Talking
Criminal Justice
and Public Safety:
A FrameWorks Message Memo

Prepared for the FrameWorks Institute by:
Susan Nall Bales with Courtney D. Cogburn
June 2014

In Partnership with the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for
Race and Justice at Harvard University Law School

Table of Contents
Introduction...............................................................................................................................3
The Approach ........................................................................................................................................4
Charting the Landscape: Default Patterns of Thinking .....................................................9
Gaps in Understanding .........................................................................................................12
Redirections ............................................................................................................................14
Values.....................................................................................................................................................14
Values + Facts .....................................................................................................................................15
Explanatory Metaphors...................................................................................................................17
Solutions ..................................................................................................................................21
Traps in Public Thinking ........................................................................................................22
Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................24
About the Institute.................................................................................................................25
Appendix A ..............................................................................................................................26
Endnotes ..................................................................................................................................28

PERTINENT
FINDINGS

MEDIA CONTENT FIELD FRAME CULTURAL
ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS
MODELS

MAP
THE GAPS

EXPLANATORY
METAPHOR

VALUES

MESSAGE
MEMO

Introduction
“So	
  justice	
  is	
  a	
  dif/icult	
  and	
  at	
  times	
  an	
  uncertain	
  concept.	
  It	
  is	
  probably	
  for	
  this	
  reason	
  that	
  
the	
  story	
  is	
  sometimes	
  told	
  of	
  a	
  young	
  attorney	
  who	
  once	
  made	
  a	
  legal	
  argument	
  before	
  Oliver	
  
Wendell	
  Holmes,	
  Jr.,	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  most	
  famous	
  judges	
  in	
  American	
  history.	
  When	
  the	
  attorney	
  
proclaimed	
  that	
  justice	
  favored	
  his	
  client	
  and	
  that	
  justice	
  called	
  for	
  his	
  client	
  to	
  be	
  freed,	
  
Holmes	
  responded	
  ‘This	
  is	
  a	
  court	
  of	
  law,	
  young	
  man,	
  not	
  a	
  court	
  of	
  justice.’	
  While	
  this	
  
exchange	
  may	
  never	
  have	
  actually	
  happened,	
  it	
  does	
  reveal	
  the	
  tension	
  between	
  law	
  and	
  
justice,	
  and	
  the	
  importance	
  of	
  knowing	
  the	
  difference	
  between	
  the	
  two.”1 	
  
–	
  Buckner	
  F.	
  Melton,	
  Criminal	
  Justice:	
  The	
  Law

Criminal	
  justice	
  reform	
  advocates	
  are	
  cautiously	
  optimistic	
  that	
  their	
  day	
  in	
  court	
  may	
  have	
  
arrived	
  at	
  long	
  last.	
  “Decades	
  after	
  the	
  start	
  of	
  the	
  so-­‐called	
  ‘tough	
  on	
  crime’	
  era,	
  the	
  U.S.	
  
slowly	
  seems	
  to	
  be	
  inching	
  away	
  from	
  the	
  failed	
  policies	
  that	
  have	
  made	
  it	
  the	
  world’s	
  
largest	
  incarcerator,”	
  writes	
  Rosenberg	
  Foundation	
  President	
  Tim	
  Silard	
  in	
  the	
  HufLington	
  
Post.2 	
  With	
  top	
  leadership	
  at	
  the	
  Department	
  of	
  Justice	
  pushing	
  for	
  sentencing	
  reform,	
  a	
  
growing	
  number	
  of	
  states	
  closing	
  prisons	
  in	
  favor	
  of	
  treatment	
  and	
  prevention	
  programs,	
  
an	
  unlikely	
  bipartisan	
  coalition	
  of	
  elected	
  ofLicials	
  in	
  Congress	
  supporting	
  reductions	
  in	
  our	
  
prison	
  population,	
  and	
  a	
  long-­‐awaited	
  report	
  on	
  mass	
  incarceration	
  due	
  from	
  the	
  National	
  
Academy	
  of	
  Sciences,	
  the	
  Lield	
  appears	
  poised	
  to	
  advance	
  progressive	
  reforms	
  in	
  criminal	
  
justice	
  policy	
  and	
  practice	
  at	
  both	
  the	
  state	
  and	
  federal	
  levels.
Even	
  with	
  the	
  stars	
  seemingly	
  aligned,	
  however,	
  achieving	
  comprehensive	
  and	
  systemic	
  
changes	
  to	
  our	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  will	
  be	
  a	
  monumental	
  challenge.	
  As	
  Harvard	
  
sociologist	
  Bruce	
  Western	
  has	
  written,	
  “If	
  the	
  prison	
  boom	
  was	
  indeed	
  produced	
  by	
  a	
  
historic	
  collision	
  between	
  the	
  jobless	
  ghetto	
  and	
  a	
  punitive	
  politics	
  of	
  civil	
  rights	
  backlash,	
  
retreating	
  from	
  mass	
  incarceration	
  will	
  involve	
  equally	
  fundamental	
  shifts	
  in	
  politics	
  and	
  
economics.” 3	
  Whether	
  the	
  moment	
  for	
  transformational	
  change	
  will	
  be	
  realized	
  depends,	
  to	
  
a	
  signiLicant	
  degree,	
  on	
  the	
  framing	
  of	
  a	
  new	
  discourse,	
  social	
  movements	
  scholars	
  tell	
  us.4 	
  
And,	
  advocates	
  will	
  need	
  effective	
  and	
  compelling	
  public	
  messages	
  that	
  are	
  consistently	
  
communicated	
  by	
  the	
  broadest	
  possible	
  coalition	
  of	
  individuals	
  and	
  organizations.	
  Indeed,	
  
the	
  communication	
  strategies	
  used	
  by	
  advocates	
  of	
  reform	
  will	
  determine	
  whether	
  this	
  
current	
  window	
  of	
  opportunity	
  results	
  in	
  modest	
  incremental	
  changes,	
  or	
  in	
  the	
  
“fundamental	
  shifts”	
  that	
  Western	
  notes.	
  

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

3

The	
  ways	
  these	
  issues	
  are	
  framed	
  to	
  the	
  public	
  will	
  “make	
  it	
  possible	
  for	
  some	
  things	
  and	
  
not	
  others	
  to	
  happen.”5	
  Racial	
  disparities	
  in	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  provide	
  a	
  case	
  in	
  
point.	
  For	
  years,	
  advocates	
  have	
  received	
  confusing,	
  often	
  contradictory	
  guidance	
  as	
  to	
  how	
  
and	
  when	
  to	
  raise	
  issues	
  of	
  race	
  in	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  criminal	
  justice	
  reform.	
  Yet,	
  unless	
  the	
  
stark	
  racial	
  disparities	
  that	
  characterize	
  our	
  current	
  system	
  are	
  addressed,	
  it	
  is	
  unlikely	
  
that	
  any	
  reforms	
  achieved	
  will	
  fully	
  treat	
  the	
  disproportional	
  impact	
  of	
  current	
  criminal	
  
justice	
  policies	
  on	
  communities	
  of	
  color.	
  To	
  date,	
  there	
  have	
  been	
  few	
  empirical	
  studies	
  
based	
  in	
  rigorous	
  and	
  sound	
  methodology	
  to	
  guide	
  those	
  framing	
  a	
  new	
  narrative	
  to	
  choose	
  
wisely	
  among	
  discursive	
  options.
The	
  FrameWorks	
  Institute	
  was	
  tasked	
  with	
  providing	
  a	
  communications	
  strategy	
  for	
  
understanding	
  and	
  responding	
  to	
  the	
  needs,	
  challenges	
  and	
  necessary	
  reforms	
  of	
  America’s	
  
criminal	
  justice	
  systems.6 	
  To	
  achieve	
  this	
  goal,	
  the	
  FrameWorks	
  Institute	
  conducted	
  a	
  
series	
  of	
  multi-­‐method	
  studies	
  comparing	
  expert	
  views	
  to	
  public	
  understandings,	
  and	
  
experimenting	
  with	
  alternative	
  approaches	
  to	
  framing	
  these	
  issues	
  that	
  better	
  align	
  public	
  
with	
  expert	
  views.	
  The	
  product	
  of	
  this	
  research	
  is	
  a	
  set	
  of	
  communications	
  tools	
  and	
  
strategic	
  recommendations	
  that	
  criminal	
  justice	
  experts	
  and	
  advocates	
  can	
  use	
  to	
  
effectively	
  reframe	
  the	
  issue	
  of	
  public	
  safety	
  and	
  criminal	
  justice	
  in	
  a	
  manner	
  that	
  promotes	
  
public	
  understanding	
  of,	
  and	
  support	
  for,	
  necessary	
  reforms.

The	
  Approach
The	
  research	
  reports	
  that	
  emanate	
  from	
  this	
  inquiry	
  follow	
  the	
  theory	
  and	
  methods7	
  of	
  
Strategic	
  Frame	
  Analysis™8,	
  a	
  multi-­‐method,	
  multi-­‐disciplinary	
  approach	
  to	
  the	
  empirical	
  
study	
  of	
  communications.	
  Using	
  qualitative	
  and	
  quantitative	
  techniques	
  from	
  psychological	
  
anthropology	
  to	
  social	
  psychology,	
  the	
  FrameWorks	
  Institute	
  documents	
  how	
  people	
  think	
  
about	
  an	
  issue	
  and	
  what	
  effects	
  different	
  communications	
  presentations	
  might	
  have	
  on	
  
their	
  understanding,	
  engagement	
  and	
  policy	
  support.	
  Our	
  research	
  examines	
  the	
  cultural	
  
and	
  cognitive	
  biases	
  people	
  hold	
  that	
  prevent	
  them	
  from	
  being	
  open	
  to	
  new	
  information	
  
and	
  that	
  can,	
  in	
  some	
  cases,	
  reinforce	
  unproductive	
  ways	
  of	
  thinking	
  about	
  an	
  issue	
  and	
  
inhibit	
  considerations	
  of	
  meaningful	
  change.	
  FrameWorks	
  research	
  identiLies	
  those	
  biases	
  
and	
  the	
  images	
  that	
  have	
  the	
  power	
  to	
  overcome	
  or	
  circumvent	
  these	
  cognitive	
  
impediments,	
  allowing	
  new	
  information	
  to	
  be	
  heard,	
  understood	
  and	
  used.	
  For	
  more	
  than	
  
three	
  years,	
  the	
  FrameWorks	
  Institute	
  has	
  studied	
  the	
  images	
  that	
  come	
  to	
  mind	
  when	
  
people	
  think	
  about	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system.	
  As	
  a	
  result,	
  our	
  Lindings	
  reLlect	
  the	
  views	
  of	
  
more	
  than	
  10,000	
  informants	
  and	
  a	
  systematic	
  analysis	
  of	
  more	
  than	
  500	
  documents.	
  This	
  
is	
  the	
  empirical	
  basis	
  from	
  which	
  the	
  following	
  advice	
  is	
  derived.	
  

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

4

In	
  this	
  approach,	
  FrameWorks	
  hews	
  closely	
  to	
  extant	
  academic	
  social	
  science	
  theory	
  and	
  
methods.	
  Put	
  simply,	
  we	
  investigate	
  the	
  “pictures	
  in	
  people’s	
  heads”	
  that	
  come	
  to	
  mind	
  
when	
  they	
  are	
  asked	
  to	
  think	
  about	
  criminal	
  justice	
  and	
  related	
  reforms.	
  Several	
  decades	
  of	
  
social	
  science	
  research 9	
  demonstrate	
  that,	
  when	
  asked	
  to	
  reason	
  about	
  unfamiliar	
  topics,	
  
people	
  “Lill	
  in”	
  the	
  holes	
  in	
  their	
  knowledge	
  with	
  models	
  they	
  associate	
  with	
  the	
  topic.10	
  Far	
  
from	
  being	
  empty	
  vessels	
  eager	
  to	
  take	
  in	
  new	
  information,	
  the	
  public’s	
  systematic	
  
assignment	
  of	
  certain	
  models	
  to	
  a	
  topic	
  represents	
  the	
  “swamp”	
  of	
  thinking	
  that	
  members	
  
of	
  a	
  culture	
  share	
  and	
  use	
  to	
  make	
  meaning	
  of	
  information	
  –	
  a	
  process	
  that	
  frequently	
  
results	
  in	
  blocking	
  out	
  new	
  and	
  contesting	
  information.	
  We	
  document	
  these	
  existing	
  
models	
  using	
  interview	
  and	
  analysis	
  techniques	
  drawn	
  from	
  cognitive	
  anthropology11 	
  and	
  
we	
  compare	
  them	
  to	
  the	
  ways	
  that	
  experts	
  in	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  Lield	
  view	
  both	
  the	
  
challenges	
  of	
  public	
  safety	
  and	
  the	
  relevant	
  solutions.	
  Moreover,	
  by	
  testing	
  the	
  way	
  these	
  
frames	
  shift	
  or	
  harden	
  in	
  group	
  settings,	
  we	
  are	
  able	
  to	
  adopt	
  a	
  sociological	
  perspective	
  
that	
  explains	
  the	
  expectations	
  people	
  in	
  a	
  culture	
  hold	
  about	
  the	
  views	
  of	
  their	
  fellow	
  
