To frame the discussion of language and messages, Alan Jenkins reviewed the major findings from the Opportunity Agenda survey (2,055 respondents, with an oversample of adults living below 50% of the federal poverty line).  According to the Opportunity Agenda, the findings “paint a rich picture of a nation yearning for greater opportunity and increasingly interested in fundamental social change toward that end.” For instance:

• 9 out of 10 Americans see discrimination against one or more groups in society as a serious problem
• 65% of Americans place “poverty” and “inequality” high on the public agenda
• 62% of Americans are receptive to the idea that poverty is the result of structural causes
• 75% of Americans believe poor people receive unequal treatment
• Two out of three Americans are willing to take action to reduce poverty, or are already doing so

Given this significant public support for economic justice, Alan Jenkins and Jeff Parcher agreed that this climate offers opportunities to build a social movement to begin eradicating poverty and inequality. Parcher shared results from his organization’s cognitive linguistic analysis, interviews, and listening sessions, conducted with more than 1,700 people – many of whom were at or below 200% of the poverty line.  He stressed several important considerations for messaging:

• Avoid applying labels, such as “the poor,” and “the working poor.” According to the Center for Community Change analysis, people with low-incomes do not consider themselves as “poor,” and rarely refer to themselves as such.
• Craft messages that focus on shared values, with an emphasis on family, freedom, and the individual challenges facing each person, rather than on policies and programs. For instance, rather than “entitlements,” we could say “your health and retirement security.”
• Emphasize tangible goals that people want (e.g., time with family, a decent life, a secure retirement), and make it personal, within the context of their daily lives, instead of speaking in vague, abstract terms.  For example, rather than “future generations,” we could say “that newborn you swear already smiles.”
• Use the language of causation, as that is how people typically think.  For instance, in place of “systemic inequities,” we could say “the greedy few rigged the game” or “CEOs have taken advantage.”

The Opportunity for Evaluators

While the findings from the Opportunity Agenda and Center for Community Change studies certainly inform the work of advocates and communicators, they also are of relevance to evaluators. We work with philanthropies and other nonprofits that care deeply about issues of poverty and inequality. These organizations have developed major national, regional, and community initiatives to improve the lives of our most vulnerable people – with objectives such as increasing access to and graduation from college, expanding opportunities to enter the workforce, improving financial capability, and building healthier communities.

In our engagements with these clients, we provide guidance on how they can achieve their social change goals – often through the theory of change process, strategy memos, working sessions, and other interactions during the project. Perhaps we could enhance our role as “thought partners” for these organizations by integrating the aforementioned and other cognitive linguistic analysis considerations into our work. For instance, we could conduct a thorough review of messaging for the clients’ initiatives, to ensure they are speaking to their target stakeholders, populations, and communities in the most appropriate language. I suspect that approach could yield even better outcomes – and serve as a golden opportunity to help our clients and their grantees eradicate poverty and inequality.