criminal justice Archives - Page 4 of 6

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

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.

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

Talking About Immigrants and the Criminal Justice System

Tips

Talk about the values that should guide our criminal justice system. We want to make sure that people receive equal treatment, that policies keep our communities safe, and that our laws follow common sense while also upholding our values.
Outline how current policies are failing us. Be specific in pointing out which policies need to change and who needs to change them. Vague criticisms of the “system” can make the problems with it seem insurmountable.
Avoid myth busting. Repeating untruths, even in order to refute them, only serves to bolster their staying power in audiences’ minds. Instead, focus on the truth.
Put forward an affirmative solution. Don’t just say what we shouldn’t be doing, give audiences ideas about what will prevent future tragedies.
Acknowledge the need for people to be held accountable when they have made mistakes. While many people are caught up unfairly in the criminal justice system, we need to acknowledge that there still has to be a fair and reasonable plan for those who have made mistakes, or even committed serious crimes, to move forward.

Sample Language

Value: We all make mistakes. But most Americans believe that people deserve a second chance, and that most mistakes shouldn’t be allowed to ruin our lives, and the lives of everyone around us.

Problem: But our criminal justice system does ruin the lives of many immigrants who come into contact it. Even if you’ve lived here for years, you can be deported if you’ve been accused of a low-level offense like shoplifting. Many immigrants in the system don’t get access to lawyers, and thousands are detained for indefinite amounts of time with no hearing. There’s no question that we all should be held accountable for our actions, but removal from the country or indefinite detention is a clear example of the punishment simply not fitting the crime.

Solution: We need to re-examine how our justice system treats everyone here, and align that with the values we hold dear. We need a fair system that makes sure we don’t punish people without a hearing or access to lawyers. Those rights are central to our values.

Action: We need to fix our flawed criminal justice system.

Talking about Immigrants Convicted of Serious Offenses

Value: Our policies should reflect our core values: equality, fairness, and accountability. Aligning our policies to those values is crucial if they are to survive and prosper.

Problem: But our criminal justice policies currently don’t reflect those values. Our laws treat immigrants who have been convicted of any crime very differently than others here, with an entirely different set of laws and a wholly different level of respect for rights. That distorts our notions of fairness and equal treatment. People certainly need to be held accountable for their actions, there’s no question about that. But having two sets of laws creates confusion, breeds unfairness, and isn’t in line with our values.

Solution: We need to re-examine our laws and how we treat immigrants in our justice system, and align them with the values we hold dear.

Action: We need to fix our flawed justice system.

Talking Criminal Justice Reform Issues

As communicators, we’re always looking for new ways to engage with audiences and consider what kind of messages break through and stick, and how to avoid empty rhetoric that leaves no impact.

Behavioral economics is an approach that encourages us to predict what people are likely to do in decision-making contexts instead of assuming that people make choices based only on logic and rational thinking. By understanding what influences real choices, we can design choice settings that guide people to choose in a certain way. This memo examines several behavioral economics principles and the implications they have on messaging around criminal justice reform issues. It is based on a full report that was written and researched for The Opportunity Agenda by Sabrina Hassan. For a full version of the report upon which this memo is based, please visit www.opportunityagenda.org.

Principles

Social Norms – We tend to follow the herd. We gravitate toward choices that other people make, especially people whom we perceive to be similar to us in some way. For example, if we hear that most citizens in our community vote, or that our neighbors are doing a good job of conserving energy, we are more likely to make these choices as well.
Loss Aversion – We favor avoiding losses over acquiring gains. The pain of loss exceeds the pleasure of gain. So simple framing about what we lose if we make one choice can be stronger than emphasizing what we gain with the same choice.
Limited Attention – When our attention is depleted, we don’t make good decisions. When given limited information or a focal point, we’re better able to concentrate on and consider our decisions about information. Messaging with less and more targeted information is more effective than using too much and getting too complicated.
Identity – We embrace ideas and actions that affirm our self-concept and reject those that threaten it. If we identify as Democrats or Catholics, for instance, we are more likely to make choices that we think Democrats or Catholics would choose, even if those choices may conflict with other beliefs or understandings.