citizens	
  and	
  the	
  conformity	
  they	
  enforce	
  to	
  Lit	
  their	
  views	
  to	
  these	
  assumptions.
Closing	
  the	
  gap	
  between	
  these	
  worldviews	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  help	
  ordinary	
  people	
  get	
  a	
  more	
  
informed	
  view	
  on	
  a	
  given	
  issue	
  constitutes	
  the	
  challenge	
  of	
  reframing.	
  And,	
  because	
  we	
  
understand	
  that	
  opinion	
  is	
  frame-­‐dependent,	
  or	
  subject	
  to	
  the	
  presentation	
  of	
  a	
  particular	
  
problem,	
  we	
  experiment	
  with	
  different	
  ways	
  to	
  frame	
  the	
  issue	
  that	
  might	
  help	
  people	
  
more	
  productively	
  Lill	
  in	
  the	
  holes	
  in	
  their	
  understanding.	
  To	
  overcome	
  persistent	
  and	
  
unproductive	
  associations,	
  FrameWorks	
  develops	
  and	
  tests	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  powerful	
  frame	
  
elements	
  –	
  in	
  this	
  instance,	
  Values	
  and	
  Explanatory	
  Metaphors.	
  In	
  both	
  cases,	
  FrameWorks	
  
researchers	
  match	
  the	
  task	
  identiLied	
  in	
  the	
  gap	
  analysis	
  to	
  the	
  role	
  that	
  these	
  frame	
  
elements	
  can	
  play	
  in	
  redirecting	
  thinking.	
  From	
  its	
  voluminous	
  research	
  on	
  how	
  Americans	
  
think	
  about	
  social	
  issues	
  –	
  from	
  child	
  development	
  and	
  race	
  to	
  government	
  and	
  
environmental	
  health	
  –	
  FrameWorks	
  selected	
  values	
  that	
  have	
  demonstrated,	
  in	
  several	
  
quantitative	
  experiments,	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  re-­‐orient	
  people	
  to	
  seeing	
  public	
  safety	
  as	
  a	
  public	
  
issue	
  that	
  society	
  needs	
  to	
  support	
  with	
  public	
  dollars,	
  programs	
  and	
  policies.	
  These	
  
experiments	
  test	
  each	
  value’s	
  ability	
  to	
  increase	
  support	
  for	
  speciLic	
  reforms.	
  That	
  is,	
  they	
  
are	
  not	
  popularity	
  contests,	
  but	
  rather	
  use	
  random	
  assignment	
  to	
  test	
  the	
  comparative	
  
advantages	
  of	
  using	
  particular	
  values	
  according	
  to	
  the	
  way	
  they	
  advance	
  policy	
  support.	
  
FrameWorks	
  borrows	
  theories	
  and	
  methods	
  from	
  cognitive	
  linguistics	
  that	
  document	
  the	
  
power	
  of	
  metaphor	
  in	
  people’s	
  reasoning12	
  to	
  generate	
  a	
  series	
  of	
  candidate	
  metaphors	
  
that	
  might	
  productively	
  re-­‐channel	
  people’s	
  default	
  thought	
  patterns,	
  and	
  create	
  room	
  for	
  
the	
  consideration	
  of	
  new	
  information.	
  These	
  familiar	
  everyday	
  analogies	
  are	
  tested	
  
quantitatively	
  and	
  qualitatively	
  to	
  see	
  whether,	
  in	
  fact,	
  they	
  fulLill	
  this	
  task.	
  In	
  large	
  survey	
  
experiments,	
  the	
  metaphors	
  are	
  analyzed	
  for	
  their	
  ability	
  to	
  overcome	
  those	
  default	
  

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

5

patterns	
  and	
  to	
  help	
  people	
  choose	
  remedies	
  more	
  closely	
  aligned	
  with	
  those	
  put	
  forward	
  
by	
  criminal	
  justice	
  experts.	
  In	
  several	
  types	
  of	
  qualitative	
  tests,	
  FrameWorks	
  researchers	
  
analyze	
  individual	
  interviews	
  and	
  group	
  discussions	
  to	
  ensure	
  that	
  the	
  set	
  of	
  reLined	
  
metaphors	
  that	
  emerges	
  from	
  the	
  quantitative	
  pruning	
  are	
  sufLiciently	
  colloquial	
  and	
  
durable	
  to	
  pass	
  into	
  public	
  discourse.	
  In	
  all	
  these	
  tests	
  FrameWorks	
  measures	
  these	
  frame	
  
elements	
  using	
  established	
  scientiLic	
  techniques,	
  to	
  make	
  certain	
  that	
  the	
  recommended	
  
frame	
  elements	
  exhibit	
  demonstrable	
  improvements	
  both	
  in	
  the	
  public’s	
  thinking	
  about	
  
public	
  safety,	
  and	
  in	
  choosing	
  better	
  policies	
  and	
  programs	
  than	
  those	
  they	
  currently	
  
derive	
  from	
  their	
  default	
  ways	
  of	
  understanding.	
  
A	
  systematic	
  analysis	
  of	
  the	
  ways	
  that	
  the	
  leading	
  criminal	
  justice	
  advocates	
  and	
  experts	
  
are	
  framing	
  their	
  messages	
  allows	
  FrameWorks	
  researchers	
  to	
  home	
  in	
  on	
  those	
  
assumptions	
  of	
  message	
  efLicacy	
  that	
  are	
  not	
  borne	
  out	
  by	
  the	
  research,	
  and	
  to	
  suggest	
  
opportunities	
  to	
  improve	
  messaging	
  more	
  generally.
This	
  MessageMemo	
  summarizes	
  and	
  synthesizes	
  the	
  body	
  of	
  research	
  conducted	
  by	
  the	
  
FrameWorks	
  Institute	
  in	
  partnership	
  with	
  the	
  Charles	
  Hamilton	
  Houston	
  Institute	
  for	
  Race	
  
and	
  Justice	
  at	
  Harvard	
  Law	
  School.13 	
  While	
  the	
  Ford	
  Foundation	
  funded	
  the	
  research	
  that	
  
informs	
  this	
  memo,	
  the	
  Rosenberg	
  Foundation	
  supported	
  this	
  synthesis	
  and	
  interpretation	
  
of	
  that	
  research.	
  	
  The	
  research	
  base	
  informing	
  this	
  MessageMemo	
  is	
  as	
  follows.	
  
1.	
   Experts’	
  Core	
  Story:	
  FrameWorks	
  Lirst	
  conducted	
  an	
  extensive	
  review	
  of	
  materials	
  
from	
  more	
  than	
  60	
  advocacy	
  organizations	
  to	
  compose	
  an	
  aggregation	
  of	
  the	
  
unreLined	
  “core	
  story”	
  being	
  communicated	
  by	
  advocacy	
  organizations	
  and	
  
experts.14 	
  The	
  story	
  that	
  emerged	
  from	
  this	
  initial	
  analysis	
  was	
  then	
  recalibrated	
  
according	
  to	
  the	
  reactions	
  and	
  critiques	
  of	
  public	
  safety	
  and	
  criminal	
  justice	
  experts.
2.	
   The	
  Public’s	
  Story:	
  In-­‐depth,	
  one-­‐on-­‐one	
  interviews	
  to	
  identify	
  cultural	
  models15	
  
and	
  gaps	
  in	
  thinking	
  between	
  experts	
  and	
  the	
  general	
  public	
  were	
  conducted	
  in	
  
December	
  2010	
  and	
  January	
  2011	
  with	
  20	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  American	
  general	
  public,	
  
who	
  were	
  asked	
  to	
  discuss	
  public	
  safety	
  and	
  criminal	
  justice	
  and	
  the	
  connections	
  
between	
  these	
  phenomena.16	
  Elements	
  of	
  social	
  discourse	
  analysis,	
  cultural	
  models	
  
analysis	
  and	
  grounded	
  theory	
  were	
  then	
  applied	
  to	
  identify	
  shared	
  cultural	
  models,	
  
or	
  common	
  ways	
  of	
  talking	
  (or	
  not	
  talking)	
  about	
  public	
  safety.
3.	
   Social	
  Norms	
  and	
  Possibilities:	
  Six	
  peer	
  discourse	
  sessions,17 	
  each	
  composed	
  of	
  
nine	
  participants,	
  were	
  conducted	
  with	
  a	
  diverse	
  group	
  of	
  civically	
  engaged	
  U.S.	
  
citizens	
  in	
  March	
  and	
  April	
  2011	
  in	
  three	
  cities:	
  Tampa,	
  Fla.,	
  Baltimore,	
  Md.,	
  and	
  Los	
  

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

6

Angeles,	
  Calif.	
  These	
  sessions	
  provided	
  an	
  opportunity	
  to	
  see	
  how	
  cultural	
  models	
  
function	
  in	
  a	
  group	
  setting,	
  where	
  cultural	
  norms	
  are	
  evident;	
  and	
  allow	
  
FrameWorks	
  to	
  begin	
  experimenting	
  with	
  reframing	
  tools	
  and	
  strategic	
  
recommendations	
  to	
  redirect	
  or	
  create	
  different	
  patterns	
  of	
  group	
  conversation.
4.	
   Explanatory	
  Metaphor	
  Reframes:	
  Building	
  from	
  data	
  generated	
  during	
  the	
  
cultural	
  models	
  interviews	
  and	
  peer	
  discourse	
  sessions,	
  specialists	
  in	
  linguistics,	
  
cultural	
  models	
  and	
  cognitive	
  theory	
  followed	
  a	
  multi-­‐phase	
  process	
  to	
  generate,	
  
design	
  and	
  test	
  Explanatory	
  Metaphors.18 	
  Effective	
  Explanatory	
  Metaphors	
  were	
  
ultimately	
  selected	
  based	
  on	
  how	
  effectively	
  they	
  clariLied	
  and	
  shifted	
  perspectives	
  
to	
  support	
  the	
  experts’	
  views	
  and	
  recommended	
  policies.
5.	
   Values	
  and	
  Facts	
  Reframes:	
  An	
  experimental	
  survey	
  with	
  8,000	
  respondents	
  was	
  
conducted	
  to	
  test	
  value-­‐based	
  frames	
  combined	
  with	
  those	
  facts	
  typically	
  used	
  by	
  
advocates	
  in	
  their	
  messaging	
  as	
  primes	
  to	
  more	
  productive	
  thinking	
  about	
  criminal	
  
justice	
  policies.19
6.	
   Field	
  Frame	
  Analysis:	
  Working	
  with	
  our	
  partners	
  at	
  the	
  Houston	
  Institute,	
  
FrameWorks	
  helped	
  analyze	
  216	
  documents	
  drawn	
  from	
  the	
  websites	
  of	
  18	
  of	
  the	
  
most	
  prominent	
  communicators	
  on	
  these	
  issues,	
  allowing	
  us	
  to	
  compare	
  the	
  
challenges	
  and	
  opportunities	
  in	
  reframing	
  the	
  Lield’s	
  main	
  narratives	
  on	
  criminal	
  
justice	
  issues.20
All	
  in	
  all,	
  more	
  than	
  10,000	
  Americans	
  were	
  queried	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  this	
  research,	
  and	
  roughly	
  
500	
  documents	
  analyzed.	
  All	
  reports	
  are	
  published	
  at	
  www.frameworksinstitute.org.	
  We	
  
recommend	
  communicators	
  utilize	
  this	
  MessageMemo	
  as	
  a	
  broad	
  orientation	
  to	
  the	
  
research,	
  and	
  consult	
  the	
  original	
  reports	
  for	
  the	
  nuance	
  and	
  detail	
  necessary	
  to	
  effectively	
  
challenge	
  their	
  own	
  creativity	
  to	
  apply	
  this	
  learning.	
  
Advocates	
  often	
  ask	
  how	
  this	
  research	
  differs	
  from	
  or	
  complements	
  other	
  opinion	
  research	
  
techniques	
  and	
  Lindings.	
  This	
  is	
  a	
  complicated	
  question,	
  given	
  the	
  variations	
  in	
  approaches	
  
used	
  by	
  public	
  opinion	
  consultants.	
  Polls	
  and	
  focus	
  groups	
  may	
  yield	
  interesting	
  
descriptive	
  information,	
  but	
  are	
  rarely	
  generalizable,	
  unless	
  rigorously	
  controlled.	
  We	
  
suggest	
  the	
  research	
  described	
  here	
  be	
  used	
  to	
  more	
  effectively	
  interpret	
  and	
  evaluate	
  the	
  
data	
  and	
  Lindings	
  derived	
  from	
  more	
  traditional	
  polling	
  audience	
  research.	
  	
