Racial Equity in Public Policy

Step 1: Develop messages with advocates

Advocates across the country, including people of color and those working with and in communities experiencing structural racism, as well as those working in both progressive and conservative areas, helped develop the initial messages. They provided invaluable input about what needs to be said, the conversation it will spark, and the support people need to have these conversations.

Step 2: Test with decision-makers

We tested the messages in four interviews and an online survey ^[1]. The objective was not to soften our messages; rather we wanted to understand how to maintain our conviction while advancing an effective discussion.

The national survey consisted of 102 decision-makers and influencers with the following demographics:

Testing showed that our messages make a credible case with decision-makers. How we enter and have the conversation will vary depending on their mindset. There are two subgroups:

Across both groups, a solid majority think people who are white enjoy at least a “fair amount” of benefits not available to people of color. This is a significant opening for our work. But only about half recognize this as structural racism. Others point to other factors, including personal behavior or choices, cultural and family situations, or lack of access to jobs. Most of the decision-makers in the survey prioritize opportunity for people in the community when they make policy. From there, the two subgroups split on their underlying values, as shown below. 

Those values—especially the shared value of opportunity—give us a great place to start. To build out the full messages, we tested every message combination to determine the set that most effectively makes the case for targeting policies where the need is greatest, especially in communities experiencing structural racism. 

Testing showed that these three message points are effective with an audience that is “more ready” and values equity. This message combination resonated with 85% of the “more ready” sub-audience in our survey.

1. Unjust policies that shape physical, economic, cultural and societal environments have resulted in poorer health, lower incomes, higher medical costs and limited opportunities for social, economic and financial advancement. 

2. New policies cannot undo the damage of structural racism and ongoing discrimination, but they can advance health and prevent future harm.

3. When people make decisions about their health—or the health of their children—we should be sure that policies do not limit their options and opportunities. We need to recognize and address the ways in which policies impact communities differently, especially those most affected by structural racism.  

Similarly, testing showed that these three message points are effective with people who are “less” ready and who prioritize personal liberty and stewardship of public funds. This message combination resonated with 97% of your audience of the “less ready” sub-audience in our survey.

1. When people make decisions about their health—or the health of their children—we should be sure that policies do not limit their options and opportunities. We need to recognize and address the ways in which policies impact communities differently.

2. We will know that we have achieved health and racial equity when race can no longer be used to predict health, well-being and longevity.

3. Unjust policies that shape physical, economic, cultural and societal environments have resulted in poorer health, lower incomes, higher medical costs and limited opportunities for social, economic and financial advancement.

We also tested a variety of proof points to use with the messages that help illustrate the impact of structural racism. The majority of respondents across the entire survey rated the following points most effective at making the case for targeting policies to communities experiencing structural racism.

• The COVID-19 pandemic showed that disparities in health, economic and social conditions put people of color at much higher risk of illness and death than white people. ^[3]

• Even among working people earning low wages, people of color are at a greater disadvantage.^[4] Even at high-income levels, people of color have worse health outcomes than white people at the same income level. ^[5]

• A study by the financial company Citigroup^[6] estimates that systemic racism faced by Black people over the last 20 years has cost the U.S. economy $16 trillion, including gaps in wages, access to housing and higher education, and investment in Black-owned businesses. 

• Historically, policies have placed people of color at significant disadvantage by denying education, mortgages, loans, and health benefits provided to white people. ^[7]

We took these testing insights back to the advocates who helped shape the initial messages. With their guidance, we created two message pathways to productive conversations—one for decision-makers who may be more ready for direct conversations about racial equity, and one for those who may be less ready. We recognize that no one will fall neatly into one set of messages, and the conversation will evolve over time. We know that some advocates will want to be even more direct in their conversations, and we wholeheartedly support that. Our hope is that these messages help normalize the conversation about racial equity, lead to concrete changes in policy language, and expand over time as our nation works to eliminate structural racism.