Research Report Archives - Page 3 of 4

The Case of the Cultural Influencers: Colin Kaepernick, Jimmy Kimmel, and #MeToo

Executive Summary

In recent years, the power of popular entertainment to inspire large audiences and shift cultural norms has become a topic of growing interest in the social advocacy space. A large body of research has been dedicated to tracking representation trends in film and television, and a growing cohort of organizations provides practical recommendations for those seeking to leverage popular culture in their advocacy work. While existing research has provided critical insights into the effectiveness of high-profile spokespeople in short-term campaigns and fundraising, significant gaps in the literature exist in terms of in-depth analysis of more symbolic actions on the part of high-profile individuals as well as measurements of the impact of celebrity influencers on long-term narrative shift.

Under which circumstances do cultural influencers have the greatest ability to achieve their goals?

Currently there is a pressing need to better understand the potential of high-profile influencers to not only draw attention to social issues but also spark meaningful dialogue and actions that lead to lasting social and policy change. As part of our Power of Pop series, this current research examines three cases of high-profile entertainers and athletes speaking out or advocating for a social and/or policy change. The cases include: Case 1: Colin Kaepernick and the Take A Knee protest Case 2: Jimmy Kimmel and the healthcare debate Case 3: Me Too and Time’s Up movement This research aims to better understand the unique influence of high-profile athletes and entertainers and provide practical recommendations for those seeking to work directly or indirectly with cultural influencers to shift narratives and effect policy change. Key questions explored in the research include:

Under which circumstances do cultural influencers have the greatest ability to achieve their goals?
Are cultural influencers’ interventions best suited for long-term cultural change, short term policy shifts, or other types of impact?
What types of celebrity intervention have the most impact?
How can social justice advocates best support/leverage the influence of cultural influencers both through direct and indirect contact?

To evaluate the effectiveness of the range of strategies and issues covered in our selected case studies, we established the following criteria for success:

If the action or sets of actions had a clearly stated goal, to what extent was this goal achieved?
Was there a marked impact on the national discourse, in both media coverage and public discussions of the issue the cultural influencer was addressing?
Did the actions of one influencer encourage others to speak out or also act?
Were there unanticipated shifts in the public discourse (and, where applicable, policy change) as a direct or indirect result of a cultural influencer’s actions?
Based on these criteria, we conducted a media content analysis and social media analysis for each individual case. Our findings point to a series of lessons learned and best practices for future cultural campaigns.

The Impact

Taken together, our findings demonstrate that strategic engagement from high-profile influencers can have the following impact on social advocacy campaigns:

Significant increases in news media and social media engagement with social justice issues: All three case studies revealed a marked increase in both the volume and focus on news media and social media engagement. For instance, since Colin Kaepernick and other athletes began taking a knee, news media coverage of police misconduct has nearly doubled (from an average of 4000 articles to 7000 articles published every 12 months), and social media engagement with the issue has seen a nearly three-fold increase.
Direct or indirect policy and cultural changes in organizations and institutions: The case studies in this report have resulted in a myriad of organizational policy and cultural shifts as a direct and indirect result of the efforts of high-profile influencers. In the case of Jimmy Kimmel, the Graham-Cassidy bill was ultimately defeated. Since Kaepernick and other athletes began taking a knee in protest to police killings of unarmed people of color, the National Football League (NFL) and several teams have spoken out in support of criminal justice reform. For instance, in September 2016, shortly after Kaepernick’s first field-side protest, the San Francisco 49ers announced that it would be donating $1 million to two charities in the Bay area focused on racial and economic justice. In January2018, the NFL in conjunction with players formed the “Let’s Listen Together” coalition, which aims to improve police and community relations. As of July 2018, 10 NFL teams have announced the launch of new committees, coalitions, or other activities aimed at raising awareness and tackling social justice issues. The Me Too movement has had a similar impact. Since the Me Too movement first began to proliferate in October 2017, more than 800 high-profile figures have been publicly accused of harassment, sexual assault, rape, workplace misconduct, and other related behavior. A recent article details the range of policy changes that have been introduced across industries because of the Me Too movement. This includes the introduction of mandatory annual anti-harassment trainings for lawmakers and staff in Congress and the inclusion of so-called “Weinstein Clauses” in several large mergers and acquisitions.
Encouraging other high-profile individuals and members of the public to speak out: Each case study was characterized by high-profile influencers successfully encouraging others to speak out in support of or opposition to an issue. Following a series of monologues from Jimmy Kimmel, several Republican senators spoke out openly against the Graham-Cassidy bill, eventually leading to its defeat. Since Kaepernick first begin his protest in August 2016, more than 200 athletes have sat or kneeled during the national anthem. Our analysis revealed that a significant portion of news media and online discourse focused on actions and commentary of other high-profile athletes and spokespeople. In the case of the Me Too movement, not only did the personal stories of high-profile entertainers propel the issue of gendered violence into the national discourse, but also subsequent coordinated efforts of the Time’s Up campaign maintained engagement with the issue after media coverage began to wane.