  
We	
  strongly	
  suggest	
  that	
  advocates	
  hold	
  all	
  opinion	
  research	
  to	
  high	
  standards;	
  to	
  that	
  end,	
  
we	
  suggest	
  that	
  effective	
  research	
  be	
  deLined	
  by	
  the	
  following	
  criteria:	
  (1)	
  the	
  work	
  

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

7

represents	
  a	
  sizeable	
  body	
  of	
  research;	
  (2)	
  the	
  results	
  reported	
  are	
  consistent	
  across	
  
multiple	
  methods,	
  samples	
  and	
  geographies;	
  (3)	
  the	
  prescriptive	
  recommendations	
  are	
  not	
  
intuited	
  from	
  the	
  descriptive	
  research	
  but,	
  rather,	
  are	
  extensively	
  tested	
  through	
  
experimental	
  methods	
  to	
  ensure	
  their	
  validity;	
  (4)	
  any	
  prescriptive	
  recommendations	
  are	
  
judged	
  and	
  interpreted	
  against	
  a	
  scientiLic	
  understanding	
  of	
  how	
  people	
  think	
  and	
  reason	
  
about	
  the	
  issue;	
  (5)	
  the	
  frame	
  elements	
  tested	
  are	
  rigorously	
  controlled	
  so	
  that	
  any	
  
variation	
  in	
  outcomes	
  is	
  attributed	
  to	
  the	
  frames,	
  not	
  to	
  uncontrolled	
  aspects	
  of	
  the	
  
execution;	
  (6)	
  random	
  assignment,	
  consistent	
  with	
  the	
  gold	
  standard	
  of	
  social	
  science	
  
research,	
  is	
  used	
  to	
  ensure	
  that	
  the	
  Lindings	
  are	
  statistically	
  signiLicant	
  and	
  reliable,	
  not	
  
mere	
  artifacts	
  of	
  order,	
  priming	
  or	
  fatigue	
  effects;	
  and	
  (7)	
  research	
  instruments	
  and	
  data	
  
are	
  transparent,	
  consistent	
  with	
  the	
  scientiLic	
  standards	
  of	
  peer	
  review.
Advocates	
  will	
  likely	
  Lind	
  themes	
  and	
  observations	
  in	
  this	
  work	
  that	
  resonate	
  with	
  those	
  
identiLied	
  by	
  other	
  researchers.	
  We	
  suggest	
  that	
  communicators	
  consider	
  both	
  
theoretically	
  and	
  practically	
  how	
  they	
  will	
  conceptualize	
  the	
  challenges	
  they	
  confront,	
  and	
  
what	
  tools	
  they	
  have	
  to	
  address	
  those	
  speciLic	
  challenges.	
  It	
  is	
  in	
  support	
  of	
  this	
  systematic	
  
and	
  strategic	
  approach	
  	
  that,	
  FrameWorks	
  believes,	
  its	
  research	
  demonstrates	
  its	
  
contribution.
The	
  MessageMemo	
  is	
  organized	
  as	
  follows:
• We	
  Lirst	
  Chart	
  the	
  Landscape	
  of	
  public	
  thinking	
  by	
  providing	
  a	
  description	
  of	
  
dominant	
  patterns	
  that	
  are	
  chronically	
  accessible	
  to	
  the	
  general	
  public	
  when	
  
thinking	
  about	
  public	
  safety	
  and	
  criminal	
  justice;	
  we	
  also	
  explore	
  the	
  
communications	
  implications	
  of	
  these	
  dominant	
  models.	
  
• We	
  then	
  identify	
  the	
  Gaps	
  in	
  Understanding	
  between	
  experts	
  and	
  civically	
  engaged	
  
Americans.	
  These	
  gaps	
  are	
  speciLic	
  locations	
  where	
  translation	
  is	
  needed	
  if	
  expert	
  
knowledge	
  is	
  to	
  become	
  accessible	
  to	
  the	
  public	
  in	
  understanding	
  and	
  reasoning	
  
about	
  public	
  safety.	
  
• We	
  then	
  provide	
  an	
  outline	
  of	
  Redirections,	
  research-­‐based	
  recommendations	
  that	
  
represent	
  promising	
  routes	
  for	
  improving	
  public	
  understanding	
  of	
  the	
  criminal	
  
justice	
  system.
•

We	
  end	
  with	
  an	
  overview	
  of	
  Traps	
  in	
  Public	
  and	
  Expert	
  Thinking	
  that	
  must	
  be	
  
avoided	
  if	
  reframing	
  is	
  to	
  succeed.	
  

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

8

I. Charting the Landscape: Default Patterns of Thinking
In	
  this	
  section,	
  we	
  discuss	
  the	
  most	
  prevalent	
  and	
  highly	
  shared	
  paths,	
  or	
  “cultural	
  
models,” 21	
  that	
  ordinary	
  Americans	
  rely	
  on	
  when	
  asked	
  to	
  think	
  about	
  what	
  public	
  safety	
  is,	
  
how	
  it	
  occurs,	
  and	
  what	
  can	
  and	
  should	
  be	
  done	
  to	
  address	
  it.	
  Addressing	
  these	
  patterns	
  in	
  
understanding	
  is	
  a	
  core	
  challenge	
  of	
  reframing	
  strategies.	
  In	
  order	
  to	
  build	
  new	
  
understandings	
  of	
  public	
  safety,	
  communicators	
  must	
  become	
  familiar	
  with	
  default	
  
patterns	
  of	
  thinking	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  accurately	
  anticipate	
  and	
  address	
  barriers	
  to	
  effective	
  
communication.	
  
The	
  system:	
  Americans	
  largely	
  understand	
  public	
  safety	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  the	
  front-­‐line	
  
responders	
  they	
  see	
  in	
  their	
  everyday	
  lives,	
  including	
  police,	
  Lire	
  Lighters	
  and	
  other	
  security	
  
personnel.	
  There	
  is	
  also	
  recognition	
  that	
  the	
  system	
  includes	
  corrupt	
  individuals	
  (the	
  “bad	
  
cop”)	
  who	
  undermine	
  the	
  system’s	
  functionality.	
  Americans	
  also	
  perceive	
  a	
  disconnection	
  
between	
  what	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  should	
  be	
  doing	
  and	
  how	
  it	
  actually	
  operates.
Government,	
  communities	
  and	
  citizens	
  are	
  responsible:	
  Public	
  safety	
  is	
  understood	
  
through	
  a	
  dispersed	
  model	
  of	
  responsibility	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  government,	
  local	
  communities	
  
and	
  individuals	
  are	
  responsible	
  for	
  maintaining	
  public	
  safety.	
  However,	
  because	
  of	
  public	
  
pessimism	
  associated	
  with	
  government	
  action	
  –	
  it	
  is	
  often	
  thought	
  of	
  as	
  corrupt,	
  wasteful	
  
and	
  inefLicient	
  –	
  realistically,	
  Americans	
  look	
  to	
  themselves	
  and	
  community-­‐based	
  
solutions	
  for	
  maintaining	
  public	
  safety.
ConQlicting	
  ideas	
  about	
  the	
  causes	
  of	
  crime:	
  Americans	
  understand	
  the	
  causes	
  of	
  crime	
  
through	
  the	
  application	
  of	
  two	
  distinct,	
  conLlicting	
  cultural	
  models.	
  The	
  Lirst	
  model,	
  the	
  
most	
  dominant,	
  attributes	
  crime	
  to	
  individuals	
  who	
  weigh	
  costs	
  and	
  beneLits	
  of	
  committing	
  
crimes	
  either	
  consciously	
  or	
  unconsciously	
  (rational-­‐actor	
  thinking),	
  or	
  who	
  Lit	
  a	
  set	
  of	
  
criminal	
  “personality	
  types”	
  (“rotten	
  eggs”/determinism).	
  Family	
  upbringing	
  is	
  routinely	
  
looked	
  to	
  for	
  the	
  seeds	
  of	
  criminal	
  activity.	
  The	
  second	
  model	
  is	
  more	
  recessive,	
  and	
  
explains	
  crime	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  ecological	
  determinants,	
  including	
  early	
  experiences	
  and	
  
developmental	
  factors.	
  
Peer	
  discourse	
  sessions	
  demonstrated	
  that	
  the	
  relative	
  strength	
  of	
  the	
  cultural	
  models	
  
depends	
  on	
  the	
  racial	
  and	
  ethnic	
  makeup	
  of	
  the	
  discussion	
  groups.	
  All	
  groups	
  expressed	
  the	
  
understanding	
  that	
  crime	
  is	
  an	
  individualized	
  phenomenon	
  –	
  that	
  it	
  is	
  caused	
  by	
  
pathological	
  individuals,	
  it	
  is	
  most	
  effectively	
  dealt	
  with	
  through	
  increased	
  policing,	
  and	
  
that	
  individuals	
  are	
  responsible	
  for	
  ensuring	
  their	
  own	
  safety	
  and	
  that	
  of	
  their	
  

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

9

communities.	
  However,	
  while	
  African-­‐American	
  and	
  Latino	
  groups	
  strongly	
  reiterated	
  
these	
  individualized	
  models,	
  they	
  engaged	
  in	
  more	
  robust	
  discussions	
  about	
  racial	
  
inequities	
  within	
  the	
  system.	
  Put	
  differently,	
  participants	
  of	
  color	
  in	
  these	
  sessions	
  were	
  
closer	
  to	
  the	
  expert	
  story	
  of	
  criminal	
  justice,	
  while	
  still	
  expressing	
  the	
  dominant,	
  
individualized	
  models	
  described	
  above.
Types	
  and	
  rates	
  of	
  crime:	
  Americans	
  distinguish	
  between	
  violent	
  crime	
  and	
  all	
  other	
  
types	
  of	
  crime.	
  They	
  assign	
  punishment	
  according	
  to	
  a	
  “violence	
  threshold”	
  that	
  should	
  
determine	
  the	
  severity	
  of	
  resulting	
  punishment.	
  The	
  public	
  believes	
  that	
  rates	
  of	
  
incarceration	
  are	
  high	
  because	
  of	
  effective	
  policing	
  and	
  population	
  growth.
Opposing	
  logics	
  of	
  “fair”	
  sentencing:	
  Americans	
  believe	
  that	
  “fairness”	
  should	
  determine	
  
sentencing,	
  but	
  they	
  apply	
  this	
  value	
  in	
  two	
  opposing	
  ways.	
  The	
  uniform	
  model	
  of	
  fairness	
  
posits	
  that	
  punishments	
  for	
  crimes	
  should	
  be	
  Lixed	
  regardless	
  of	
  the	
  circumstances	
  
surrounding	
  the	
  crime.	
  The	
  contrasting	
  contextual	
  model	
  of	
  fairness	
  holds	
  that	
  sentencing	
  
should	
  consider	
  the	
  crime’s	
  unique	
  circumstances,	
  including	
  the	
  defendant’s	
  upbringing,	
  
criminal	
  history,	
  mental	
  health,	
  intent	
  and	
  evidence	
  of	
  remorse.	
  
Solutions:	
  The	
  cultural	
  models	
  used	
  to	
  think	
  about	
  causes	
  of	
  crime	
  greatly	
  affect	
  which	
  
solutions	
  are	
  salient	
  to	
  people.	
  Without	
  priming,	
  people	
  looking	
  for	
  who	
  might	
  be	
  
responsible	
  for	
  solutions	
  tend	
  to	
  fall	
  back	
  on	
  notions	
  of	
  ineffective	
  or	
  corrupt	
  government.	
  
This,	
  in	
  turn,	
  results	
  in	
  a	
  kind	
  of	
  fatalistic	
  attitude	
  –	
  i.e.,	
  that	
  nothing	
  can	
  be	
  done	
  –	
  or	
  a	
  
narrow	
  focus	
  on	
  efforts	
  to	
  expunge	
  “dirty”	
  cops	
  from	
  the	
  system.	
  When	
  individuals	
  employ	
  
rational-­‐actor	
  models,	
  they	
  tend	
  to	
  arrive	
  at	
  a	
  very	
  speciLic	
  and	
  narrow	
  set	
  of	
  solutions	
  that	
  
includes	
  making	
  punishments	
  harsher	
  and	
  sentences	
  more	
  uniform.	
  On	
  the	
  other	
  hand,	
  
when	
  individuals	
  apply	
  more	
  ecological	
  models	
  to	
  think	
  about	
  public	
  safety	
  and	
  criminal	
  
justice,	
  they	
  arrive	
  at	
  contextual,	
  policy	
  and	
  resource-­‐based	
  solutions	
  to	
  problems	
  in	
  these	
  
domains.	
  

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

10

We	
  represent	
  these	
  dominant	
  and	
  recessive	
  patterns	
  in	
  public	
  thinking	
  using	
  the	
  heuristic	
  
of	
  a	
  “swamp”	
  of	
  cultural	
  models.

	
  

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

11

II. Gaps in Understanding
Gaps	
  in	
  understanding	
  are	
  those	
  places	
  where	
  cultural	
  models	
  employed	
  by	
  the	
  public	
  to	
  
think	
  about	
  an	
  issue	
  differ	
  signiLicantly	
  from	
  experts’	
  understanding	
  of	
  the	
  same	
  issue.	
  As	
  
such,	
  gaps	
  in	
  understanding	
  represent	
  strategic	
  framing	
  opportunities	
  that	
  will	
  help	
  bridge	
  
gaps	
  between	
  expert	
  and	
  lay	
  understandings.	
  Although	
  experts	
  and	
  the	
  public	
  share	
  some	
  
understanding	
  of	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  and	
  public	
  safety,	
  there	
  are	
  also	
  substantial	
  
gaps	
  in	
  their	
  conceptualization	
  of	
  these	
  systems.	
  We	
  enumerate	
  these	
  gaps	
  below.	
  In	
  the	
  
subsequent	
  section,	
  we	
  assign	
  speciLic	
  frame	
  elements,	
  such	
  as	
  values	
  and	
  metaphors,	
  to	
  Lill	
  
these	
  gaps.	
  