1. Social Norms

People demonstrate a tendency to conform to perceived behavior of others in their groups. In other words, a person is likely to do what she thinks “everyone else” is doing. Research has shown people gravitate toward perceived social norms around:

Voting.
Whether to litter or engage in criminal acts.
Adjusting their levels of energy use.
Whether to react to an emergency.
How quickly to finish easy tasks.

Implications for Messaging

The practical application of social norms is straightforward: publicize evidence that the vast majority of a group to which a given audience belongs (women, seniors, communities of color) does something the audience should be doing.

Social Norms: “People like you do .”

For example, there are several ways in which public opinion supports the movement to reform drug policy. Advertising these popular opinions can increase their popularity via our tendency to follow the herd. It is important to tailor the norms advertised as specifically as possible to the composition of the target audience (e.g. Democrats, New Yorkers, young professionals), because people align their behaviors with groups with whom they identify. Some potentially useful norms:

84% of American voters support non-prison alternatives such as drug treatment, community service, or probation for drug and other “victimless” offenses.
Majorities of many American groups believe too many people are in prison—64% of Democrats, 59% of African Americans, and 58% of Latinos.
Majorities of American groups would prefer that more money and effort go toward better education and job training, attacking the social and economic problems that underlie crime, instead of toward deterring crime with more prisons, police and judges—78% of Democrats, 77% of those aged 18-29, and 72% of college post graduates.

The above are merely a few examples. Majority opinions of peer groups are contagious, so a current sound and reliable statistic that reflects a majority opinion worth spreading can be used as a tool.

2. Loss Aversion

People are loss averse, meaning they prefer avoiding losses to making gains. The psychological pain of losing X exceeds the pleasure of gaining Y. Take the following example for illustration:

Problem 1: Which do you choose?

Get $900 for sure OR 90% chance to get $1,000

Problem 2: Which do you choose?

Lose $900 for sure OR 90% chance to lose $1,000

Most people are risk averse in Problem 1, choosing the certain $900 over the very likely $1000 to avoid the 10% risk of getting nothing. But in Problem 2, the opposite is true. Although the amounts are identical, most people choose to gamble on the 90% probability that they will lose an additional $100; they risk losing the larger amount rather than admitting a loss of ten percent less.

The results above demonstrate loss aversion, our built-in distaste for losses. Loss aversion also explains why people buy insurance they don’t need and refuse to settle a lawsuit they will likely lose. We detest losses so much that we pay extra for a narrow possibility of escaping them.

Implications for Messaging

Loss aversion is a useful tool in designing choices because whether something is perceived as a loss depends on how it is framed. Just as a glass of water can be deemed half empty or half full, a policy can be described in terms of its costs or its benefits.

For example, a number of facts about laws pertaining to people who have been convicted of sex-related conduct can be framed to highlight the loss to society that dangerous laws cause.

The over-inclusion of people on the registry of sex-related conduct makes it difficult for law enforcement to determine which people warrant more careful monitoring.
The large volume of people who pose no threat, but who are required to register, demands hours of administrative police work and sometimes even requires paying for overtime to keep up with demand.
Residency restrictions push people away from the supervision, treatment, stability and supportive networks they may need to build and maintain successful, law-abiding lives.
Residency restriction laws cause police to lose track of people who move around or drop out of sight to avoid compliance with the law.

3. Limited Attention

Each person’s pool of mental energy is shared by cognitive, emotional, and physical efforts. Consider how hard it is to concentrate on work after receiving shocking news, or to perform complex mental math while walking. (If you’re like most people, you’ll stand still to finish computing.) When a person exerts self-control by thinking hard, exercising vigorously, or suppressing emotion, she will eventually experience a diminished capacity to regulate her thoughts, feelings and actions. Poor decisions ensue.

Implications for Messaging

In designing choice settings, we must make the effort to simplify complex or lengthy processes that lead to a desired result. Even better, we can “pad the path of least resistance” with default rules that transparently funnel people to one path unless they opt out. When we eliminate attention-sucking decision points with a default rule, such as automatic employee enrollment in a retirement plan, people are more likely to subscribe to a choice rather than avoid choosing at all.

These principles apply in messaging. By simplifying messages and eliminating decision points—on whether to turn a page, download a document, or do mental math—the messenger can increase the chance that an audience will remain attentive enough to absorb her message.

In a field as well documented as the failed “War on Drugs,” it can be tempting to share heaps of facts and figures with any attentive audience. But more information shared doesn’t necessarily translate into more information received. The way to capitalize on the attention we get is to maximize the impact, not the volume, of our messages.

