our current criminal justice system, the role of law enforcement has been overemphasized, overfunded, and outsized to proportions that no longer serve the goal of community safety and security. We need to take a close look at the factors that really cause communities to feel safe and identify what’s working and what’s not. This means examining the role of police closely and talking to target audiences about what needs to change so that we can get closer to the goal of safety and security for everyone.

In a democracy, we have a special relationship and agreement with those people who police our communities. Communities need police to be accountable in the ways they serve and protect, to listen to community needs and recommendations, to hold officers accountable for wrongdoing and brutality, and to make the right judgment calls when events get heated or dangerous. In return, police need communities to invest in them and in their safety.

This agreement between communities and the police relies on a number of things to work: trust, respect, and a shared desire that people are treated fairly and equally, to begin with. But it also relies on thorough training, an understanding and respect of rights, policies that guide the people who comprise law enforcement toward the goals communities want policing to fulfill, and timely and meaningful consequences for officers and departments that don’t advance those goals. When any of these pieces are missing, we can see a breakdown in relations between communities and police. And too many groups—people of color, young people, LGBTQ individuals, low income people, sex workers, and other communities in marginalized situations–bear the burden of this breakdown, finding their communities over-­‐ or abusively-­‐policed and disrupted because of outdated and misguided policing strategies.

This memo offers ideas about starting the conversation about the role of police in our communities and how to direct decision makers toward the solutions that realize true safety and security for all communities.

Lead with a Positive Vision and Shared Values

Audiences connect with messages that reflect their values and articulate a better world. Outline a transformative vision of what safety really means to communities, and what we need to do to ensure all communities feel safe. Then work from there to describe what effective, accountable, and transparent policing looks like.

Start by reminding audiences what communities really need, beyond the enforcement of laws, to be safe. There are a number of important factors necessary to meeting this goal, ranging from community cohesiveness and economic stability to laws that protect people’s rights and property. Police are part of the equation, but their role is often overemphasized at the expense of other equally or more important factors.

This vision can include what police should be doing more of but also what other public struc-­‐ tures should take off their plate. For instance, while police should be thoroughly trained in mental health issues and how to work with people who are experiencing problems that impact public safety, police should not be, by default, the first interaction a person has with the mental health system. Other public structures, such as mental health, substance abuse, and homeless services, should be brought to scale so that the police are not expected or relied upon to play a role they are not qualified to play.

Some values to engage audiences in conversations about policing include:

  • Equal Justice – the assurance that what you look like, the accent you have or how much money you make should not affect the treatment you receive in our justice system. Current disparities in the application of laws violate this value.
  • Our Founding Principles/The Constitution – the Bill of Rights outlines important rights and ideals that we should strive to uphold. While we have often fallen short of these ideals, they should still guide how we treat people.
  • Basic Rights/Human Rights – the guarantee of dignity and fairness we all deserve by virtue of our humanity.
  • Voice – the idea that we should all have a say in the decisions that affect us and our communities.
  • Community – the notion that we share responsibility for each other, and that opportunity is not only about personal success but about our success as a people.
  • Safety and Security – we all want to live in communities where our family and property are safe. We should work toward communities where individuals also feel safe from the police and police feel safe while doing their jobs.

Describe the Problem: The role of police, as with many aspects of our criminal justice system, has been over-­‐emphasized and outsized, putting too many responsibilities on police and underemphasizing other factors that increase community safety. As a result, many policing approaches do not align with the values and goals of the communities police are meant to serve.

  • We need to examine the entire criminal justice system to identify where outdated approaches and laws lead to the overcriminalization of too many behaviors, rights violations, and decreased community safety and security. We then need to decide how police best fit into an improved system.
  • Much of the current culture and many of the practices of law enforcement agencies are out of step with the communities they serve. What we see today is a severe breakdown of trust and legitimacy between the police and low-­‐income communities of color.
  • Instead of viewing the police as there to protect and serve, members of these communities often experience the police as there to harass, intimidate, and cause harm. Such a breakdown poses a threat to communication and public safety.
  • The underlying strategy of aggressively deploying police to address every level of community disturbance or problem, including relatively minor, noncriminal infractions, produces policies that then translate into practices that are destructive of both trust and public safety.
  • Police are expected to fulfill too many roles and address too many community issues including homelessness, substance abuse, school discipline, and issues related to mental health conditions.