•

Systems	
  vs.	
  agents:	
  Both	
  experts	
  and	
  the	
  public	
  recognize	
  that	
  there’s	
  a	
  lack	
  of	
  
accountability	
  in	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system.	
  Experts,	
  however,	
  believe	
  that	
  
problems	
  in	
  the	
  system	
  result	
  from	
  poor	
  structuring	
  (e.g.,	
  police	
  quotas,	
  
overwhelming	
  case	
  loads	
  and	
  mandatory	
  sentencing).	
  By	
  contrast,	
  the	
  public	
  tends	
  
to	
  see	
  failures	
  on	
  the	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  as	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  isolated	
  
individuals	
  (e.g.,	
  a	
  lazy	
  cop,	
  a	
  corrupt	
  prosecutor	
  or	
  a	
  crooked	
  warden).	
  Thus,	
  there	
  
is	
  a	
  fundamental	
  gap	
  between	
  solutions	
  that	
  would	
  change	
  the	
  systems	
  associated	
  
with	
  criminal	
  justice	
  and	
  those	
  that	
  would	
  change	
  individual	
  behaviors,	
  whether	
  of	
  
cops	
  or	
  criminals.	
  The	
  public’s	
  focus	
  on	
  individuals	
  as	
  the	
  source	
  of	
  problems	
  
represents	
  a	
  critical	
  gap,	
  and	
  will	
  make	
  it	
  difLicult	
  for	
  advocates	
  to	
  communicate	
  the	
  
need	
  for	
  more	
  structural	
  systemic	
  reform.	
  

•

Dysfunctional	
  system	
  vs.	
  generally	
  working	
  systems:	
  Experts	
  perceive	
  a	
  system	
  
that	
  is	
  not	
  working	
  to	
  advance	
  the	
  country’s	
  goals,	
  is	
  not	
  held	
  accountable	
  to	
  the	
  
broad	
  public	
  interest,	
  and	
  is	
  plagued	
  by	
  poor	
  data	
  collection	
  and	
  management.	
  
Evaluations	
  of	
  the	
  Lit	
  between	
  short-­‐term	
  practices	
  and	
  long-­‐term	
  goals	
  are	
  not	
  top-­‐
of-­‐mind	
  for	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  general	
  public.	
  They	
  are	
  not	
  in	
  the	
  habit	
  of	
  critically	
  
assessing	
  aspects	
  of	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system,	
  and	
  display	
  a	
  blind	
  trust	
  that	
  such	
  
systems	
  are	
  “generally”	
  functioning	
  as	
  they	
  should.22	
  This	
  gap	
  represents	
  an	
  
essential	
  difference	
  in	
  the	
  perception	
  that	
  a	
  problem	
  exists	
  in	
  the	
  Lirst	
  place,	
  and	
  is	
  
therefore	
  a	
  major	
  communications	
  hurdle.	
  

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

12

•

Solutions	
  of	
  quality	
  vs.	
  quantity:	
  Experts	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  quality	
  of	
  criminal	
  justice	
  
interventions,	
  and	
  ways	
  to	
  improve	
  public	
  safety	
  through	
  smarter	
  policy.	
  They	
  
stress	
  that	
  the	
  various	
  approaches	
  to	
  addressing	
  issues	
  in	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  
system	
  vary	
  considerably	
  in	
  their	
  effectiveness.	
  In	
  contrast,	
  the	
  public	
  believes	
  that	
  
“more	
  is	
  better.”	
  Communicators	
  must	
  therefore	
  explain	
  the	
  speciLic	
  factors	
  that	
  
characterize	
  high-­‐quality,	
  effective	
  solutions	
  to	
  criminal	
  justice	
  issues.

•

Bias	
  by	
  race	
  and	
  ethnicity	
  vs.	
  bias	
  by	
  class:	
  While	
  experts	
  view	
  the	
  
disproportionate	
  number	
  of	
  young	
  men	
  of	
  color	
  in	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  as	
  
evidence	
  of	
  systemic	
  inequities,	
  the	
  systemic	
  roots	
  of	
  these	
  disparities	
  are	
  invisible	
  
to	
  many	
  Americans.	
  The	
  public	
  assumes	
  that	
  any	
  unfairness	
  in	
  the	
  system	
  is	
  due	
  to	
  
class,	
  because	
  wealthy	
  people	
  routinely	
  buy	
  their	
  way	
  out	
  of	
  trouble.	
  As	
  noted	
  
above,	
  respondents	
  of	
  color	
  were	
  more	
  likely	
  to	
  focus	
  on	
  racial	
  inequity	
  in	
  the	
  
criminal	
  justice	
  system.	
  However,	
  their	
  discussions	
  were	
  often	
  focused	
  on	
  the	
  
behavior	
  of	
  individuals,	
  such	
  as	
  	
  racist	
  cops	
  and	
  prosecutors,	
  or	
  other	
  “rotten	
  eggs”	
  
in	
  the	
  system.	
  Among	
  all	
  respondents,	
  there	
  was	
  little	
  discussion	
  of	
  institutional	
  or	
  
systemic	
  racism	
  –	
  systemic	
  racial	
  inequities	
  that	
  can	
  be	
  perpetuated	
  without	
  the	
  
conscious	
  intent	
  of	
  individual	
  actors,	
  and	
  that	
  require	
  structural	
  reform.	
  That	
  is,	
  the	
  
strength	
  of	
  individualist	
  understandings	
  about	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system,	
  both	
  in	
  
terms	
  of	
  the	
  commission	
  of	
  crimes	
  and	
  decisions	
  around	
  policing	
  or	
  prosecution,	
  
creates	
  a	
  cognitive	
  blindness	
  to	
  systemic	
  racial	
  bias.	
  This	
  blindness	
  constitutes	
  a	
  
major	
  communications	
  challenge.

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

13

III. Redirections
Building	
  a	
  more	
  productive	
  route	
  along	
  the	
  cognitive	
  map	
  of	
  public	
  safety	
  and	
  criminal	
  
justice	
  will	
  require	
  that	
  communicators	
  address	
  those	
  highly	
  accessible	
  but	
  unproductive	
  
patterns	
  of	
  thinking.	
  The	
  dominant	
  cultural	
  models	
  identiLied	
  above	
  limit	
  the	
  public’s	
  
understanding	
  of	
  the	
  causes	
  of	
  crime,	
  problems	
  with	
  the	
  current	
  system,	
  and	
  solutions	
  that	
  
would	
  make	
  the	
  system	
  more	
  effective	
  and	
  more	
  equitable.	
  Addressing	
  these	
  patterns	
  in	
  
thinking	
  will	
  require	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  proven	
  strategic	
  framing	
  elements	
  that	
  translate	
  expert	
  
understanding.	
  Effective	
  frames	
  clarify	
  what	
  public	
  safety	
  is,	
  how	
  it	
  happens,	
  and	
  how	
  it	
  
can	
  be	
  addressed	
  with	
  evidence-­‐based	
  programs	
  and	
  policies.	
  FrameWorks	
  has	
  
investigated	
  three	
  frame	
  elements	
  –	
  values,	
  fact	
  combinations	
  and	
  Explanatory	
  Metaphors	
  
–	
  as	
  speciLic	
  tools	
  in	
  meeting	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  challenges	
  described	
  above.	
  Based	
  on	
  the	
  
research	
  Lindings,	
  we	
  offer	
  the	
  following	
  evidence-­‐based	
  recommendations	
  for	
  
communicators.	
  

Values23	
  
The	
  identiLication	
  of	
  a	
  potent	
  value	
  set	
  is	
  a	
  prime	
  asset	
  in	
  reframing	
  any	
  issue.	
  Values	
  are	
  
“enduring	
  beliefs,	
  which	
  orient	
  individuals’	
  attitudes	
  and	
  behavior.	
  As	
  such,	
  effective	
  values	
  
form	
  the	
  basis	
  for	
  social	
  appeals	
  that	
  pull	
  audiences’	
  reactions	
  in	
  a	
  desirable	
  direction.” 24	
  
Incorporating	
  values	
  in	
  communications	
  gives	
  audiences	
  a	
  clear	
  sense	
  of	
  what	
  is	
  “at	
  stake,”	
  
which	
  helps	
  to	
  motivate	
  their	
  engagement.	
  Thinking	
  about	
  the	
  “gaps”	
  that	
  assail	
  
understanding	
  of	
  criminal	
  justice	
  issues,	
  we	
  focused	
  on	
  three	
  candidate	
  values	
  that,	
  given	
  
FrameWorks’	
  past	
  research,	
  might	
  positively	
  affect	
  people’s	
  support	
  for	
  reform	
  policies.	
  
The	
  values	
  were	
  Fairness,	
  Prevention	
  and	
  Pragmatism.	
  These	
  candidate	
  values	
  were	
  chosen	
  
for	
  their	
  potential	
  to	
  remind	
  people	
  what	
  values	
  the	
  system	
  should	
  incorporate;	
  get	
  people	
  
to	
  think	
  about	
  root	
  causes	
  of	
  crime;	
  and	
  provide	
  goals	
  for	
  reforming	
  the	
  system,	
  
respectively.	
  A	
  fourth	
  candidate	
  was	
  added	
  in	
  response	
  to	
  the	
  Field	
  Frame	
  Analysis,	
  which	
  
documented	
  the	
  dominance	
  of	
  a	
  Cost	
  Ef/iciency	
  value	
  in	
  advocates’	
  communications.	
  
The	
  performance	
  of	
  the	
  values	
  was	
  assessed	
  according	
  to	
  Live	
  outcome	
  measures,	
  or	
  sets	
  of	
  
attitudes	
  and	
  policies:	
  Causal	
  Attribution	
  of	
  Responsibility,	
  Solutions	
  Attribution	
  of	
  
Responsibility,	
  Juvenile	
  Justice,	
  Racial	
  Disparities	
  and	
  EfLiciency.	
  The	
  ability	
  of	
  a	
  value	
  to	
  
increase	
  support	
  for	
  these	
  attitudes	
  and	
  policies	
  was	
  measured	
  against	
  a	
  control	
  group	
  that	
  
was	
  not	
  exposed	
  to	
  a	
  value.
Pragmatism	
  consistently	
  elevated	
  systems-­‐level	
  thinking	
  and	
  policy	
  support.	
  This	
  value	
  
advocates	
  taking	
  a	
  “common	
  sense”	
  approach	
  to	
  public	
  safety	
  and	
  criminal	
  justice.	
  It	
  

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

14

generally	
  outperformed	
  other	
  values,	
  particularly	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  juvenile	
  justice	
  reform	
  
measures	
  and	
  in	
  assigning	
  responsibility	
  for	
  causes	
  of	
  crime	
  to	
  systems	
  over	
  individuals.	
  In	
  
past	
  research,	
  Pragmatism	
  has	
  engendered	
  a	
  spirit	
  of	
  common	
  ground	
  and	
  practicality	
  that	
  
serves	
  as	
  an	
  antidote	
  to	
  partisanship,	
  gridlock	
  and	
  fatalism.	
  The	
  value	
  also	
  evokes	
  a	
  sense	
  
of	
  optimism	
  and	
  inspires	
  solutions-­‐oriented	
  planning.
In	
  contrast,	
  Fairness	
  and	
  Ef/iciency	
  often	
  reduced	
  support	
  for	
  measures	
  to	
  address	
  racial	
  
disparities	
  and	
  measures	
  to	
  increase	
  efLiciency	
  of	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system.	
  That	
  is,	
  
evoking	
  these	
  values	
  actually	
  decreased	
  people’s	
  support	
  when	
  compared	
  to	
  the	
  control	
  
group.	
  

Values	
  +	
  Facts
On	
  the	
  issue	
  of	
  criminal	
  justice	
  reform,	
  values	
  beneLit	
  greatly	
  from	
  supporting	
  facts	
  –	
  an	
  
additional	
  frame	
  element	
  that	
  helps	
  to	
  overcome	
  people’s	
  relative	
  unfamiliarity	
  with	
  
problems	
  in	
  the	
  system.	
  Commonly	
  used	
  facts	
  employed	
  by	
  advocates	
  were	
  used	
  to	
  
develop	
  three	
  different	
  fact-­‐based	
  messages:	
  Neutral	
  Facts,	
  Facts	
  about	
  Racial	
  Disparities	
  
and	
  International	
  Facts.	
  The	
  Neutral	
  Facts	
  describe	
  the	
  impact	
  of	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  
system	
  as	
  it	
  affects	
  all	
  adult	
  Americans.	
  Facts	
  about	
  Racial	
  Disparities	
  compare	
  effects	
  of	
  the	
  
system	
  on	
  African	
  Americans	
  and	
  whites.	
  International	
  Facts	
  compare	
  statistics	
  about	
  the	
  
U.S.	
  criminal	
  justice	
  systems	
  to	
  comparable	
  systems	
  in	
  other	
  countries.
Pragmatism	
  coupled	
  with	
  Facts	
  about	
  Racial	
  Disparities	
  increased	
  support	
  for	
  measures	
  to	
  
change	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  by	
  5.2	
  percentage	
  points	
  over	
  the	
  control	
  group	
  on	
  
causal	
  attribution	
  of	
  responsibility.	
  That	
  is,	
  this	
  combination	
  inoculates	
  against	
  the	
  
perception	
  that	
  individuals,	
  rather	
  than	
  issues	
  endemic	
  to	
  the	
  system	
  itself,	
  are	
  the	
  source	
  
of	
  problems	
  that	
  impact	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system.	
  Similarly,	
  this	
  combination	
  also	
  had	
  
strong	
  positive	
  effects	
  on	
  support	
  for	
  juvenile	
  justice	
  reforms.	
  And,	
  while	
  not	
  statistically	
  
signiLicant,	
  this	
  combination	
  moved	
  people	
  to	
  endorse	
  systemic	
  remedies	
  to	
  the	
  criminal	
  
justice	
  system	
  over	
  individual	
  remedies.	
  The	
  Pragmatism	
  and	
  Facts	
  about	
  Racial	
  Disparities	
  
combination	
  produces	
  an	
  effect	
  across	
  the	
  set	
  of	
  outcome	
  measures	
  that	
  neither	
  could	
  
achieve	
  when	
  used	
  in	
  isolation.	
  