Most Americans believe crime is increasing despite the reality that violent crime has been at historic lows for the past few years. We thus can’t assume that Americans perceive the gross increase in imprisonment as bad or illogical. We have to spell out the problem. Fortunately, an audience unfamiliar with or resistant to the glaring flaws in American drug policy needs to accept only a few simple facts to grasp the issue:

Right now, the United States imprisons an astronomical number of people compared to both our own historical rates and to those of other countries.
The increase in imprisonment for drug offenses results from harsher sentencing policy, not from an increase in convictions for drug offenses.
Treatment delivered in the community costs approximately $20,000 less than imprisonment per person per year.

Focusing the message on the key points makes these points easier to learn and remember.

4. Identity

We are very attached to our identities. I believe that I am X kind of person, and X kind of person believes and does Y. The attachment is so strong that it may account for my inaccurate beliefs and irrational behavior.

Implications for Messaging

Present accurate information in a graphic or visual, rather than textual, format. Presenting corrective information graphically is shown to be more effective than conveying the same information through words alone.
Leverage the power of self-affirmation—support perceptions of self-worth. Having a person engage in self-affirmation, as with recalling a time she felt good about herself, increases her willingness to admit a position that conflicts with her identity. Self-affirmation can reduce misperceptions even without corrective information.
Label an individual as a certain kind of person, such as “voter” or “consumer,” to encourage her to act accordingly. In a 2011 study, participants received surveys that referred to voting using either a self-relevant noun (e.g., “How important is it to you to be a voter in the upcoming election?”) or a verb (e.g., “How important is it to you to vote in the upcoming election?”). Those who completed the surveys identifying them as prospective “voters” (noun condition) expressed significantly greater interest in registering to vote and significantly increased voter turnout than those in the verb condition.

In the case of racial profiling, focusing on the values and identity of someone who believes in equality and who is against racism can help elevate the case against police behavior that violates those values. Equality is one of the core values on which our nation was founded. In theory at least, our tolerance of diversity sets the United States apart from other countries. So even though we all have biases beyond our control, most Americans at least aspire to not be perceived or labeled as “racists.” Yet racial bias, whether individual and overt or structural and subconscious, causes racial profiling. There thus exists a messaging opportunity to gently leverage audience aversion to racial bias and racism to promote a stance against racial profiling.

Help people to identify with their support for equality by explicitly naming it as part of their identity.

Are you a supporter of racial equality?
This petition seeks signatures from supporters of racial equality.
The shooting of another unarmed Black man is expected to draw criticism and protests from supporters of racial equality.
Supporters of racial equality will likely back the proposed legislation.

In sum, when delivering messages designed to garner opposition to racial profiling, offer a self-relevant noun against such profiling to which your audience can subscribe.

Policy Recommendations to the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing

February 12, 2015

President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
U.S. Department of Justice
145 N Street, N.E. 11th Floor
Washington, DC 20530

To the Members of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing:

Thank you for the invitation, pursuant to Executive Order 13684, to provide The Opportunity Agenda’s recommendations on ensuring that policing protects public safety while upholding equal justice and fundamental human rights. Our comments focus, in particular, on ensuring that police departments and municipalities receiving federal funds fulfill civil rights obligations, as well as best practices, for eliminating racial and ethnic bias.

The Opportunity Agenda is a social justice communication and policy organization with the mission of building the national will to expand opportunity in America. A fair and effective criminal justice system rooted in public safety, equal justice, and due process is central to our mission.

Freedom from Bias is Crucial to Effective Policing and Required by our Constitution.

Respect for civil and human rights and freedom from racial and ethnic bias are central to strong, collaborative relationships between law enforcement and communities. And they are crucial to the Constitutional guarantee of Equal Protection Under Law that binds all states and municipalities, as well as the federal government, pursuant to the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments.