Learn More

Read the entire Executive Summary, including Recommendations, or download the Full Report to learn how you can take action.

Californians & Criminal Justice Reform

The Opportunity Agenda and the ACLU of California engaged in a collaborative initiative to improve the way social justice practitioners, the media, and others talk about California’s justice system. The goal of this research was to explore the stories, issues, and frames that bring “persuadables” in, turn them off, and/or soften them for future criminal justice reform work in the state. It also aims to equip “reform evangelists” with smarter and stickier messages that could influence how the media reports criminal justice issues, how pop culture icons engage their audiences, and, ultimately, how policymakers legislate and how people vote on public policy solutions.

Messaging Recommendations

Start messages with a broader vision of what the criminal justice system should do and what values it should uphold – prevent harm, treat people fairly, uphold equal justice – then move into details.
Leverage audiences’ interest in rehabilitation over punishment by naming specific solutions and alternatives. Key audiences react favorably to the mention of drug treatment programs and mental health support specifically.
More audiences believe that the system treats people unequally than believe it treats people unfairly. Provide specific examples of how the system is unfair.
Show the mechanisms that lead to unequal justice and highlight how they are unfair: over-policing affects some communities more than others, implicit bias in the system harms people of color, and policies like the cash bail system link chances of freedom to money accessibility.
Increase audiences’ understanding of the cash bail system. It’s a policy that most audiences don’t have much awareness about, yet represents the unfairness of the criminal justice system that they want to fix.
When addressing inequality, talk specifically about who is most effected, including African American and Latino men. This information inspires the base toward action and does not decrease support from persuadable audiences.

Top Messages

We Can Do Better

Our criminal justice system should reflect certain important values: hold people accountable, keep people safe, treat people fairly and with dignity, and prevent harm whenever possible. Our current bloated and outdated system is failing us. We are locking people up when research and experience shows us there are better approaches. We are spending far too much money on prisons while programs that we know prevent crime – like drug treatment, job training, and an effective public education system – languish. We can do better.

Equal Justice

Our justice system should keep all communities safe, prevent harm, and uphold the values of fairness and accountability. But too often, racial bias in policing and prosecution results in longer, harsher, and unnecessary incarceration of Latinx and Black Americans.

We know from experience around the country that improved training and alternatives to incarceration, like drug treatment and mental health services, improve community safety and equal justice. We’re calling on local prosecutors, police departments, and lawmakers to adopt those best practices.

Celebrity Influencer

Prosecutors and public defenders, judges and law enforcement, teachers and community leaders, artists and organizers all have to come together and start to do things differently in this country if we’re serious about ending mass incarceration. We can’t afford to keep running a system that takes broken people and then breaks them further. We can’t tolerate a system that destroys so many lives and so many communities. People deserve a path to redemption that includes access to jobs, education, housing, credit, and all the components of a better life. They also deserve to fully participate in our democracy, including the right to vote.

For more information about this project, please download a PDF version of this resource.

A New Sensibility

Introduction

Since our last meta-analysis of public opinion research on attitudes towards criminal justice issues was published in August 2014, there has been a great deal of public discussion about the crisis of mass incarceration, and an unprecedented number of reforms have been enacted by states in every region of the country. Some of these reforms were voted into law by public referenda; others came about through the legislative process. Just to give the reader a sense of the scope of these changes, in 2014 and 2015, 16 states created or expanded opportunities to divert people away from the criminal justice system, 29 states took significant steps to reduce their prison populations, six states placed limits on solitary confinement, and 32 states established supports for individuals reentering the community after incarceration.³ Although little was accomplished by the legislative branch at the federal level in spite of bipartisan support for reform, the executive branch implemented important changes, signaling a move away from federal policies based on punishment and retribution. These included a record number of sentence commutations by President Barack Obama for people serving lengthy sentences for drug convictions⁴ and a ban on solitary confinement for juveniles in federal prisons.⁵ This relatively rapid about-face after four decades of increasing punitiveness has been met by little in the way of a public backlash. Except for some resistance to some specific measures from local police and prosecutors, recent surveys show that most Americans, including voters in the most conservative states, are on board.