Present Solutions: Updated police approaches that align with community needs and values.

  • Assign police the right responsibilities and limit negative contact. Public safety is a broad charge, and police should be involved with and work on a wide range of issues. But they do not need to be the leaders and certainly shouldn’t be the main representa-­‐ tives to the public on all problems. The root causes of crime are complex and varied, and there are many approaches that we can and should take to address them before funnel-­‐ ing people into the criminal justice system. Underscore that police departments are not, and should not be considered, the solution for many of the problems facing our com-­‐ munities. We have the know-­‐how to address the real issues without funneling people needlessly into a system that is not living up to our values.
  • Talk about the appropriate roles for police. Meeting quotas and performing an exces-­‐ sive number of traffic stops for minor infractions that do not threaten public safety are a waste of police time. Instead, police should be available to respond to complaints and investigate crimes. Talk about why police are not the best instrument for crime preven-­‐ tion and what works better.
  • Underscore the crucial role of data and transparency. It’s difficult to know how well or poorly police are performing without having access to data regarding demographic in-­‐ formation about who they’ve stopped and why. Communities need to see that police are transparent about their treatment of its members.
  • Tell people what works. Put forward achievable shorter-­‐term goals and solutions and show how they support the larger vision, including solutions beyond the police, who are far from the only protective factors of community safety.
  • Move beyond denouncing. Highlight positive solutions and alternatives that ensure equal justice and protect public safety. Use examples of positive policing strategies that communities have employed.

Audience Considerations

  • Many groups―people of color, immigrant communities, LGTBQ and progressive circles―already understand issues like systemic racism, unequal treatment, over-­‐ reliance on force and arrest. Move them to action.
  • Other audiences want to believe recent stories of abuse and unequal treatment to be isolated incidents, and want to trust law enforcement (local police, border patrol, ICE, etc.) generally. Go above and beyond to connect the dots and show systemic barriers when talking with less engaged/affected groups.

Tips for Talking Racial Profiling

  • Lead with values: Equal justice, fair treatment, freedom from discrimination, public safety, and accountability.
  • Remember that 84% of the American public views racial profiling as a human rights violation.
  • Define the term and fully explain that racial profiling is based on stereotypes and not evidence in an individual case. Explain why racial profiling is not an effective police tool and is a rights violation, and counter those who believe racial profiling may be acceptable if it somehow keeps communities safe.

Too often, police departments use racial profiling, which is singling people out because of their race or accent instead of based on evidence of wrongdoing. That’s against our national values, endangers our young people, and reduces public safety.

  • Explain why profiling harms us all, not just people of color or immigrants. This includes harm to our national values of fairness and equal justice, harm to public safety, and harm to Americans who are wrongly detained, arrested, or injured by law enforcement.

To work for all of us, our justice system depends on equal treatment and investigations based on evidence, not stereotypes or bias.

  • Move beyond denouncing racial profiling alone and also highlight positive solutions and alternatives that ensure equal justice and protect public safety.

Racial profiling is an ineffective and harmful practice that undermines our basic values. Far too many immigration enforcement policies recklessly promote the practice. Any immigration policy reform needs to zero in on and eliminate this outdated and harmful practice.

  • Offer multiple real-­‐life examples. The idea of racial profiling is theoretical for some audiences. It’s important to provide a wide range of examples of who has been wrongly stopped so that audiences can see the breadth of the problem.

Tips for Talking about Policing and LGBTQ Communities, Women, Sex Workers, and Homeless People

The goal of policing should be public safety, not harassment and intimidation. But harassment and discrimination continue to be a problem for many communities. Pointing out the special challenges these groups face when interacting with police can help audiences who are new to the issue understand how to improve policing so that equal treatment, respect, and rights are central to all police-­‐community interactions.

  • Urge audiences to examine police culture and practices. Remind audiences that police are supposed to serve all members of a community and explain how current police culture often targets those who society already marginalizes. If police are meant to maintain “public order,” people who fall outside of the narrowest and most conservative views of an ostensibly “well-­‐ordered” society can quickly become targets. Police culture should instead focus on respect, rights, and truly protecting everyone from harm.
  • Call for dramatic changes to police education around anti-­‐LGBTQ violence so that officers respond appropriately. We also need to make sure that policies are in place that hold police accountable for their own behavior―both training them around working with LGBTQ communities and women, and enforcing zero tolerance policies on discrimination and sexual harassment.
  • Remind people that breakdowns in trust and communication are a threat to public safety. We all need to be able to trust that the police will protect us and when police have good relationships with the community, we’re all safer. Keep front and center the idea that law enforcement’s role should be more narrowly defined, and not sprawl out into encompass being first responders for substance abuse issues, mental health concerns, and other complex issues best addressed by those who are specifically trained to help people in crisis.