Here	
  is	
  an	
  example	
  of	
  a	
  Pragmatism	
  and	
  Facts	
  about	
  Racial	
  Disparities	
  combination:
Managing	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  more	
  responsibly	
  can	
  address	
  some	
  
important	
  problems	
  currently	
  facing	
  our	
  country.	
  For	
  example,	
  we	
  know	
  that	
  
communities	
  with	
  high	
  unemployment,	
  underachieving	
  schools	
  and	
  a	
  lack	
  of	
  
other	
  resources	
  have	
  high	
  rates	
  of	
  crime.	
  This	
  problem	
  particularly	
  hurts	
  

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

15

children	
  and	
  young	
  adults	
  who	
  may	
  end	
  up	
  in	
  the	
  system.	
  If	
  we	
  take	
  a	
  
commonsense	
  approach	
  to	
  solving	
  our	
  communities’	
  problems,	
  we	
  can	
  
decrease	
  crime	
  and	
  enhance	
  public	
  safety.	
  SpeciLically,	
  we	
  need	
  to	
  identify	
  
practical	
  things	
  we	
  can	
  do	
  to	
  address	
  these	
  and	
  other	
  issues.	
  On	
  the	
  other	
  
hand,	
  if	
  we	
  spend	
  resources	
  sending	
  more	
  people	
  to	
  prison	
  instead	
  of	
  using	
  
proven	
  alternatives,	
  these	
  problems	
  will	
  remain.	
  A	
  responsible	
  approach	
  to	
  
criminal	
  justice	
  will	
  make	
  our	
  country	
  safer	
  and	
  help	
  all	
  Americans.	
  The	
  
system	
  we	
  have	
  is	
  not	
  doing	
  this.	
  In	
  2010,	
  seven	
  out	
  of	
  every	
  1,000	
  white	
  
men	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  were	
  in	
  prison.	
  By	
  contrast,	
  43	
  out	
  of	
  every	
  1,000	
  
African	
  American	
  men	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  were	
  in	
  prison.	
  Clearly,	
  the	
  system	
  
is	
  not	
  working,	
  and	
  is	
  taking	
  a	
  toll	
  on	
  our	
  society	
  as	
  a	
  whole	
  and	
  on	
  
communities	
  of	
  color	
  in	
  particular.	
  We	
  need	
  to	
  address	
  the	
  places	
  in	
  the	
  
system	
  where	
  it	
  is	
  not	
  working	
  to	
  advance	
  the	
  goals	
  of	
  our	
  society.
What	
  to	
  Do:	
  
1. Advocates	
  need	
  to	
  provide	
  more	
  than	
  just	
  the	
  facts.	
  Unframed	
  facts	
  do	
  little	
  to	
  
win	
  support	
  for	
  measures	
  recommended	
  by	
  experts.	
  While	
  the	
  facts	
  detailing	
  the	
  
current	
  problems	
  in	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  are	
  striking	
  and	
  compelling,	
  they	
  
lack	
  sufLicient	
  power	
  to	
  change	
  the	
  conversation	
  and	
  move	
  public	
  support	
  when	
  
used	
  in	
  isolation.	
  
2. Using	
  a	
  combination	
  of	
  Pragmatism	
  and	
  Facts	
  about	
  Racial	
  Disparities	
  creates	
  
a	
  powerful	
  synergistic	
  effect,	
  and	
  is	
  an	
  effective	
  communication	
  strategy.	
  The	
  
combination	
  of	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  Pragmatism	
  and	
  Facts	
  about	
  Racial	
  Disparities	
  exerts	
  a	
  
powerful	
  “one-­‐two”	
  framing	
  punch,	
  driving	
  the	
  kind	
  of	
  change	
  that	
  experts	
  wish	
  to	
  
elicit.	
  
3. Not	
  all	
  values	
  and	
  value-­‐fact	
  combinations	
  work.	
  Avoid	
  using	
  the	
  values	
  of	
  
Fairness	
  and	
  Ef7iciency/Cost	
  Effectiveness	
  in	
  messaging	
  on	
  public	
  safety	
  and	
  
criminal	
  justice.	
  In	
  addition	
  to	
  the	
  positive	
  Lindings	
  highlighted	
  above,	
  it	
  is	
  critical	
  
for	
  advocates	
  to	
  understand	
  that,	
  apart	
  from	
  the	
  combined	
  form	
  of	
  Pragmatism	
  and	
  
Facts	
  about	
  Racial	
  Disparities,	
  the	
  other	
  facts	
  or	
  values,	
  either	
  in	
  isolation	
  or	
  in	
  
combination,	
  produced	
  minimal	
  positive	
  movement	
  or,	
  in	
  some	
  instances,	
  negative	
  
movement.	
  Advocates	
  must	
  be	
  wary	
  of	
  blindly	
  following	
  the	
  general	
  
recommendations	
  to	
  “use	
  values”	
  or	
  “support	
  your	
  argument	
  with	
  facts.”	
  These	
  
admonitions	
  are	
  empty,	
  even	
  harmful,	
  if	
  not	
  reLined	
  by	
  the	
  speciLics	
  of	
  empirical	
  
framing	
  research.

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

16

While	
  the	
  value-­‐fact	
  combination	
  of	
  Pragmatism	
  and	
  Facts	
  about	
  Racial	
  Disparities	
  is	
  highly	
  
effective	
  at	
  generally	
  reorienting	
  the	
  public	
  to	
  considering	
  criminal	
  justice	
  reforms	
  at	
  the	
  
systemic	
  level,	
  it	
  proves	
  less	
  effective	
  at	
  lifting	
  support	
  for	
  deeper	
  solutions	
  and	
  speciLic	
  
reforms	
  in	
  the	
  process.	
  SpeciLically,	
  this	
  combined	
  frame	
  (as	
  well	
  as	
  other	
  frames	
  that	
  were	
  
tested)	
  was	
  not	
  capable	
  of	
  moving	
  respondents’	
  support	
  for	
  measures	
  designed	
  to	
  increase	
  
systemic	
  efLiciency	
  (i.e.,	
  how	
  policies	
  can	
  simultaneously	
  lower	
  costs	
  while	
  improving	
  
outcomes).	
  To	
  complete	
  the	
  narrative	
  and	
  make	
  it	
  sticky	
  in	
  people’s	
  discursive	
  repertoires,	
  
criminal	
  justice	
  advocates	
  need	
  to	
  deploy	
  metaphors	
  to	
  Lill	
  in	
  the	
  “cognitive	
  holes”	
  that	
  we	
  
observed	
  in	
  our	
  informants’	
  thinking.	
  Explanatory	
  Metaphors	
  show	
  how	
  the	
  system	
  works,	
  
and	
  can	
  help	
  people	
  reason	
  about	
  how	
  to	
  improve	
  the	
  system.	
  

Explanatory	
  Metaphors
Explanatory	
  Metaphors	
  are	
  “frame	
  elements	
  that	
  fundamentally	
  restructure	
  the	
  ways	
  that	
  
people	
  talk	
  and	
  think	
  about	
  issues	
  …	
  by	
  referencing	
  a	
  topic	
  that	
  is	
  more	
  familiar	
  to	
  people	
  
as	
  a	
  way	
  to	
  understand	
  one	
  that	
  is	
  less	
  familiar.” 25	
  Metaphors	
  remind	
  people	
  of	
  a	
  familiar	
  
object	
  (the	
  source	
  domain)	
  and	
  help	
  them	
  map	
  this	
  knowledge	
  onto	
  an	
  unfamiliar	
  subject	
  
(the	
  target	
  domain).	
  Explanatory	
  Metaphors	
  are	
  used	
  to	
  address	
  “black	
  box”	
  thinking,	
  
where	
  the	
  public	
  cannot	
  see	
  what	
  is	
  going	
  on	
  within	
  an	
  unfamiliar	
  topic	
  or	
  abstract	
  process	
  
and	
  simply	
  draws	
  a	
  blank.	
  
When	
  FrameWorks	
  researchers	
  unpacked	
  what	
  Americans	
  know	
  about	
  crime	
  and	
  the	
  
criminal	
  justice	
  system,	
  they	
  identiLied	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  tasks	
  that	
  might	
  be	
  addressed	
  by	
  
Explanatory	
  Metaphors.	
  According	
  to	
  these	
  criteria,	
  a	
  good	
  metaphor	
  would:
1. Make	
  the	
  “systemness”	
  of	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  more	
  visible.
2. Structure	
  understandings	
  of	
  systemic	
  racial	
  inequities.
3. Help	
  people	
  understand	
  the	
  speciLic	
  ways	
  that	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  is	
  
inefLicient	
  and	
  inequitable.
4. Make	
  people	
  articulate	
  about	
  how	
  the	
  American	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  could	
  be	
  
improved.
5. Facilitate	
  the	
  identiLication	
  of	
  solutions	
  at	
  the	
  systemic	
  level	
  rather	
  than	
  focusing	
  on	
  
each	
  individual’s	
  cost-­‐beneLit	
  calculation.
6. Provide	
  a	
  basis	
  for	
  understanding	
  how	
  contexts	
  (both	
  environmental	
  and	
  
institutional)	
  shape	
  individuals’	
  actions	
  and	
  choices.

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

17

Two	
  metaphors	
  emerged	
  from	
  FrameWorks’	
  iterative	
  and	
  multi-­‐method	
  tests	
  as	
  having	
  
signiLicant	
  beneLits	
  in	
  meeting	
  various	
  aspects	
  of	
  these	
  challenges:
Justice	
  Gears:	
  This	
  Explanatory	
  Metaphor	
  worked	
  powerfully	
  to	
  make	
  the	
  “systemness”	
  of	
  
the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  and	
  its	
  inefLiciencies	
  more	
  visible.	
  
Justice	
  Gears	
  Example:	
  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	
  ef/iciently.	
  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.
The	
  strengths	
  of	
  the	
  Justice	
  Gears	
  metaphor	
  included	
  the	
  following:
•

Thinking	
  mechanically	
  focuses	
  attention	
  at	
  the	
  systems	
  level.	
  The	
  metaphor	
  
helped	
  to	
  make	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  visible	
  as	
  a	
  mechanism.	
  The	
  metaphor	
  
reduced	
  reliance	
  on	
  thinking	
  about	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  individual	
  
actors	
  (e.g.,	
  police	
  ofLicers).	
  Understanding	
  the	
  system	
  as	
  a	
  mechanism	
  also	
  makes	
  
reform	
  easier	
  to	
  grasp	
  –	
  Lixing	
  the	
  system	
  requires	
  Linding	
  the	
  places	
  where	
  “gears	
  
don’t	
  mesh	
  together”	
  and	
  addressing	
  the	
  problem	
  at	
  these	
  points.	
  

•

Using	
  only	
  “one	
  gear”	
  is	
  inefQicient.	
  The	
  metaphor’s	
  main	
  feature	
  –	
  that	
  a	
  
mechanical	
  system	
  is	
  inefLicient	
  when	
  it	
  does	
  not	
  use	
  all	
  of	
  its	
  available	
  resources	
  –	
  
lies	
  at	
  the	
  heart	
  of	
  the	
  metaphor’s	
  success.

•

Focusing	
  on	
  outcomes	
  channels	
  thinking	
  towards	
  the	
  importance	
  of	
  system	
  
efQiciency.	
  The	
  metaphor	
  also	
  makes	
  inefLiciencies	
  in	
  the	
  system	
  visible.	
  More	
  
speciLically,	
  it	
  highlights	
  how	
  the	
  current	
  system	
  does	
  not	
  improve	
  public	
  safety	
  but	
  
instead	
  creates	
  negative	
  outcomes	
  and	
  works	
  to	
  perpetuate	
  inequities	
  endemic	
  to	
  
American	
  society.