This report is based on a review of about 50 public opinion surveys and polls, most of them conducted between June 2014 and June 2016. Many of them are based on state rather than national samples, reflecting the fact that most of the action has been at the state level. The research included covers American attitudes towards a range of policy issues that comprise the criminal justice reform agenda. By looking at the research holistically, we can see a definite pattern emerging as Americans’ attitudes towards crime, punishment, prevention, rehabilitation, and reintegration evolve towards what some scholars are describing as a new “public penal philosophy away from a simplistic and one-dimensional emphasis on ‘toughness’ and towards a focus on effective, compassionate, and just goals.”⁶ A group of researchers who conducted an important study of Texas voters’ attitudes towards various criminal justice reforms believes the results of their study and others “suggest that a transformation in Americans’ sensibility about corrections may be occurring”:

Three core elements characterize this new sensibility about corrections. First, in policy choices, prison no longer automatically trumps other options, whether in how to sentence offenders or where to devote scarce resources… Second, offenders are no longer uniformly objectified and vilified as “the other” and seen as creatures having no worth… Third, and perhaps most important, offenders are now conceptualized as varying in risk level.⁷

The research also points to a number of longstanding and difficult challenges advocates still face as they push for meaningful and far-reaching change. These include the racialization of crime, the unhelpful dichotomy in the public discourse between “violent” and “nonviolent” crimes, and the American public’s tendency to attribute crime to individual rather than systemic causes. But clearly there is reason to be optimistic about the continuing process of reform. This is the time to be pro-active in promoting real solutions to the crisis of mass incarceration that are based on the values of justice, opportunity, voice, redemption/second chance, and community.

Methodology

The public opinion section of this report is based on a meta-analysis of attitudinal tracking surveys and recent public opinion studies by nationally known and reputable research organizations, media outlets, and issue groups. Most of the data examined are publicly available; some come from proprietary research that was made available to The Opportunity Agenda for the purposes of this report. We reviewed original data from more than 50 public opinion studies (see Appendix). These studies meet The Opportunity Agenda’s standards and best practices for quality and objective public opinion research, including appropriate sample size and a methodologically sound design.

Because this scan investigates existing opinion research, we are limited by the data in our ability to analyze the views of all demographic groups on all issues. Whereas surveys often include adequate samples of African Americans and more recently, Latinos, to disaggregate their views, this is generally not the case with Asian Americans, Native Americans, and other groups. Wherever the data allowed, we have analyzed separately and together the views of each identifiable demographic group for this report.

Since opinion research has largely adopted racial categories utilized by the federal government, this report uses these categories as appropriate. The categories are defined as follows:

White: any person who self-identifies as white only and non-Hispanic
Black: any person who self-identifies as black only
Hispanic: any person of any race who self-identifies as Hispanic
Asian: any person who self-identifies as Asian only

³ Rebecca Silber, Ram Subramanian, and Maia Spotts, “Justice in Review: New Trends in State Sentencing and Corrections 2014–2015,” The Vera Institute, May 2016.

⁴ Ibid., p. 6.

⁵ Juliet Eilperin, “Obama bans solitary confinement for juveniles in federal prisons,” The Washington Post, January 26, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-bans-solitary-confinement-for-juveniles-in-federal-prisons/2016/01/25/056e14b2-c3a2-11e5-9693- 933a4d31bcc8_story.html.

⁶ Kevin M. Drakulich and Eileen M. Kirk, “Public Opinion and Criminal Justice Reform: Framing Matter,” Criminology & Public Policy 15 (1), 2016.

⁷ Angela J. Thielo, et al., “Rehabilitation in a Red State: Public Support for Correctional Reform in Texas,” Criminology & Public Policy 15(1), 2016.

A Window Of Opportunity II

HOW TO NAVIGATE THIS REPORT

METHODOLOGY

The analysis in this report is based on publicly available survey data and public opinion studies by reputable research organizations, news outlets, government bodies, and social issue groups related to poverty. Analysis includes an exploration of perceptions about seriousness and causes of poverty, attitudes toward those living in poverty, beliefs about upward mobility, and support for anti-poverty policies. We reviewed data from more than 40 sources, including peer-reviewed articles. Data from the Opportunity Survey, a national representative survey of more than 2,000 respondents, was also analyzed for new insights. These studies meet The Opportunity Agenda’s standards and best practices for research.