Yet, there is ample evidence that racially and ethnically biased policing occurs, often without accountability, in many police departments around the country. That trend, moreover, demonstrably erodes community trust and public safety, as well as our national value of equal justice. Public opinion research by The Opportunity Agenda, among others, finds that African Americans and Latinos report unequal treatment and diminished belief in the fairness of law enforcement, as compared with white Americans. The Opportunity Agenda, An Overview of Public Opinion and Discourse on Criminal Justice Issues, 2014, pg. 3, available at http://opportunityagenda.org/files/field_file/2014.08.23-CriminalJusticeReport-FINAL_0.pdf; The Opportunity Agenda, Opportunity Survey, 2014, pg. 78-83, available at. http://opportunity- survey.opportunityagenda.org/userfiles/Opportunity_Survey_Report.pdf. Addressing both the well- documented reality and the widely-held perception of biased policing is crucial to bridging that divide.

Police departments receiving federal funds must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it’s implementing regulations.

As recipients of federal financial assistance, police departments receiving federal funds pursuant to the COPS program or any other federal program are legally obligated to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. This includes preventing and remediating racially biased policing.

U.S. Department of Justice regulations implementing Title VI for DOJ-funded programs and activities, 28 C.F.R. § 42.101 et seq., prohibit both intentionally discriminatory conduct and unjustified practices that have a racially disparate impact. Specifically, fund recipients may not “utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respects individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin.” 28 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) (emphasis added). Racially biased policing violates that principle, whether driven by conscious bigotry, subconscious stereotypes, or unjustified policies that discriminate in practice.

The Department of Justice has supported and distributed guidelines and research on best practices for avoiding and remedying racially biased policing.

The COPS Office has commissioned and released numerous documents that provide recommendations on how police departments can better address racially biased policing. In 2002, the Office released a report that recommended creating routine structures, with open communications, between police departments and community members that go beyond the dissemination of collected data. Joyce McMahon, et al., How to Correctly Collect and Analyze Racial Profiling Data: Your Reputation Depends on It!, Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice, 2002, p. 9, available at: http://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p044-pub.pdf.

The report recommended accounting for neighborhood differences and complexities by including research methods that reflect analysis at the neighborhood, area, region, or precinct level. Id. Ultimately, analytical methods must consider multiple elements, that include examples such as: “characteristics of the driving population, presence of nearby cities/states/countries (transient populations), day-time versus night-time stops, stops that are description-based (be on the lookout for), stops of those on probation and parole, and special programs such as seat-belt violations.” Id.

In 2005, the Office released another report that, while cautioning against being viewed as the official position of DOJ, recommended various ways that police departments can collect and utilize data on racially biased policing in vehicle stops. Joyce McMahon, et al., A Suggested Approach to Analyzing Racial Profiling: Sample Templates for Analyzing Car-Stop Data, Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice, March 2005, available at: http://ric-zai- inc.com/Publications/cops-p071-pub.pdf. Recommendations included developing and analyzing data on how members of a city’s total population become members of the city’s driving and stopped populations; citizen characteristics, officer characteristics, stop information, and site information; minority, non-minority, and total stops based on driving as opposed to vehicle equipment; and the location-neighborhood or census tract of the police stop. Id. at 4-13. They also included breaking down the location-neighborhood or census tract data by minority population share, unemployment rate, number of officers deployed, calls for service, average income, male population share, and whether the stops’ location-neighborhood or census tract is urban or rural or business or residential. Id. at 13-14.

The report also recommended comparing predictive stop rates to actual stop rates and using supplementary information to explain the difference if any; the rates of minorities as opposed to non- minorities being stopped and searched and, if searched, whether officers found weapons, drugs, or nothing; and who is searched after a stop when looking at the variables of the citizen’s race and gender, the age of the car, the officer’s race, tenure, and unit, the reason for the stop, and the time of the stop. Id. at 14-17.

In 2008, the COPS Office released another report, with the same precaution against being interpreted as the official position of DOJ, discussing best practices for recipients of COPS grants in addressing racially biased policing: organizational buy-in; community involvement; managing technology and planning issues; and keeping the project’s focus. Jack McDevitt et al., COPS Evaluation Brief No. 1: Promoting Cooperative Strategies to Reduce Racial Profiling, Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice, 2008, p. 54, available at: http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/e08086157.pdf.

That report recommended involving lower-level officers and their representatives in all stages of development and implementation. Id. It noted that supervisors and managers should demonstrate how a program will benefit officers or, at the very least, not negatively impact them. Id. It also recommended involving police departments’ information technology staff, including offering its members an opportunity to influence policy and procedure. Id. at 55-56.