Talking about Violence against Police

  • Take a moment to acknowledge the loss and condemn violence. The loss of life is always a tragedy and we should speak consistently from our values on this fact.

We need to remember that we’re all connected to each other, even though we may deeply disagree on issues and solutions. One loss is everyone’s loss and we all need to take a moment to mourn each of them.

  • Give careful thought about weighing in on more specific issues after a police death. Is now the best time to talk about policies? What will audiences hear from and feel about your remarks? It may even be counterproductive to weigh in.
  • Remind audiences that we’re all looking for solutions that recognize our shared humanity, how we’re all in this together (or should be), and that the goal of bettering criminal justice policies, including police approaches, is to create a safer community. And ensuring the safety of police officers is a part of that work.

#DontLookAway

​

Usher’s new song and interactive video experience, “Chains,” are powerful statements on racial injustice and police violence. Together, they offer an important platform and news hook to build support and push for change. To maximize the impact of these compelling artistic works, this memo suggests ways of talking about the works’ themes, which can inspire supporters, persuade skeptical audiences, and counter opponents.

Click the image to watch “Chains” on Tidal

Sample Messages

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

“Usher’s new song and video are a powerful call for equal justice and police reform that echoes the hopes and aspirations of millions of people around the country. We need to work together to answer that call.”

Value:   

“Our justice system is supposed to keep all communities safe and treat all people fairly—to give everyone equal justice.”

Problem:

“But there are too many cities and towns across the country where that’s just not the reality. In too many places, police officers are carrying dangerous stereotypes, violent tactics and, sometimes, tanks and military weapons. That’s bad for everyone, and for our nation.”

Solution:

“The good news is that there’s a lot our country can do to protect equal justice and safety for everyone. We have to challenge the stereotypes that we all carry with us, sometimes without even realizing it. This is especially true when police hold the power to determine the freedom, life, and death of so many black Americans.

“What’s making a difference when it comes to police bias and violence is better training, better information, real accountability for police abuse, and working to revitalize and support communities instead of just policing them. Young people, especially, have to be part of the conversation and part of the solution. Where that happens, it saves lives and builds stronger communities.”

Action:

“Contact your police department to make sure they are using proper training, accountability, and community policing.” OR “Sign the ColorofChange.org petition to create a federal database of police killings: http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/policeforcedatabase/ ”

Additional Messages

  • The problem is widespread across our country. In too many places, police are more likely to stop, search, and detain people of color than white people in the exact same circumstances. They are more likely to use excessive force and to shoot and kill unnecessarily, yet they are far less likely to be held accountable for their actions.
  • We all need equal justice and freedom from police violence. That means both universal protections and addressing the particular types of discrimination and violence facing men and women of color, transgender people, immigrants, and other communities.
  • We know how to fix this. Experts and experience around the country point to concrete policies that can serve and protect all people and communities.
  • 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.
  • We need effective community policing that upholds equal justice and protects public safety. Police departments need training, rules, and oversight to avoid racial stereotyping. Congress must pass the End Racial Profiling Act to ensure fair and effective law enforcement that serves all Americans.
  • Sample Tweet: “New @Usher song #CHAINS a call to end police violence and discrimination. Take action by… http://chains.tidal.com/”
  • Sample Tweet: “Look in the eyes of victims of racial injustice and hear #CHAINS by @Usher @Nas @BibiBourelly_ #DontLookAway http://chains.tidal.com”

Suggested Answers to Frequent Questions about Usher’s Song “Chains”

Q: The song includes the refrain “light it on fire.” Isn’t that likely to incite violence of the kind we’ve seen in cities around the country?

A: “Light it on fire” is a call to shine a light on what’s happening and propel our leaders to take action. It’s the torch being passed to a new generation of young activists who are calling for peace and justice. The refrain “light it on fire” embraces all of those ideas.