LIMITATIONS

Because this report reviews existing studies, our analysis is limited by the severe gaps in data regarding many demographic groups, including Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans, biracial and multiracial Americans, undocumented immigrants, LGBTQ people, and people with disabilities. This is an important limitation—data from Pew Research Center indicates that roughly 29.1 percent of Native Americans/Alaska Natives live below the federal poverty line,1 yet survey and polling research often fails to examine these communities. Existing research similarly overlooks the many differences within Asian American, Latino, and other groups in terms of national origin, immigrant status, and other characteristics. In an effort to bring a more intersectional lens to this research, we have included data examining public support for policies that directly affect the ability of underserved communities to climb out of poverty, including affordable health care, subsidized housing, and a rise to the minimum wage.

TERMINOLOGY

The use of secondary sources has limitations related to language and terminology use. We have noted instances in this report when the data or source quoted makes use of terms and phrases that are not in line with our organizational guidelines and objectives.

As America prepares for what promises to be a pivotal election and history-defining presidency, the mood of the nation is shifting. In the past two years, the rise of social justice movements such as Black Lives Matter and populist sentiments within a large segment of the electorate has pushed the issue of systemic inequality to the forefront of public discourse. These major social shifts – coupled with declining poverty rates and bipartisan recognition that poverty is a serious issue in need of redress- indicate that we are in a critical moment when it comes to tackling poverty, and more broadly, inequality in America.

The American public is primed to hear a new story and new solutions for poverty. In order to leverage this moment, it is necessary for anti-poverty advocates and social justice leaders to understand how Americans currently think and feel about the issue, how attitudes on poverty intersect with other social justice issues, and what specific policies are likely to galvanize widespread support.

This report examines existing polling and survey data in an effort to identify major attitudinal shifts, lasting challenges, and opportunities for advocates and leaders seeking to advance anti-poverty narratives and policies.

SUMMARY

In 2014, fifty years after President Lyndon Johnson declared an “unconditional war on poverty,” the Opportunity Agenda published A Window of Opportunity, a three-part examination of prevailing public opinion and media representation of poverty in America. The report set out to answer several key questions: What is the public perception about the causes of poverty? Do people still have faith in the American Dream? What do Americans feel is the responsibility of government in tackling poverty and income inequality? What role, if any, do stereotypes and other biases play in shaping attitudes towards people living in poverty? Are there major differences in opinion between demographic groups? How has opinion changed over time?

Our analysis found that two competing, often conflicting narratives—individualism and personal responsibility on the one hand, and equal opportunity and shared responsibility on the other— have governed the American public’s overall perception of poverty-related issues. Our research also identified key openings of support for anti-poverty policies.

Our examination of data since 2014 and additional, previously unexplored data points reveal that Americans’ simultaneous belief in equal opportunity and individualist ideals largely persist and continue to influence support for anti-poverty policies. For instance, as of January 2016, more than 7 in 10 (72 percent) of surveyed Americans said that reducing poverty is an “extremely/very important” issue for the next president of the United States, while just under 6 in 10 (57 percent) express the same belief about reducing the “gap between the rich and the poor.”2 Despite public concern about poverty and income inequality, our analysis of recent polling and survey data shows that this concern has not resulted in significantly higher levels of support for tax reform. In fact, recent research shows that public support for higher taxation of the rich and/or expansion of social safety nets has remained stable over the last three decades.3

While many trends in public opinion have stayed the same in the last two years, there have been some notable attitudinal shifts. While the majority of Americans (60 percent) still believe in the power of hard work and other individualistic ideals, there is growing discontent about the possibility of people born into poverty being able to achieve the American Dream—that is, the belief that hard work can overcome poverty and inequality. As of 2015, nearly 6 in 10 Americans (57 percent) believe that the American Dream no longer holds true, up from 48 percent in 2014.4

