[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-148688-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":85,"doc-detail-148688-en":134},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":78,"head_meta":80,"extra_data":82,"updated_unix":84},105,"en","messaging-guide-countering-tough-on-crime-rhetoric-with-a-serious-about-safety-frame-five-key-steps","Messaging Guide - Countering “Tough on Crime” Rhetoric with a “Serious about Safety” Frame - Five Key Steps","","Messaging research identifies a “serious about safety” frame that outperforms “tough on crime” rhetoric, especially with independent and swing voters, women, voters of color, and young voters. The guide provides five construction steps: lead with safety and justice together, proactively own the issue against “soft on crime” attacks, use “solutions not scare tactics,” balance police support with accountability, and emphasize personal accountability that repairs harm and changes behavior. It closes by unifying the approach through “three Vs” (Values, Villain, Vision).",{"@graph":14,"@context":77},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/messaging-guide-countering-tough-on-crime-rhetoric-with-a-serious-about-safety-frame-five-key-steps/148688/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/messaging-guide-countering-tough-on-crime-rhetoric-with-a-serious-about-safety-frame-five-key-steps/148688.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Patrick","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-18","2026-08-26",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",7,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69,73],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"为什么“严肃对待安全”的信息框架会优于“对犯罪强硬”的说法？","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"研究显示，强调优先把资金与政策投入到一开始就预防犯罪的“严肃对待安全”框架，整体表现更好，尤其能打动关键投票群体，包括独立和摇摆选民、女性、有色人种选民与年轻选民。","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"在信息构建的第一步应如何表达？",{"text":68,"@type":64},"第一步要把“安全”的价值放在前面，并明确社区不必在“安全或正义”之间二选一。预防犯罪与提供安全应被表述为每个人的共同优先事项。",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"当遭遇“软弱对待犯罪”的攻击时，建议用什么方式回应？",{"text":72,"@type":64},"建议积极拥有议题、先发制人，给出自己对安全社区的愿景，并把讨论从单一口号拉回到社区真正想要的因素，如就业、应急服务响应速度、住房与学校等。",{"name":74,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":75},"“三大要素（three Vs）”具体指什么？",{"text":76,"@type":64},"“三大要素”是 Values、Villain 和 Vision：用共同的安全价值开场，把“对犯罪强硬的现状”作为反派（Villain），并围绕解决方案与未来愿景（Vision）形成统一叙事。","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":79,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":81,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":83,"site_id":7},148688,1787783286,{"code":4,"msg":86,"data":87},"success",[88,92,96,100,105,110,114,118,123,126,130],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},8,30,"research-report",{"id":119,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":121,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":125},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":127,"slug":129},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":131,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":132,"show_sort_weight":101,"slug":133},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":86,"data":135},{"doc_id":83,"user_id":136,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":137,"doc_module":4,"category_id":115,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":138,"file_id":139,"file_url":140,"file_type":141,"file_size":142,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":26,"language":143,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":144,"faqs":145,"seo_title":146,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":84,"read_time":101,"preview_page_count":4},549758146520,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/80002397d8c0411e94?_k=1775819394049821470","Messaging Guide: Countering “Tough on Crime”Rhetoric with a “Serious about Safety” Frame  \nOver the past two years, Vera Action has conducted twenty rounds of national, statewide, and local messaging research (including in CA, MI, NY, PA, and VA) to understand what voters are bringing to the ballot box on issues of crime and safety, as well as how candidates can get out of the “tough”versus “soft on crime” debate and own a new narrative on safety, accountability, and justice. Across our research, a “serious about safety” messaging frame that emphasizes fully funding the programs and policies that prevent crime in the first place outperforms a “tough on crime” message, especially with key voting blocs like independent and swing voters, women, voters of color, and young voters.  \nHere are five key steps to constructing a “serious about safety” message:  \n1. Lead with the value of safety and make it clear that communities don’t have to choose between  \nsafety or justice—we can have both. Preventing crime and delivering safety is a priority for everyone. Despite high levels of concern about crime, communities—especially those most affected by crime—favor comprehensive solutions over more “tough on crime” policies.  \nExample: We all deserve to be safe, no matter the color of our skin, where we live, or how much money is in our pockets. Safety is my top priority, and I won’t stop working until every  \ncommunity, every neighborhood, and every family is safe.  \n2. Get out in front of “soft on crime” attacks by affirmatively owning the issue so that you define  \nyour vision for safe communities. We’re used to “tough on crime” rhetoric dominating debates about safety, but that narrow approach fails to meet what communities want. In our polling, the top factors that make people feel safe are jobs, quick response times from emergency services , housing, and schools.  \nExample: It’s time to fully fund the things that create safe communities, like good schools, a living wage, and affordable housing and to do more to prevent crime in the first place by increasing treatment for mental health and drug addiction and getting illegal guns off the street.  \n3. When attacked for not being “tough on crime,” say you’re here for “solutions, not scare tactics.” A  \n“tough on crime” attack is only effective if it isn’t challenged. Avoid staying silent or running to the right on the issue; instead , center the debate on solutions over scare tactics.  \nExample (general): I’m not about scare tactics or slogans, and I’m not afraid to have an honest conversation. We keep expecting police to solve every social problem, from kids skipping school to mental illness to homelessness to gun violence. No one profession can do that. We're spending $115 billion a year and putting too much on police departments. It ’s time to try out some promising new solutions to lift the burden. It ’s time for support and change, not blame.  \nExample (retail theft): My opponent wants to use scare tactics to rile people up to win votes.  \nHere ’s what I can tell you. We all deserve to live in safe neighborhoods and shop at local businesses in peace. I will work with the police to take down organized theft so that our stores don ’t have to lock up basics like toothpaste and shampoo. Also, some people are stealing out of desperation and poverty because they’re in survival mode. Throwing them in jail or charging them with huge fines will not change their behavior; it will just make them more desperate. My  \nfocus is on holding people accountable in ways that actually stop the cycle of crime—and make all of us safer.  \n4. Talk about the role of police , both the job we expect them to do and the need for accountability if  \nthey abuse their power and break the law. Support for police is strong, but so is support for accountability. Voters favor a message of support along with a commitment to accountability for police officers and leadership who break the law over rhetoric pushing for more","cbCaib3KQyEoSpEg","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaib3KQyEoSpEg","pdf",116594,"English","# Messaging research findings\n## What outperforms “tough on crime”\n# Five steps to build a “serious about safety” message\n## 1. Lead with safety and justice together\n## 2. Preempt “soft on crime” attacks with an owned vision\n## 3. Respond with “solutions, not scare tactics”\n## 4. Define the role of police and accountability\n## 5. Center personal accountability and repairing harm\n# Unifying framework: the three Vs\n## Values, Villain, Vision","[{\"question\":\"为什么“严肃对待安全”的信息框架会优于“对犯罪强硬”的说法？\",\"answer\":\"研究显示，强调优先把资金与政策投入到一开始就预防犯罪的“严肃对待安全”框架，整体表现更好，尤其能打动关键投票群体，包括独立和摇摆选民、女性、有色人种选民与年轻选民。\"},{\"question\":\"在信息构建的第一步应如何表达？\",\"answer\":\"第一步要把“安全”的价值放在前面，并明确社区不必在“安全或正义”之间二选一。预防犯罪与提供安全应被表述为每个人的共同优先事项。\"},{\"question\":\"当遭遇“软弱对待犯罪”的攻击时，建议用什么方式回应？\",\"answer\":\"建议积极拥有议题、先发制人，给出自己对安全社区的愿景，并把讨论从单一口号拉回到社区真正想要的因素，如就业、应急服务响应速度、住房与学校等。\"},{\"question\":\"“三大要素（three Vs）”具体指什么？\",\"answer\":\"“三大要素”是 Values、Villain 和 Vision：用共同的安全价值开场，把“对犯罪强硬的现状”作为反派（Villain），并围绕解决方案与未来愿景（Vision）形成统一叙事。\"}]","Messaging Guide - Countering “Tough on Crime” Rhetoric with a “Serious about Safety” Frame - Five Key Steps | PDF"]