Q: #BlackLivesMatter activists have criticized people like Martin O’Malley for using the phrase “All Lives Matter.” Do you think “All Lives Matter” is a racist term, or do you embrace it?

A: This is a human rights issue. Because everyone’s life is precious and because it’s black lives that are most at risk of police abuse and violence, we have to say loudly and proudly that Black Lives Matter.

Q: Some commentators have pointed out that far more black people are murdered every year by other black people than by police officers. Why don’t the song and video focus on that?

A: “Chains” talks about many types of violence and injustice. But when the police shoot and kill based on race and stereotypes, there’s an urgent need to address those actions directly.

Q: The song talks about shooting in church. Is that a reference to the Charleston church shooting?

A: Unfortunately, we’ve seen shootings in churches, in parks, on college campuses, and lots of other places. The shooting in Charleston was an especially terrible event, because it was motivated by racial hatred. The bottom line is that we have to make guns less available to people who want to hurt others. We have to get to know each other better across race, gender, and sexual identity, so that that violent impulse starts to fade.

Q: The song says “we’re still in chains” and “try to put me in chains.” Do you feel that black people are still enslaved in the United States? Have we made progress?

A: There has been progress since slavery and Jim Crow, but we still have a long way to go. Discrimination and stereotypes are still holding our country back. They deny people of color the opportunity for equal justice and access to quality education, housing, and well-paying jobs.

Selected Facts on Discrimination, Police Violence, and Equal Opportunity

The following facts and data can be used to support comments about the issues discussed in Chains:

  • African Americans killed by the police are twice as likely to be unarmed than are whites. The Guardian found “that 32% of black people killed by police in 2015 were unarmed, as were 25% of Hispanic and Latino people, compared with 15% of white people killed.”1
  • African Americans make up only 13% of the U.S. population and 14% of unlawful drug users, but are 37% of the people arrested for drug-related offenses in America.2
  • The job’s not done, but we’re seeing an important turnaround on discriminatory stop-and-frisk practices in New York City—as a result of protest, lawsuits, and action by the mayor and police commissioner. In 2013, police stopped New Yorkers 191,558 times. People of color bore the brunt of those stops: 56% were black, 29% were Latino, and 11% were white. So far this year, the stop-and-frisk numbers are way down (only 13,604 stops by the end of summer 2015), but black folks were still disproportionately stopped (56% of stops but just 25% of the NYC population.3; Alongside those changes, major crimes in New York City are near record lows.4;
  • The Los Angeles Police Department has made some important progress from the bad old days of the 1980s and ‘90s. There’s more to be done, but a positive example is a special LAPD unit that works with mentally ill folks in crisis to provide help and treatment instead of arrest or deadly force.5
  • The U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that African Americans receive 10% longer sentences than white people through the federal system for the same crimes. Between December 2007 and September 2011, the most recent period covered in the Commission’s report, sentences of black men were 19.5% longer than those for similarly situated white men.6;

Communication Themes:

Lead with Values: Lift up the values and vision that motivate the song, video, and campaign – a society that keeps all communities safe and upholds equal justice and opportunity for all; commonsense approaches that respect the dignity and voice of all people and communities.

Talk about Problems with the System: Underline the systemic problems, not just individual injustices – a system infected with racial bias and stereotypes that turns to force and violence as a first resort instead of a last resort and, too often, lacks compassion or common sense.

Highlight Solutions: Point to the concrete solutions – policies as well as individual behavior change – described by the short film and by activists around the country. Training, monitoring, and accountability for police officers, for example, should go hand in hand with questioning our own biases and connecting across lines of difference.

Drive Audiences to Action: Always tell audiences what they can do to help solve the problem – joining an online campaign, contacting an elected official, donating money for change, or getting the word out through social media.

Additional  Communication Resources

Additional communications tools, research, and examples include:

Notes:

1. The Guardian, Black Americans killed by police twice as likely to be unarmed as white peoplee

2. DoSomething.org, 11 Facts About Racial Discrimination

3. NYCLU Stop and Frisk Data

4. CBS New York, July 2015; Major NYC Crimes On Pace For Record Low In 2015

5. 89.3 KPCC; Police and the mentally ill: LAPD unit praised as model for nation

6. Wall Street Journal, 2013; Racial Gap in Men’s Sentencing

​

The Opportunity Agenda
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
close search