Americans’ skepticism about the viability of the American Dream is coupled with rising concern about the state of equal opportunity in the United States and the fairness of the economic system. The somewhat unexpected popularity of former presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders pushed the discussion of income inequality into the forefront of political debates, and survey data from 2010 to 2015 suggests that Americans are more concerned about equal opportunity today than at any other time within the last five years. As of 2015, 65 percent of Americans believe that “one of the big problems in this country is that we don’t give everyone an equal chance in life,” while fewer than three in ten (28 percent) believe that “it is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others.”5 Concern about the lack of equal opportunity has increased considerably since 2014, when 55 percent said that one of the big problems in the U.S. was the lack of equal opportunities for all. Survey data also indicates that Americans are increasingly concerned about unfair economic systems and corporate greed, while there is rising public awareness about the structural barriers faced by black Americans— an important opening for advocates seeking to educate the public and increase support for policies aimed to alleviate systemic inequality. In addition, research conducted by Topos Partnership indicates that there is a strong correlation between public perception of quality of life and the willingness to pay more in taxes6.

Finally, while research is still lagging in terms of providing data that examines the intersections of race, gender, sexuality, and public opinion of poverty and low-income people, available survey data indicates strong support for policies that directly concern populations disproportionately affected by poverty, particularly a rise in the federal minimum wage and government housing subsidies. More than 7 in 10 people (74 percent) surveyed expressed the belief that housing subsidies would be very or somewhat effective in helping people struggling in the current economic climate.7 Taken together, there is clearly reason to be optimistic about tackling poverty in America.

This report begins with a series of key findings and concludes with recommendations for narrative and message building, audience engagement, and future research.

A Window of Opportunity

Acknowledgments

The Opportunity Agenda wishes to thank and acknowledge the many people who contributed their time, energy and expertise to the research and writing of these reports on deep and persistent poverty. Our sincerest gratitude goes to the leaders and experts in the field with whom we consulted. The Media Analysis and the Meta-Analysis of Public Opinion were researched and written by Loren Siegel. The Social Media Analysis was researched and written by Jill Mizell and Jhanidya Bermeo. It was edited by Ellen Braune and Eleni Delimpaltadaki Janis of The Opportunity Agenda. We also want to express our great appreciation to Christopher Moore who designed, Jill Bailin who edited, and Margo Harris who proofread all three reports. Special thanks to Carol Schlitt who managed the project.

The Opportunity Agenda’s research on deep and persistent poverty is funded by the JPB Foundation, with support for additional research from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The Libra Foundation, and the Open Society Foundations. The statements made and views expressed are those of The Opportunity Agenda.

Progress and Peril III

Access to an affordable home under fair and sustainable terms is central to the American promise of opportunity, a source of security and pride. But years of misconduct by banks and lenders, inadequate rules and enforcement, and record unemployment have ravaged the ideal of Home Opportunity that is integral to the American Dream. Rebuilding that dream is in our national interest and crucial to our economic recovery.

Though it has been over five years since the economic collapse and commencement of the Great Recession in 2008, the recovery is far from complete and has failed to be equitable for all Americans. As of November 2013, there were approximately 812,000 homes in some stage of the foreclosure process.¹ The number represents a significant drop since the preceding month and year, and indicates improvement in the housing market.

However, there are still millions of Americans who are at risk of losing not only their material assets and savings, but their homes as well. The massive loss of homes, moreover, means families uprooted, children disconnected from their schools and communities, and senior citizens’ economic security destroyed. It hampers employment, education, public safety, and our nation’s broader economic recovery.

In November 2013, there were 46,000 completed foreclosures, new foreclosure filings on 113,454 properties, and approximately two million mortgages that were in delinquency, defined as 90 days or more past due.² In addition, as of December 2013, there are 9.3 million homes that are deeply underwater, meaning that the combined loan amount secured by the property is at least 25 percent higher than the property’s market value.³ Even as the housing market improves, the Obama administration cautions that the economic recovery remains fragile.⁴

Furthermore, the recovery has not reached all Americans. Unequal opportunity and racial discrimination by banks, brokers, and others continue to disproportionately harm communities of color. According to a study released in May 2013 by the Alliance for a Just Society, communities that are majority people of color experienced foreclosures at almost double the rate of predominantly white communities. Families in communities of color suffered a loss of wealth on an average of 30 percent higher per household. While some wealth has been regained since the beginning of the crisis, it has mostly been through the stock market, and thus, affluent Americans are disproportionately benefiting from the recovery. As a result, communities of color are being left behind.⁵