•

The	
  metaphor	
  leads	
  to	
  productive	
  critiques	
  of	
  the	
  current	
  system.	
  The	
  
metaphor	
  also	
  enabled	
  people	
  to	
  critique	
  the	
  effectiveness	
  of	
  certain	
  functions	
  of	
  
the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system,	
  particularly	
  the	
  rehabilitation	
  processes.	
  People	
  
recognized	
  the	
  need	
  to	
  resource	
  the	
  full	
  range	
  of	
  alternative	
  policies,	
  and	
  to	
  

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

18

carefully	
  analyze	
  the	
  “Lit”	
  between	
  an	
  intervention	
  and	
  the	
  individual’s	
  life	
  
circumstances.	
  People	
  also	
  focused	
  on	
  the	
  current	
  system’s	
  individual	
  and	
  social	
  
costs	
  in	
  both	
  Linancial	
  and	
  non-­‐Linancial	
  terms.	
  In	
  this	
  way,	
  the	
  metaphor	
  inoculated	
  
against	
  the	
  fatalism	
  observed	
  in	
  unprimed	
  conversations.
Use	
  the	
  Justice	
  Gears	
  metaphor	
  to	
  (1)	
  focus	
  people	
  on	
  systems,	
  (2)	
  emphasize	
  outcomes,	
  (3)	
  
highlight	
  alternatives	
  to	
  current	
  policies	
  and	
  programs,	
  and	
  (4)	
  force	
  a	
  re-­‐evaluation	
  of	
  the	
  
ineffectiveness	
  of	
  the	
  current	
  system.
In	
  using	
  the	
  Justice	
  Gears	
  metaphor,	
  it	
  is	
  important	
  to:
•

Communicate	
  that	
  the	
  system	
  of	
  gears	
  allows	
  the	
  bike	
  to	
  function,	
  and	
  gears	
  need	
  to	
  
be	
  matched	
  to	
  the	
  speciLic	
  terrain.	
  This	
  helps	
  people	
  evaluate	
  how	
  well	
  each	
  part	
  of	
  
the	
  system	
  is	
  functioning.

•

Emphasize	
  that	
  the	
  bike	
  is	
  moving	
  forward	
  to	
  a	
  destination,	
  and	
  that	
  the	
  justice	
  gear	
  
system	
  should	
  be	
  designed	
  to	
  reach	
  goals	
  that	
  beneLit	
  our	
  society.	
  This	
  helps	
  focus	
  
people	
  on	
  the	
  outcomes	
  of	
  the	
  system.

•

Talk	
  similarly	
  about	
  the	
  Lit	
  between	
  gears	
  and	
  terrain	
  and	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  alignment	
  
between	
  the	
  underlying	
  criminal	
  conduct	
  and	
  responses	
  to	
  that	
  conduct.	
  This	
  helps	
  
people	
  think	
  about	
  multiple	
  alternatives	
  available	
  to	
  reform	
  the	
  current	
  system.

Justice	
  Maze:	
  This	
  second	
  Explanatory	
  Metaphor	
  enabled	
  people	
  to	
  better	
  understand	
  how	
  
systemic	
  biases	
  create	
  different	
  outcomes	
  for	
  individuals	
  and	
  groups,	
  and	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  
structural	
  solutions	
  to	
  address	
  these	
  problems.	
  
Justice	
  Maze	
  Example:	
  Even	
  in	
  the	
  most	
  dif/icult	
  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	
  ef/icient	
  way	
  possible.

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

19

The	
  strengths	
  of	
  the	
  Justice	
  Maze	
  metaphor	
  included	
  the	
  following:
•

It	
  inoculates	
  against	
  individualist	
  and	
  rational	
  actor	
  modes	
  of	
  thinking.	
  Like	
  
Justice	
  Gears,	
  Justice	
  Maze	
  was	
  effective	
  in	
  shifting	
  people’s	
  attention	
  away	
  from	
  two	
  
of	
  the	
  public’s	
  strongest	
  default	
  understandings	
  of	
  crime	
  and	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  
system:	
  that	
  individuals	
  cause	
  problems	
  and	
  are	
  responsible	
  for	
  solutions	
  in	
  the	
  
criminal	
  justice	
  system,	
  and	
  that	
  rational	
  decision-­‐making	
  is	
  the	
  exclusive	
  cause	
  of	
  
crime.	
  

•

By	
  contextualizing	
  crime,	
  it	
  allows	
  people	
  to	
  see	
  that	
  individual	
  outcomes	
  are	
  
shaped	
  by	
  systems,	
  structures	
  and	
  policies.	
  Justice	
  Maze	
  clearly	
  focuses	
  attention	
  
on	
  structural	
  problems	
  as	
  determining	
  individual	
  experience.	
  When	
  thinking	
  with	
  
the	
  Justice	
  Maze,	
  it	
  is	
  difLicult	
  for	
  people	
  to	
  assert	
  their	
  default	
  understanding	
  that	
  
poor	
  outcomes	
  are	
  the	
  result	
  of	
  individual	
  choice.	
  

•

The	
  metaphor	
  points	
  to	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  alternative	
  paths.	
  The	
  Justice	
  Maze	
  allows	
  
people	
  to	
  understand	
  that	
  “all	
  paths	
  leading	
  to	
  prison”	
  is	
  a	
  problem,	
  and	
  thus	
  to	
  
recognize	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  alternative	
  ways	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  system.	
  This	
  is	
  a	
  valuable	
  
communications	
  tool	
  for	
  advocates	
  working	
  on	
  alternatives	
  to	
  the	
  current	
  
sentencing	
  guidelines	
  and	
  to	
  incarceration.	
  

•

It	
  emphasizes	
  that	
  the	
  current	
  system	
  is	
  “built”	
  in	
  ways	
  that	
  are	
  ineffective,	
  
inefQicient	
  and	
  unfair.	
  Justice	
  Maze	
  is	
  highly	
  effective	
  in	
  cementing	
  the	
  perspective	
  
that	
  the	
  current	
  system’s	
  construction	
  creates	
  inefLiciencies	
  (dead	
  ends)	
  and	
  
inequities	
  (the	
  maze	
  changes	
  for	
  different	
  populations).	
  

Use	
  the	
  Justice	
  Maze	
  metaphor	
  to	
  (1)	
  focus	
  people	
  on	
  systems,	
  (2)	
  emphasize	
  biases	
  that	
  
are	
  built	
  into	
  those	
  systems,	
  (3)	
  underscore	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  alternatives	
  to	
  current	
  criminal	
  
justice	
  system	
  policies,	
  and	
  (4)	
  emphasize	
  that	
  outcomes	
  differ	
  by	
  group	
  membership,	
  and	
  
that	
  these	
  outcomes	
  are	
  unfair	
  and	
  inefLicient.
In	
  using	
  the	
  Justice	
  Maze	
  metaphor,	
  it	
  is	
  important	
  to:
•

Explain	
  that	
  the	
  dysfunction	
  of	
  the	
  current	
  system	
  is	
  due	
  to	
  its	
  construction.

•

Make	
  explicit	
  that,	
  while	
  there	
  are	
  many	
  paths	
  into	
  the	
  maze,	
  its	
  design	
  offers	
  only	
  
limited	
  paths	
  out,	
  which	
  results	
  in	
  differential	
  outcomes	
  for	
  speciLic	
  populations.

•

Emphasize	
  that	
  the	
  structures	
  of	
  the	
  maze	
  shape	
  outcomes.	
  

•

Talk	
  about	
  how	
  improving	
  outcomes	
  requires	
  changing	
  the	
  structure	
  of	
  the	
  maze.

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

20

Solutions
It	
  is	
  important	
  to	
  recognize	
  that	
  all	
  of	
  these	
  frame	
  elements	
  –	
  values,	
  facts	
  and	
  Explanatory	
  
Metaphors	
  –	
  are	
  designed	
  to	
  prime	
  a	
  conversation	
  about	
  solutions.	
  Communicators	
  should	
  
view	
  these	
  recommendations	
  as	
  the	
  prerequisite	
  to	
  a	
  conversation	
  about	
  which	
  solutions	
  
Lit	
  the	
  problem	
  deLinition.	
  By	
  providing	
  a	
  goal,	
  the	
  values	
  help	
  people	
  think	
  collectively	
  
about	
  what	
  they	
  want	
  from	
  their	
  society.	
  The	
  facts	
  help	
  them	
  identify	
  problems	
  with	
  the	
  
current	
  system	
  that	
  disproportionately	
  impact	
  communities	
  of	
  color.	
  The	
  Explanatory	
  
Metaphors	
  help	
  people	
  evaluate	
  whether	
  the	
  system	
  is	
  working	
  to	
  achieve	
  positive	
  
outcomes.	
  But	
  the	
  narrative	
  is	
  incomplete	
  without	
  the	
  Linal	
  chapter:	
  a	
  discussion	
  of	
  which	
  
solutions	
  we	
  should	
  be	
  considering	
  as	
  a	
  society	
  to	
  improve	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system.	
  
Fortunately,	
  the	
  Lield	
  does	
  not	
  lack	
  for	
  alternatives	
  to	
  the	
  current	
  system.	
  The	
  Field	
  Frame	
  
Analysis26	
  demonstrated	
  the	
  robust	
  enumeration	
  of	
  solutions	
  that	
  criminal	
  justice	
  reform	
  
advocates	
  have	
  put	
  forward.	
  These	
  prospective	
  solutions	
  need	
  to	
  be	
  re-­‐integrated	
  into	
  the	
  
narrative	
  we	
  have	
  identiLied	
  above.	
  That	
  is,	
  before	
  solutions	
  are	
  introduced,	
  people	
  need	
  to	
  
be	
  primed	
  to	
  think	
  about	
  their	
  “Lit”	
  to	
  the	
  overall	
  problem.	
  This	
  MessageMemo,	
  then,	
  
focuses	
  on	
  the	
  work	
  that	
  must	
  be	
  done	
  before	
  solutions	
  are	
  introduced.

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

21

Traps in Public Thinking
In	
  the	
  following	
  section,	
  we	
  list	
  aspects	
  of	
  thinking	
  about	
  public	
  safety	
  and	
  criminal	
  justice	
  
that	
  trigger	
  models	
  that	
  may	
  be	
  “easy	
  to	
  think,”	
  but	
  trap	
  public	
  thinking	
  in	
  unproductive	
  
evaluations	
  and	
  judgments.	
  We	
  focus	
  here	
  speciLically	
  on	
  traps	
  that	
  are	
  common	
  in	
  expert	
  
and	
  advocacy	
  communications,	
  as	
  these	
  tend	
  to	
  represent	
  unexamined	
  hypotheses	
  about	
  
effective	
  communications.
•

The	
  Facts	
  Trap:	
  Criminal	
  justice	
  advocates	
  frequently	
  rely	
  on	
  a	
  wide	
  array	
  of	
  facts	
  
to	
  invoke	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  sweeping	
  reforms.	
  In	
  general,	
  facts	
  alone	
  did	
  little	
  to	
  advance	
  
support	
  for	
  policy	
  reforms,	
  and	
  some	
  (Internationalized	
  Facts)	
  actually	
  lowered	
  
support	
  for	
  policies.

•

The	
  Fairness	
  Trap:	
  As	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  conLlicting	
  conceptions	
  of	
  fairness,	
  invoking	
  this	
  
value	
  can	
  lead	
  to	
  interpretations	
  that	
  actually	
  inhibit	
  the	
  public’s	
  ability	
  to	
  see	
  the	
  
importance	
  of	
  responsive	
  systems	
  of	
  sentencing.	
  Use	
  Justice	
  Maze	
  and	
  Facts	
  about	
  
Racial	
  Disparities	
  to	
  underscore	
  inequities	
  in	
  the	
  system.

•

The	
  Economic	
  EfQiciency	
  Trap:	
  This	
  frame	
  can	
  backLire	
  by	
  triggering	
  a	
  
consumerist	
  response	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  public	
  considers	
  reforms	
  only	
  to	
  the	
  extent	
  that	
  
they	
  save	
  money.	
  In	
  contrast	
  to	
  value	
  and	
  fact	
  combinations	
  that	
  orient	
  people	
  to	
  
multiple	
  solutions,	
  this	
  value	
  leads	
  to	
  unproductive	
  thinking	
  about	
  criminal	
  justice	
  
reform.

•

The	
  Rational-­‐Actor	
  Trap:	
  Judgments	
  of	
  whether	
  the	
  person	
  who	
  committed	
  a	
  
crime	
  made	
  a	
  “rational”	
  decision	
  can	
  lead	
  the	
  public	
  towards	
  punitive	
  solutions.	
  This	
  
is	
  because	
  they	
  do	
  not	
  consider	
  ecological	
  or	
  systemic	
  factors	
  and,	
  instead,	
  
emphasize	
  individual	
  choice	
  and	
  decision-­‐making.	
  This	
  trap	
  can	
  be	
  easily	
  evoked	
  
when	
  communicators	
  focus	
  on	
  individual	
  stories	
  or	
  motivations,	
  or	
  ask	
  people	
  to	
  
consider	
  the	
  circumstance	
  of	
  a	
  crime	
  without	
  having	
  addressed	
  their	
  cognitive	
  holes	
  
with	
  respect	
  to	
  how	
  people	
  get	
  into	
  the	
  system	
  and	
  how	
  the	
  system	
  is	
  structured	
  for	
  
those	
  outcomes.