It also noted that “agencies should try to involve the public in every stage of development and implementation, rather than at a single point, and give them real opportunities to influence the process and goals, perhaps through membership on a steering committee or task force.” Id. at 56. The report recommended taking this opportunity to establish regular contact with community groups and learn about targeted communities. Id. at 56-57. It also recommends staying focused on the objective of reducing racially biased policing and not confusing having a program as being the equivalent of successfully obtaining the objective. Id. at 58.

In 2010, the Office released the report, Stop and Frisk: Balancing Crime Control with Community Relations, with a precaution against being interpreted as the official position of DOJ. The report recommended that police departments consider reforming their stop and frisk practices: improving understanding, among police officers as well as the public, of stop and frisk; and identifying best practices. Nancy G. La Vigne, Stop and Frisk: Balancing Crime Control with Community Relations, Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice, 2010, p. 4, available at: http://ric- zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p306-pub.pdf. The report recommended that the role of the police executive include the following:

Communicate clear expectations within the department, and reinforce a culture of ethical and respectful behavior.
Recruit officers who are service-oriented, representative of the communities they serve, and diverse in terms of their backgrounds and perspectives.
Communicate with and solicit input from both internal and external stakeholders.
Build accountability through measures such as documenting police interactions with citizens, analyzing data, and holding officers responsible for their actions.
Train officers in the proper procedures for conducting stops and frisks and provide opportunities for continuing education.
Assign officers to patrol the same neighborhoods to build relationships with the community.

The responsibilities of the individual officer, the report noted, should include the following:

Have sound justification before deciding to stop an individual.
Communicate clearly the logic behind the stop and walk the individual through the process.
Employ frisk and/or search activities only if legal guidelines justify doing so.
Treat individuals respectfully during stops.

Id. at 3.

In 2012, the Office released another report, Racial Reconciliation, Truth-Telling, and Police Legitimacy, with a similar precaution against being interpreted as the official position of DOJ. The report recommended that police departments reform their CompStat implementations in order to ensure that incentive and accountability mechanisms reduce crime and legitimize police within communities of color. Zoe Mentel, Racial Reconciliation, Truth-Telling, and Police Legitimacy, Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice, 2012, p. 14, available at: http://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p241-pub.pdf. This includes moving away from a heavy- enforcement approach that incentivizes and yields more arrests. Id. The report also cited law professor Tracey Meares from Yale University for the statement that police departments should consider the perceptions that policies, such as stop and frisk, create in communities, as opposed to simply the constitutionality of those policies. Id. at 15-16.

The report also suggested that police departments consider, if appropriate, making an acknowledgment of the tense history between police departments and communities of color. Id. at 16- 17. It also recommended that police departments establish relationships with the community in a proactive and collaborative manner in order to have trust and confidence from the community in the event of a high-profile and emotionally-charged incident. Id. at 18.

Yet COPS and other federal funding programs do not appear to consider mechanisms for, or evidence of, Title VI compliance or adherence to these best practices in determining where scarce federal funds should be allocated.

In addition to the authority and obligation to ensure Title VI compliance, the COPS Office may conduct “evaluations to determine which programs are working, how programs may be improved, and why certain programs are more successful than others.” 2014 COPS Hiring Program (CHP) Grant Owner’s Manual at 10. In assessing how the grantee implements its grant, the Office may study the effectiveness of the funded program, project, or activities; evaluate its effectiveness of crime, victims of crime, and quality of life; and ask about challenges during the implementation, and the perspectives of residents and police officers. Id. Police departments also submit quarterly programmatic progress reports and quarterly Federal Financial Reports so that the COPS Office can “ensure the proper use of federal funds.”

Yet it is at best unclear whether police departments are being evaluated or providing reports on civil rights compliance, in particular racially biased policing, to any extent beyond the original Assurance and Certification form. Although the COPS Office may hold funds for a lack of compliance with civil rights laws, and the law requires grantees to collect data and information broadly documenting their compliance, DOJ falls short of effectively requiring or aiding its grantees to comply with comprehensive civil rights requirements or best practices. See 2014 COPS Hiring Program (CHP) Grant Owner’s Manual at 11.