The impact of the crisis has not been limited to homeownership. According to a report by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the number of renters affected by foreclosures has tripled since the beginning of the crisis. An estimated 20 percent of foreclosures are in rental properties, and 40 percent of families facing foreclosure-related evictions are renters. This translates into millions of Americans at risk of homelessness, many of whom are children.⁶ In addition, there is still residential discrimination and segregation throughout the country. This historical legacy concentrates economic downturns into particular communities and as a result, the crisis hits African Americans and Latinos with strong force.⁷

In response, experts and affected communities have worked together to identify a range of practical solutions to this troubling reality. Their efforts have focused on stemming foreclosures, restoring communities, protecting fair housing, and assuring that homeownership remains an accessible pathway to American opportunity. In early 2012, The Opportunity Agenda and its partners proposed a Compact for Home Opportunity that assembled and explained the most promising of those solutions in plain terms. The Compact is intended to propel these much-needed proposals into the public and political discourse and to inform concrete policymaking.

This report updates the status of the Compact’s recommendations from May 1, 2013 to December 1, 2013, and includes major developments in December 2013. It documents the progress that was made around the country in adopting and implementing these proposals. As to each recommendation, we provide an overall update, as well as specific actions taken—or not taken—by such relevant actors as the Obama administration, Congress, states and municipalities, and the lending industry. This update supplements two prior ones that covered February through August of 2012 and September 2012 through May 2013, respectively. The previous updates were released in January 2013 and August 2013.

As we describe below, there was significant progress, as well as frustrating delay, and even regression, by some actors. Positive developments include the confirmation of Mel Watt, a longtime champion of consumer protection and civil rights, as head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; Richmond, California, and other cities using the power of eminent domain to purchase and refinance mortgages; federal regulators’ proposal of a new Qualified Residential Mortgage rule that lowers the down-payment requirement and benefits low- to middle-income borrowers; Nebraska’s enactment of a land bank law; localities increasingly passing vacant property registration legislation; Utah’s homelessness prevention program; the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s proposal of a rule on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing; coordination and success on equal opportunity enforcement; the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s roll-out of new mortgage servicing rules; and increased use of inclusionary zoning by cities across the country.

However, there was a lack of progress, and even regression, on several important solutions, such as making mediation a mandatory part of the foreclosure process, requiring principal corrections, refinancing legislation, positive reform of Government-Sponsored Enterprises, ensuring consumer readiness, and supporting community development and homelessness prevention programs. Congress has been particularly recalcitrant, ignoring multiple opportunities to help stem foreclosures, restore communities, protect fair housing, and assure that homeownership remains accessible. At this critical moment in time, this status report provides a roadmap to the progress made, and the work still to be done.

Breaking Developments

This report covers developments from May 1, 2013 to December 1, 2013, and includes major developments in December 2013. While a future report will discuss in detail developments in 2014, we note here several important items that occurred as this report was going to press.