•

The	
  Determinism	
  Trap:	
  Employing	
  rhetoric	
  that	
  is	
  heavily	
  centered	
  on	
  the	
  
problems	
  and	
  brokenness	
  of	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  is	
  likely	
  to	
  evoke	
  the	
  ideal/
real	
  model,	
  and,	
  in	
  turn,	
  create	
  a	
  powerful	
  sense	
  of	
  determinism	
  that	
  is	
  
unproductive	
  in	
  thinking	
  about	
  policy	
  solutions	
  to	
  public	
  safety	
  issues.

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

22

•

The	
  Lindsay	
  Lohan	
  Trap:	
  Focusing	
  exclusively	
  on	
  money	
  or	
  social	
  class	
  as	
  the	
  key	
  
bias	
  in	
  the	
  system	
  crowds	
  out	
  considerations	
  of	
  other	
  types	
  of	
  biases.	
  As	
  class	
  is	
  a	
  
far	
  more	
  available	
  concept	
  for	
  explaining	
  bias	
  for	
  most	
  Americans,	
  exemplars	
  like	
  
Lindsay	
  Lohan	
  remind	
  people	
  of	
  what	
  they	
  already	
  believe	
  about	
  who	
  has	
  privileges	
  
in	
  the	
  society	
  and	
  who	
  does	
  not.

•

The	
  Government	
  is	
  Broken	
  Trap:	
  This	
  framing	
  strategy	
  implies	
  that	
  government	
  
is	
  necessary	
  to	
  reform	
  the	
  system,	
  but,	
  at	
  the	
  same	
  time,	
  cues	
  cultural	
  models	
  of	
  
government	
  as	
  dysfunctional	
  and	
  ineffective.	
  If	
  government	
  is	
  to	
  be	
  repaired,	
  
cynicism	
  and	
  fatalism	
  have	
  to	
  be	
  overcome.	
  This	
  is	
  why	
  the	
  Pragmatism	
  value	
  works	
  
to	
  advocates’	
  advantage.

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

23

Conclusion
Framing	
  criminal	
  justice	
  reform	
  is	
  a	
  challenging	
  task.	
  On	
  the	
  one	
  hand,	
  there	
  are	
  many	
  
varied	
  and	
  signiLicant	
  obstacles	
  in	
  the	
  way	
  of	
  clear	
  thinking	
  and	
  meaningful	
  policy	
  
identiLication.	
  Americans	
  have	
  deeply	
  entrenched	
  ways	
  of	
  thinking	
  about	
  the	
  causes	
  of	
  
crime,	
  about	
  the	
  inequities	
  embedded	
  in	
  the	
  system,	
  and	
  about	
  the	
  solutions	
  to	
  its	
  failures.	
  
At	
  the	
  same	
  time,	
  this	
  research	
  shows	
  how	
  these	
  views	
  are	
  frame-­‐dependent.	
  When	
  people	
  
are	
  reminded	
  of	
  society’s	
  goals	
  for	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system,	
  provided	
  with	
  familiar	
  ways	
  
to	
  think	
  about	
  the	
  system	
  as	
  a	
  whole,	
  and	
  exposed	
  to	
  current	
  inequities,	
  they	
  support	
  
policies	
  that	
  experts	
  put	
  forward.	
  For	
  those	
  who	
  seek	
  to	
  transform	
  the	
  system,	
  these	
  
Lindings	
  should	
  prove	
  invigorating.	
  Old	
  habits	
  of	
  communication	
  can	
  be	
  discarded	
  and	
  new	
  
stories	
  promulgated	
  to	
  stimulate	
  better	
  policy	
  thinking.	
  Moreover,	
  this	
  research	
  clearly	
  
shows	
  that	
  the	
  central	
  issue	
  of	
  differential	
  impact	
  by	
  race	
  is	
  not	
  only	
  possible	
  to	
  convey,	
  but	
  
actually	
  helps	
  much	
  of	
  the	
  public	
  more	
  fully	
  grasp	
  the	
  systemic	
  problems	
  in	
  the	
  criminal	
  
justice	
  system.
We	
  are	
  reminded	
  of	
  an	
  observation	
  by	
  a	
  social	
  science	
  researcher	
  confronting	
  the	
  issue	
  of	
  
global	
  warming,	
  who	
  questioned	
  why,	
  “if	
  American	
  environmental	
  values	
  are	
  so	
  pervasive	
  
and	
  strong,	
  is	
  there	
  not	
  more	
  environmental	
  action?”	
  After	
  a	
  series	
  of	
  cultural	
  models	
  
studies	
  not	
  unlike	
  those	
  performed	
  by	
  FrameWorks	
  in	
  service	
  to	
  criminal	
  justice,	
  
researchers	
  concluded	
  that	
  “the	
  cultural	
  models	
  available	
  to	
  understand	
  global	
  warming	
  
lead	
  to	
  ineffective	
  personal	
  actions	
  and	
  support	
  for	
  ineffective	
  policies,	
  regardless	
  of	
  the	
  
level	
  of	
  personal	
  commitment	
  to	
  environmental	
  problems.” 27
Americans	
  want	
  their	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  to	
  work,	
  and	
  to	
  support	
  their	
  societal	
  goals.	
  
But	
  the	
  current	
  narrative	
  about	
  the	
  system’s	
  Llaws	
  is	
  a	
  spotty	
  sequence	
  of	
  cobbled-­‐together	
  
cultural	
  models	
  that	
  fail	
  to	
  move	
  the	
  public	
  to	
  support	
  these	
  goals.	
  Too	
  often,	
  the	
  messages	
  
are	
  obscured	
  by	
  the	
  deeply	
  engrained	
  cultural	
  models	
  of	
  calculating	
  criminals,	
  “rotten	
  
eggs,”	
  “dirty”	
  cops,	
  ineffective	
  government,	
  and	
  the	
  moral	
  and	
  practical	
  value	
  of	
  
punishment.	
  These	
  models	
  deter	
  the	
  public	
  from	
  recognizing	
  the	
  urgent	
  need	
  for	
  
meaningful	
  reforms.	
  The	
  narrative	
  that	
  FrameWorks’	
  researchers	
  recommend	
  here	
  has	
  the	
  
potential	
  to	
  clear	
  out	
  the	
  “swamp.”	
  It	
  can	
  help	
  the	
  public	
  understand	
  why	
  creating	
  a	
  saner,	
  
more	
  fair	
  and	
  equitable	
  system	
  of	
  justice	
  –	
  not	
  merely	
  a	
  system	
  of	
  laws	
  –	
  needs	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  
priority	
  for	
  all	
  of	
  us.	
  

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

24

About the Institute
The	
  FrameWorks	
  Institute	
  is	
  a	
  national,	
  nonproLit	
  think-­‐tank	
  devoted	
  to	
  framing	
  public	
  
issues	
  to	
  bridge	
  the	
  divide	
  between	
  public	
  and	
  expert	
  understandings.	
  Its	
  work	
  is	
  based	
  on	
  
Strategic	
  Frame	
  Analysis™,	
  a	
  multi-­‐method,	
  multi-­‐disciplinary	
  approach	
  to	
  empirical	
  
research.	
  FrameWorks	
  designs,	
  commissions,	
  publishes,	
  explains	
  and	
  applies	
  
communications	
  research	
  to	
  prepare	
  nonproLit	
  organizations	
  to	
  expand	
  their	
  constituency	
  
base,	
  to	
  build	
  public	
  will,	
  and	
  to	
  further	
  public	
  understanding	
  of	
  speciLic	
  social	
  issues	
  –	
  the	
  
environment,	
  government,	
  race,	
  children’s	
  issues	
  and	
  health	
  care,	
  among	
  others.	
  Its	
  work	
  is	
  
unique	
  in	
  its	
  breadth	
  –	
  from	
  qualitative,	
  quantitative	
  and	
  experimental	
  research,	
  to	
  applied	
  
communications	
  toolkits,	
  eWorkshops,	
  advertising	
  campaigns,	
  FrameChecks™	
  and	
  Framing	
  
Study	
  Circles.	
  See	
  www.frameworksinstitute.org.
All	
  rights	
  reserved.	
  No	
  part	
  of	
  this	
  publication	
  may	
  be	
  reproduced,	
  stored	
  in	
  a	
  retrieval	
  
system,	
  or	
  transmitted,	
  in	
  any	
  form	
  or	
  by	
  any	
  means,	
  electronic,	
  mechanical,	
  photocopying,	
  
recording,	
  or	
  otherwise,	
  without	
  the	
  prior	
  permission	
  of	
  FrameWorks	
  Institute.
Standard	
  rules	
  for	
  protection	
  of	
  intellectual	
  property	
  and	
  citation	
  apply.	
  Please	
  follow	
  
standard	
  APA	
  rules	
  for	
  citation,	
  with	
  FrameWorks	
  Institute	
  as	
  publisher:
Bales,	
  S.	
  N.,	
  &	
  Cogburn,	
  C.	
  D.	
  (2014).	
  Talking	
  criminal	
  justice	
  and	
  public	
  safety:	
  A	
  
FrameWorks	
  MessageMemo.	
  Washington,	
  DC:	
  FrameWorks	
  Institute.

©	
  FrameWorks	
  Institute,	
  June	
  2014.	
  

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

25

Appendix A
The	
  following	
  research	
  reports	
  have	
  been	
  published	
  by	
  FrameWorks	
  Institute	
  (Washington	
  
D.C.)	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  this	
  inquiry.28
Maze	
  and	
  Gears:	
  Using	
  Explanatory	
  Metaphors	
  to	
  Increase	
  Public	
  Understanding	
  of	
  the	
  
Criminal	
  Justice	
  System	
  and	
  its	
  Reform	
  (2013).	
  This	
  report	
  presents	
  the	
  results	
  of	
  metaphor	
  
research	
  using	
  qualitative	
  and	
  quantitative	
  methods	
  with	
  approximately	
  1,300	
  members	
  of	
  
the	
  general	
  public.	
  This	
  research	
  yielded	
  two	
  Explanatory	
  Metaphors	
  –	
  Justice	
  Maze	
  and	
  
Justice	
  Gears	
  –	
  that	
  help	
  advance	
  public	
  understanding	
  of	
  structural	
  problems	
  in	
  the	
  
criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  and	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  reform	
  to	
  address	
  these	
  problems.
Framing	
  and	
  Facts:	
  Necessary	
  Synergies	
  in	
  Communicating	
  about	
  Public	
  Safety	
  and	
  Criminal	
  
Justice	
  (2013).	
  This	
  report	
  presents	
  the	
  results	
  of	
  an	
  experimental	
  survey	
  that	
  assessed	
  the	
  
effects	
  of	
  facts	
  and	
  values	
  on	
  people’s	
  attitudes	
  towards	
  criminal	
  justice	
  reform.	
  Among	
  
four	
  values	
  tested,	
  Pragmatism	
  was	
  most	
  effective	
  in	
  elevating	
  support	
  for	
  reform.	
  
Presenting	
  unframed	
  facts	
  about	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  –	
  that	
  is,	
  facts	
  presented	
  
without	
  an	
  accompanying	
  value	
  –	
  produced	
  minimal	
  effects.	
  However,	
  when	
  Facts	
  about	
  
Racial	
  Disparities	
  in	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  were	
  combined	
  with	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  
Pragmatism,	
  support	
  increased	
  for	
  a	
  wide	
  range	
  of	
  reform	
  measures.
Public	
  Safety:	
  Framing	
  a	
  Reform	
  Agenda	
  (2011).	
  This	
  report	
  details	
  the	
  Lirst	
  stage	
  of	
  the	
  
FrameWorks	
  Institute’s	
  engagement	
  on	
  this	
  issue.	
  The	
  initial	
  section	
  of	
  the	
  report	
  is	
  an	
  
analysis	
  of	
  the	
  story	
  of	
  the	
  Lield	
  as	
  told	
  through	
  communications	
  materials,	
  policy	
  brieLings,	
  
legislative	
  testimony	
  and	
  websites	
  from	
  criminal	
  justice	
  reform	
  advocates.	
  The	
  second	
  
section	
  is	
  based	
  on	
  a	
  recalibration	
  of	
  this	
  story	
  that	
  resulted	
  from	
  an	
  October	
  2010	
  
convening.	
  During	
  this	
  meeting,	
  attendees	
  were	
  given	
  a	
  chance	
  to	
  review	
  the	
  story	
  their	
  
materials	
  were	
  telling,	
  and	
  react	
  to	
  a	
  critique	
  of	
  this	
  story	
  by	
  FrameWorks	
  staff.	
  The	
  Linal	
  
section	
  expresses	
  several	
  testable	
  propositions	
  that	
  resulted	
  from	
  the	
  preceding	
  analysis.
Caning,	
  Context	
  and	
  Class:	
  Mapping	
  the	
  Gaps	
  Between	
  Expert	
  and	
  Public	
  Understandings	
  of	
  
Public	
  Safety	
  (2011).	
  This	
  report	
  lays	
  the	
  groundwork	
  for	
  this	
  larger	
  reframing	
  effort	
  by	
  
comparing	
  expert	
  discourse	
  on	
  the	
  topic	
  with	
  the	
  ways	
  that	
  average	
  Americans	
  think	
  and	
  
talk	
  about	
  public	
  safety.	
  Data	
  from	
  interviews	
  with	
  both	
  experts	
  and	
  average	
  Americans	
  are	
  
compared,	
  to	
  locate	
  and	
  examine	
  gaps	
  in	
  understanding	
  surrounding	
  this	
  issue.