DOJ can do much more to ensure civil rights compliance by strengthening its implementation of Title VI and COPS statutes and regulations. Notwithstanding a certification of compliance during an application for federal funds, a police department has very little more to do in order to prove that it upholds civil rights with the federal funds that it receives, and DOJ does very little to determine compliance on the issue of racially biased policing. By shortening the gap between law and practice, DOJ can ensure the implementation of its statutory and regulatory scheme as well as improve police and community relations in a manner that maintains public safety while respecting civil rights.

Currently, a police department that receives federal funds must, as an explicit condition of receipt, acknowledge and agree that it will not subject any person to discrimination. U.S. Department of Justice, community oriented policing services, granting monitoring standards and guidelines for all cops grants and cooperative agreements (2014), 100, available at http://tinyurl.com/odhvqj4. The police department acknowledges and agrees by signing a standard Assurance and Certification form. U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS FY2014 application guide: Cops Hiring Program (CHP) (2014), 13, 42-43, available at http://tinyurl.com/lcjhada; U.S. Department of Justice, community oriented policing services, 2014 Cops Hiring Program (CHP) Grant Owner’s Manual (2014), 39-41, available at http://tinyurl.com/lfvg5qk. The Assurance and Certification form states, with a written affirmation by a Law Enforcement Executive, that the police department will not discriminate based on the protected classes pursuant to Title VI, and that it will ensure meaningful access to persons with limited English proficiency pursuant to Title VI guidelines. 2014 COPS Hiring Program (CHP) Grant Owner’s Manual at 39-40. Unfortunately, this is generally where the affirmative obligation to prohibit racially biased policing with federal funds and federally funded activities begins and ends. While a police department signs this Assurance and Certification form during its application, it does very little to establish its compliance anytime afterwards.

The Department of Justice and Other Federal Entities that Fund Police Departments Should Require Specific, Demonstrable Evidence of Proactive Efforts to Prevent and Address Racially Biased Policing.

Executive Order 13684 pursues policing practices that promote effective crime reduction while building public trust and fostering strong, collaborative relationships between local law enforcement and the communities they protect. In order to make that promise a reality, DOJ must go beyond passive affirmations and require concrete, demonstrable evidence of civil rights compliance before, and as a condition on the receipt of federal funds, as well as during the period of funded activity. Moreover, effective incorporation of basic practices such as collecting and reporting data on police stops disaggregated by race and ethnicity, implicit bias training, and accountability for all instances of biased policing should be prerequisites for initial and renewed receipt of federal funds.

Innovative Anti-Bias Practices Should be a Competitive Advantage in Receiving COPS and Other Funds.

In addition to requiring demonstrated compliance with the basic requirements of Title VI, the COPS program and other federal funding entities should make innovative best practices for preventing and addressing biased policing a “plus” factor in competitive grant awards. Practices recommended in reports commissioned by the COPS Office and related entities should receive particular priority, and DOJ should continue to commission and update these recommendations.

Conclusion

Thank you once again for making effective and equitable community policing a priority, and for considering The Opportunity Agenda’s recommendations. We hope to see these and other proactive solutions in the Commission’s final report to the President.

Building a Message – Value, Problem, Solution, Action

Values

Problem

Solution

Action

Additional Tips

Balance Individual Stories with System-Wide Solutions

Tell Affirmative Stories

Introduction

Methodology

Current Public Opinion

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

Sample Language

Focus on Goals, Values, and People

Goals: Values + Safety

People: Families, Workers, Children, Community Members

Additional Sample Language

2. Frame the Problem: A Threat to Values

Rights Violations

Community Disruption

Sample Language: Op-­Ed Excerpt

Unacceptable Tactics: Racial Profiling

Wrong Priorities: Misguided Spending

Sample language

3. Redirect: Talk Choices and Alternative Solutions

Keep Solutions Front and Center

Clearly State Who Should Do What

Sample Language

Lead with a Positive Vision and Shared Values

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

Audience Considerations

Tips for Talking Racial Profiling

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

Talking about Violence against Police

Sample Messages

Additional Messages

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

Selected Facts on Discrimination, Police Violence, and Equal Opportunity

Communication Themes:

Additional Communication Resources

Tips

Sample Language

Talking about Immigrants Convicted of Serious Offenses

1. Social Norms

2. Loss Aversion

3. Limited Attention

4. Identity

YOUR VISION. YOUR FUTURE. YOUR LEGACY.

Hot Topics:

Sample Language: Op-Ed Excerpt

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