On January 6, Mel Watt was sworn in as the new director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. One of his first actions was to delay a proposed increase in the fees that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac charge lenders to guarantee mortgages. The increase had been announced by former Acting Director Edward DeMarco and would have gone into effect in March and April, making mortgages more expensive. The “g-fees,” which would have been increased by 0.1 percent, are usually passed on by lenders to borrowers.⁸
In January 2014, Congress allowed the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act to expire. This means that, for the first time since 2007, people who have had their homes foreclosed upon will have to pay income taxes on forgiven debt that was accumulated due to a mortgage. Congress allowed this benefit to expire despite an estimate from the National Association of Attorneys General that 7.1 million homes with mortgages, 14.5 percent of the national total, are still in negative equity.⁹
On January 29, the House of Representatives passed farm subsidy and nutrition program legislation that would cut $8.6 billion from the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP or “food stamps”).¹⁰ The legislation does not contain the originally proposed work and drug testing requirements for SNAP recipients; however it would effectively cut $90 in monthly food aid for approximately 850,000 households. Anti-hunger advocates warned that it would eliminate 34 meals per month for the affected households, and critiqued the legislation as corporate welfare at the expense of struggling families.¹¹ On February 4, the Senate passed the legislation and President Obama, on February 7, signed it into law.¹²
On January 9, President Obama announced five of the areas that will be part of the “Promise Zones” Initiative to help restore communities particularly hard hit by the Great Recession. The areas include San Antonio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Southeastern Kentucky, and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. As part of the initiative, the federal government will give the communities preferential consideration for 25 federal grant programs and provide technical assistance to help them realize their economic revitalization plans. The plans include expanding affordable housing as well as bolstering adult education, job training, and early literacy programs.¹³
In January 14, 2014, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel proposed a five-year plan to increase housing opportunities and community development. The plan, which Emanuel introduced to the Chicago City Council, would invest $1.3 billion to rebuild, rehabilitate, and preserve 41,000 housing units, 75 percent of which would be reserved for Chicagoans who earn 60 percent of the local median income, or $44,000 for a family of four. The plan also includes putting 8,000 vacant and foreclosed properties back on the market by using vacant properties for residential development, community gardens, or allowing residents to expand their private yards by purchasing adjacent vacant lots. In addition, the City would encourage banks to offer better foreclosure prevention counseling and neighborhood lending in distressed neighborhoods, and expand affordable housing units in mixed-income communities to low-income renters and recipients of welfare services. Nevertheless, multiple Council members, affordable housing advocates, and housing voucher holders state that the plan does not go far enough and fails to address the City’s most vulnerable communities. They call for an amendment to the plan that would provide for more oversight of the Chicago Housing Authority as well as a “one-for-one replacement” of public housing units that the City demolishes.¹⁴
On January 17, 2014, President Obama signed a $1.1 trillion budget that keeps the government funded until September 2014. The budget cuts $687 million from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and leaves it with $32.8 billion in 2014. This allocates $40.1 million for the Fair Housing Initiative, which provides assistance to victims of housing discrimination; $90 million for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, which aims to transform distressed areas of poverty into viable and sustainable mixed-income neighborhoods through a variety of public services and improvements; $2.1 billion for Homeless Assistance Grants; $330 million for Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS; $3.03 billion for Community Development Block Grants; and $1 billion for the HOME Program, which provides grants to state and local governments to fund housing programs that address local needs and priorities.¹⁵
In mid-January of 2014, U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), announced that the Inspector General of HUD was investigating whether New Jersey Governor Chris Christie misused Superstorm Sandy relief funds for political benefits during an election year.¹⁶ There have been multiple controversies related to New Jersey’s use of federal funds after the storm. The Fair Share Housing Center revealed, via a lawsuit against the state for public records, great disparities among the rates of assistance received by African Americans and Latinos as opposed to whites. According to state documents, 38.1 percent of African Americans and 20.4 percent of Latinos were rejected from receiving settlement grants, compared to 14.5 percent of whites; while 35.1 percent of African Americans and 18.1 percent of Latinos were rejected from reconstruction or rehabilitation grants.¹⁷
In two separate cases, trade groups representing homeowners’ insurance companies filed suit against HUD in federal court. They claim that the federal agency lacked the authority to promulgate its disparate impact rule, which allows and strengthens disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act. There is a possibility that the cases will, because of the issues involved, reach the U.S. Supreme Court.¹⁸

Acknowledgments

This report was authored by Diego Iniguez-Lopez, Robert L. Carter Fellow at The Opportunity Agenda, and Beverly Prewitt, Jacob Wentworth, and James V. Williams, III at Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP. Special thanks to those who contributed to the analysis, review, and editing of the report, including Megan Haberle, former Economic Opportunity Fellow and Associate Counsel at The Opportunity Agenda; Deidre Swesnik, Director of Public Policy and Communications at the National Fair Housing Alliance; Debby Goldberg, Special Project Director at the National Fair Housing Alliance; and James Carr, Distinguished Scholar at The Opportunity Agenda. This report was designed and produced by Christopher Moore and Jill Bailin.

Additional thanks to those who worked on the previous Compact for Home Opportunity and the original January 2013 status report and the August 2013 status report, including Annie J. Wang, former Robert L. Carter Fellow and Associate Counsel at The Opportunity Agenda; Michael Folger, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP; Patrick Ryan, Columbia School of Law class of 2015; Zachary Waisman, Georgetown University Law Center class of 2015; Mary-Ann Awada, Cornell Law School class of 2014; Megan Haberle, former Economic Opportunity Fellow and Associate Counsel at The Opportunity Agenda; James Carr, Distinguished Scholar at The Opportunity Agenda; Nikitra Bailey, Executive Vice President at the Center for Responsible Lending; Debby Goldberg, Special Project Director at the National Fair Housing Alliance; and Jose Garcia, former Policy Fellow, Wealth-Building Policy Project at the National Council of La Raza.

The Opportunity Agenda’s Home Opportunity initiative is funded with support from the Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundations, Annie E. Casey Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, and The JPB Foundation. The statements made and views expressed are those of The Opportunity Agenda.