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

26

Strengthen	
  Communities,	
  Educate	
  Children	
  and	
  Prevent	
  Crime:	
  A	
  Communications	
  Analysis	
  of	
  
Peer	
  Discourse	
  Sessions	
  on	
  Public	
  Safety	
  and	
  Criminal	
  Justice	
  Reform	
  (2011).	
  This	
  report	
  
details	
  research	
  Lindings	
  from	
  a	
  series	
  of	
  six	
  peer	
  discourse	
  sessions	
  conducted	
  by	
  the	
  
FrameWorks	
  Institute	
  with	
  groups	
  of	
  civically	
  engaged	
  Americans	
  across	
  the	
  country.	
  
These	
  sessions	
  provide	
  an	
  opportunity	
  to	
  see	
  how	
  cultural	
  models	
  function	
  in	
  settings	
  that	
  
approximate	
  the	
  social	
  contexts	
  in	
  which	
  discussions	
  about	
  public	
  safety	
  and	
  the	
  criminal	
  
justice	
  system	
  naturally	
  occur.
Adjusting	
  Our	
  Focus:	
  Current	
  Communication	
  Practices	
  and	
  Patterns	
  in	
  the	
  Criminal	
  Justice	
  
Sector	
  (2014).	
  This	
  Field	
  Frame	
  Analysis,	
  prepared	
  by	
  the	
  Charles	
  Hamilton	
  Houston	
  
Institute	
  for	
  Race	
  and	
  Justice	
  at	
  Harvard	
  Law	
  School,	
  examines	
  216	
  documents	
  from	
  the	
  
websites	
  of	
  18	
  inLluential	
  criminal	
  justice	
  organizations.	
  Among	
  the	
  Lindings	
  are	
  that	
  
competing	
  issue	
  priorities	
  splinter	
  the	
  narrative	
  into	
  16	
  different	
  issues,	
  while	
  causal	
  
explanations	
  are	
  largely	
  absent.	
  When	
  discussed,	
  racial	
  bias	
  in	
  the	
  system	
  most	
  often	
  
appears	
  as	
  one	
  in	
  a	
  long	
  list	
  of	
  other	
  serious	
  problems.	
  The	
  dominance	
  of	
  the	
  Economic	
  
Ef/iciency	
  value	
  frame,	
  in	
  light	
  of	
  other	
  FrameWorks	
  research,	
  suggests	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  
strategic	
  revision	
  of	
  Lield	
  messaging.

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

27

Endnotes
1	
  Melton,	
  B.	
  F.	
  (2010).	
  Criminal	
  justice:	
  The	
  law.	
  New	
  York,	
  NY:	
  Chelsea	
  House.
2	
  Silard,	
  T.	
  (2014,	
  February	
  20).	
  Justice	
  reform,	
  at	
  long	
  last.	
  Retrieved	
  from	
  http://www.hufLingtonpost.com/

timothy-­‐p-­‐silard/justice-­‐reform-­‐at-­‐long-­‐last_b_4809892.html	
  
3	
  Western,	
  B.	
  Punishment	
  and	
  Inequality	
  in	
  America.	
  (2007).	
  New	
  York,	
  NY:	
  Russell	
  Sage	
  Foundation.
4	
  FrameWorks	
  Institute.	
  (2005).	
  Framing	
  lessons	
  from	
  the	
  social	
  movements	
  literature.	
  Washington,	
  DC:	
  

FrameWorks	
  Institute;	
  Benford,	
  R.,	
  &	
  Snow,	
  D.	
  A.	
  (2000).	
  Framing	
  processes	
  and	
  social	
  movements:	
  An	
  
overview	
  and	
  assessment.	
  Annual	
  Review	
  of	
  Sociology,	
  26,	
  611-­‐639.
5	
  Schram,	
  S.	
  F.	
  (1995).	
  Worlds	
  of	
  welfare:	
  The	
  poverty	
  of	
  social	
  science	
  and	
  the	
  social	
  science	
  of	
  poverty	
  (pp.	
  54,	
  

101).	
  Minneapolis,	
  MN:	
  University	
  of	
  Minnesota	
  Press.
6	
  Bunten,	
  A.,	
  Kendall-­‐Taylor,	
  N.,	
  &	
  Lindland,	
  E.	
  (2011).	
  Caning,	
  context	
  and	
  class:	
  Mapping	
  the	
  gaps	
  between	
  

expert	
  and	
  public	
  understandings	
  of	
  public	
  safety.	
  Washington,	
  DC:	
  FrameWorks	
  Institute.	
  
7	
  For	
  a	
  brief	
  overview	
  of	
  methods,	
  see	
  http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/sfa-­‐methods.html.	
  	
  For	
  those	
  

interested	
  in	
  a	
  deeper	
  dive	
  into	
  FrameWorks’	
  theory	
  and	
  methods,	
  we	
  suggest	
  FrameWorks	
  Academy,	
  an	
  
online,	
  interactive	
  set	
  of	
  mini-­‐courses	
  that	
  explain	
  how	
  researchers	
  think	
  about	
  and	
  pursue	
  evidence	
  of	
  
successful	
  reframing	
  strategies.	
  See	
  http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/frameworks-­‐academy.html
8	
  For	
  an	
  explanation	
  of	
  this	
  approach,	
  see	
  http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/sfa-­‐overview.html
9	
  See	
  Kahneman,	
  D.	
  (2011).	
  Thinking	
  fast	
  and	
  slow.	
  New	
  York,	
  NY:	
  Farrar,	
  Straus	
  &	
  Giroux.
10	
  Wyer,	
  R.	
  S.,	
  &	
  Srull,	
  T.	
  K.	
  (1986).	
  Human	
  cognition	
  in	
  its	
  social	
  context.	
  Psychological	
  Review,	
  93(3),	
  322;	
  

Anderson,	
  N.	
  H.	
  (2014).	
  A	
  functional	
  theory	
  of	
  cognition.	
  New	
  York,	
  NY:	
  Psychology	
  Press;	
  Fiske,	
  S.	
  T.,	
  &	
  Taylor,	
  
S.	
  E.	
  (2013).	
  Social	
  cognition:	
  From	
  brains	
  to	
  culture.	
  Thousand	
  Oaks,	
  CA:	
  Sage;	
  Axelrod,	
  R.	
  (1973).	
  Schema	
  
theory:	
  An	
  information	
  processing	
  model	
  of	
  perception	
  and	
  cognition.	
  The	
  American	
  Political	
  Science	
  Review,	
  
1248-­‐1266;	
  McVee,	
  M.	
  B.,	
  Dunsmore,	
  K.,	
  &	
  Gavelek,	
  J.	
  R.	
  (2005).	
  Schema	
  theory	
  revisited.	
  Review	
  of	
  
Educational	
  Research,	
  75(4),	
  531-­‐566.
11	
  Quinn,	
  N.	
  (Ed.).	
  (2005).	
  Finding	
  culture	
  in	
  talk:	
  A	
  collection	
  of	
  methods.	
  New	
  York,	
  NY:	
  Palgrave	
  Macmillan.
12	
  For	
  the	
  seminal	
  work	
  on	
  this	
  topic,	
  see	
  Lakoff,	
  G.,	
  &	
  Johnson,	
  M.	
  (1980).	
  Metaphors	
  we	
  live	
  by.	
  Chicago,	
  IL:	
  

University	
  of	
  Chicago	
  Press.
13	
  For	
  a	
  complete	
  list	
  of	
  the	
  individual	
  reports	
  that	
  result	
  from	
  this	
  work,	
  see	
  Appendix	
  A.
14	
  Gilliam,	
  F.	
  (2011).	
  Public	
  safety:	
  Framing	
  a	
  reform	
  agenda.	
  Washington,	
  DC:	
  FrameWorks	
  Institute.	
  
15	
  Cultural	
  models	
  are	
  cognitive	
  schemas	
  that	
  inform	
  perception,	
  cognition,	
  emotion	
  and	
  motivation.
16	
  Bunten,	
  A.,	
  Kendall-­‐Taylor,	
  N.,	
  &	
  Lindland,	
  E.	
  (2011).	
  Caning,	
  context	
  and	
  class:	
  Mapping	
  the	
  gaps	
  between	
  

expert	
  and	
  public	
  understandings	
  of	
  public	
  safety.	
  Washington,	
  DC:	
  FrameWorks	
  Institute.	
  
17	
  Lorick-­‐Wilmot,	
  Y.	
  &	
  Lindland,	
  E.	
  (2011).	
  Strengthen	
  communities,	
  educate	
  children	
  and	
  prevent	
  crime:	
  A	
  

communications	
  analysis	
  of	
  peer	
  discourse	
  sessions	
  on	
  public	
  safety	
  and	
  criminal	
  justice	
  reform.	
  Washington,	
  
DC:	
  FrameWorks	
  Institute.
18	
  Kendall-­‐Taylor,	
  N.	
  (2013).	
  Mazes	
  and	
  Gears:	
  Using	
  explanatory	
  metaphors	
  to	
  increase	
  public	
  understanding	
  

of	
  the	
  challenges	
  facing	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system.	
  Washington,	
  DC:	
  FrameWorks	
  Institute.

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

28

19	
  Simon,	
  A.	
  F.,	
  &	
  Gilliam,	
  F.	
  D.	
  (2013).	
  Framing	
  and	
  facts:	
  Necessary	
  synergies	
  in	
  communicating	
  about	
  public	
  

safety	
  and	
  criminal	
  justice.	
  Washington,	
  DC:	
  FrameWorks	
  Institute.
20	
  Wald,	
  J.,	
  Gibbons,	
  C.,	
  Beane,	
  C.,	
  Kendall-­‐Taylor,	
  N.,	
  Simon,	
  A.,	
  Haydon,	
  A.,	
  &	
  Arvizu,	
  S.	
  (2014).	
  Adjusting	
  our	
  

focus:	
  Current	
  communication	
  practices	
  and	
  patterns	
  in	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  sector.	
  Cambridge,	
  MA:	
  Charles	
  
Hamilton	
  Houston	
  Institute	
  for	
  Race	
  and	
  Justice,	
  Harvard	
  University.
21	
  Quinn,	
  N.,	
  &	
  Holland,	
  D.	
  (1987).	
  Culture	
  and	
  cognition.	
  In	
  D.	
  Holland	
  &	
  N.	
  Quinn	
  (Eds.),	
  Cultural	
  models	
  in	
  

language	
  and	
  thought	
  (pp.	
  3-­‐40).	
  New	
  York,	
  NY:	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  Press.	
  
22	
  By	
  contrast,	
  when	
  the	
  system	
  is	
  clearly	
  identiLied	
  with	
  government	
  or	
  politics,	
  it	
  is	
  presumed	
  to	
  be	
  

ineffective	
  by	
  deLinition,	
  with	
  few	
  solutions.	
  In	
  neither	
  case	
  	
  (i.e.,	
  neither	
  problem	
  nor	
  crisis)	
  does	
  the	
  public	
  
focus	
  on	
  system-­‐level	
  analysis	
  of	
  changes	
  that	
  would	
  improve	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system’s	
  functioning.
23	
  Simon,	
  A.	
  F.,	
  &	
  Gilliam,	
  F.	
  D.	
  (2013).	
  Framing	
  and	
  facts:	
  Necessary	
  synergies	
  in	
  communicating	
  about	
  public	
  

safety	
  and	
  criminal	
  justice.	
  Washington,	
  DC:	
  FrameWorks	
  Institute.
24	
  Simon,	
  A.	
  (2012).	
  The	
  pull	
  of	
  values:	
  A	
  FrameWorks	
  working	
  paper.	
  Washington,	
  DC:	
  FrameWorks	
  Institute.
25	
  Lindland,	
  E.,	
  &	
  Volmert,	
  A.	
  (2014).	
  We	
  need	
  an	
  environmental	
  health	
  ground	
  crew	
  to	
  work	
  upstream:	
  Using	
  

explanatory	
  metaphors	
  to	
  improve	
  public	
  understanding	
  of	
  environmental	
  health	
  and	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  the	
  Rield.	
  
Washington,	
  DC:	
  FrameWorks	
  Institute.
26	
  Wald,	
  J.,	
  Gibbons,	
  C.,	
  Beane,	
  C.,	
  Kendall-­‐Taylor,	
  N.,	
  Simon,	
  A.,	
  Haydon,	
  A.,	
  &	
  Arvizu,	
  S.	
  (2014).	
  Adjusting	
  our	
  

focus:	
  Current	
  communication	
  practices	
  and	
  patterns	
  in	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  sector.	
  Cambridge,	
  MA:	
  Charles	
  
Hamilton	
  Houston	
  Institute	
  for	
  Race	
  and	
  Justice,	
  Harvard	
  University.
27	
  Kempton,	
  W.,	
  Boster,	
  J.	
  S.,	
  &	
  Hartley,	
  J.	
  A.	
  (1999).	
  Environmental	
  values	
  in	
  American	
  culture.	
  Cambridge,	
  MA:	
  

MIT	
  Press.
28	
  See	
  http://frameworksinstitute.org/public-­‐safetycriminal-­‐justice.html

© FrameWorks Institute 2014

29