Media Representations and Impact on the Lives of Black Men and Boys: A Social Science Literature Review

Introduction

This social science review centers on the topic of how communications in the broadest sense impacts black male achievement. It is no exaggeration to say that tens (or hundreds) of thousands of pages have been written on the topic over the course of several generations. This review is intended to offer communicators on related issues, who come to the review with a wide range of different backgrounds and depth of knowledge on the topic, a digestible overview. What have social scientists studied and learned, particularly in the last decade, about how communications have impacted achievement of black males, and could impact it for the better? A range of longer reviews, including book-length studies, are available and have informed this piece — but The Opportunity Agenda would like to offer its colleagues and the field a user-friendly summary that captures the essence of what is known, and what is not known, in a very usable format.

What is known is often discouraging, as a wide range of studies, analyses, and bodies of evidence point to persistent and destructive biases regarding the public image of black males, and ongoing forces that perpetuate the creation of these images. Equally frustrating is the fact that these patterns, while often very familiar to insiders, are more or less invisible to the general public, and seem implausible or exaggerated to them even when pointed out (an observation based on the authors’ own research experience on related topics). Other problems widely known to insiders but mostly “invisible” to the public at large include the well-documented and nearly universal tendency of Americans to have unconscious patterns of bias against African Americans in general and black males in particular, as well as the psychological and sociological costs that these patterns exact on black males. In short, it seems very important that the nature of these patterns of images, their causes, their effects, and their potential antidotes, should in some sense be available “out there.”

The review focuses on the core problem as social scientists have described it — including aspects that are more robustly or more thinly addressed in the literature — as well as a discussion of the some of the more troubling dilemmas and dynamics that confront communicators.

Where possible, this review also points out the “good news” in the literature, including psychology experiments that look at tasks and contexts that can reduce bias. Despite the lack of “silver bullets,” the literature does offer some useful lessons that can guide communicators’ efforts going forward.

Please note that the social science literature review is just one piece of a larger effort. It is intended to provide communicators with an overview of what is known (or not known) about the topic via the social sciences, and to inform future stages of the project; it is those later stages that will focus more on action steps going forward.

Methodology

A literature review is an overview of the published scholarship on a particular topic. In this case the topic is what social scientists know about how and why discourse (especially public and media discourse) shapes perceptions of black men and boys – and the consequences of these perceptions. The review has also sought out findings that offer evidence about how to talk about black men and boys and achievement in ways that can promote engagement, understanding, and progress in this area.

The authors of the review relied on four complementary approaches to identifying and selecting relevant and reliable source materials:

Recommendations from a variety of experts about important, influential works;
Citations and references in high-profile, popular works;
Citations in well-regarded, specialized scholarly works (that is, studies and analyses that are accepted and cited by other researchers in the field);
Our own expertise as academic reviewers and researchers.

The review focuses primarily on findings for which scholars have offered experimental or documentary evidence, or around which scholars in the field have reached a strong consensus. The selection of work is also based on its evident usability, and its potential to help a variety of stakeholders identify the most prevalent and malignant frames and adapt a set of best practices for reshaping them.

A select bibliography is offered for readers who may want to examine relevant research in more detail.

Even a relatively lengthy overview of such a vast field inevitably omits many studies, including important ones, from discussion. We hope, on the other hand, that the review does touch on the most important themes that shape current scholarly perspectives.

Acknowledgments

This research was authored by Topos Partnership with consultation from Janet Dewart Bell and Eleni Delimpaltadaki Janis of The Opportunity Agenda, who contributed to the design and analysis of the research and edited the report. Christopher Moore designed the report. Jill Bailin, Judi Lerman, and Loren Siegel also assisted in the editing of the report.

The Opportunity Agenda’s research on black men and boys is funded by the Open Society Foundations’ Campaign for Black Male Achievement. The statements made and views expressed are those of The Opportunity Agenda.

Our sincerest gratitude goes out to the advisory committee, who consulted on this research: Bryonn Bain,Robert Entman, Fanon Hill, Dori Maynard, Alexis McGill Johnson, Rashid Shabazz, Calvin Sims, Kamal Sinclair, Alvin Starks, Albert Sykes, Sharon Toomer, Rhonda Tsoi-A-Fatt Bryant, Cheo Tyehimba Taylor, and Hank Willis Thomas. Special thanks to Steve DuBois, who coordinated the committee.

Messaging And Report Category: Research Report