home. . .contact us. . .
. . .
A Guide for Participation


Influencing policy is a skill, and like any other, has to be learned and understood. As for me, when my roof leaks, I call a roofer. I don't have the skill to fix it so I call on someone who does. Lobbyists know how to influence legislation, but the criminology community does not have an organization, with a political action committee, to hire one. This website will try to fill that gap by facilitating citizen lobbying. That too requires some skills and understanding, so read on for an introductory primer. We have to fix the roof ourselves. Policy influence has a direct relationship to the skills of those who try to do it.

The first lesson, and arguably the most important, is that there are limitations to everyone—and group's—influence. Researchers may have a tendency to think that their evidence is a weapon so powerful that any reasonable person will have to see it. That is a myth. No matter how well armed researchers are with solid evidence, they aren't going to change the mind of a policy maker who is pointed in the opposite direction. That opposite direction is not there simply by ignorance, but is the product of political and ideological forces much too powerful to overcome. The effort to try might awaken an opposition and push that policy maker into a more defense position and strengthen that resolve. The best advice on how to deal with the opposition: let them sleep.

Who to Target:
Friends have to be reinforced. Don't think that if someone already agrees with a research based position, there is no reason to spend time on them. In the legislative policy process, a bigger question than what someone is for, is what is their priority? Many popular bills languish because supporters don't push them. Friends don't have to be persuaded, but reassured, and most important, given reasons for doing what they want to do anyway. Research can help them defend their positions when the opposition comes at them.

If there is any persuasion of policy makers, it must be aimed at the relatively small middle-of-the-road. Those of us not part of the policy process tend to think that is what happens all of the time when outsiders try to influence policy. We influence opinion with evidence and reason, why shouldn't they! They have constituents. We must remember that.

The trick is to identify who is for you, who is against you, and who are the very few in the middle. ["For you" and "against you" are very crude designations. It means, who will interpret your research in the manner that you proscribe.] Methods of influence should bypass those who are against you, activate those who are already on your side, and identify those who are undecided and especially leaning your way and reinforce what they are finding reasons to believe.

Persuasion is very rare, and should be reserved for those who have no counter- veiling pressure. Identifying who to persuade is arguably more important than the arguments. Researchers are aware of the risk of unintended consequences. Influencing policy also has that risk.

Most important, we should abandon the myth that public policy on crime, or anything else, is the product of a debate. Political power makes policy, and I am arguing that we can participate in it.

What is a Policy Argument:
A policy argument is not the same as a research based argument. The research evidence is used to support what is said, not explain why it is being said. A policy argument of course really isn't an argument at all, but an urging for action, a statement of support that we make without having political power behind us. We can't say that reelection hinges on this, or campaign contributions will follow. What we can say is that if a legislative vote is in accord with research, somebody will say so and be there to back up, or give cover to, the policy maker. It won't work to say that the research will back them up, but the implied message is that we will back them up.

How do we convey this message? Short and sweet. It is an axiom that policy makers, or even their staff, do not read books and articles, or even research report. They might read summaries of same, and if the summaries identify the published work from which they are derived, and if the person pointing the way has prestige, that adds up to policy influence. But again, the argument is mostly to activate and reinforce, not to convert.

The summary statement must get to the point immediately, and make that point as unequivocally as possible. Research findings are never unequivocal, but they have to be in this milieu. Keep it simple. Avoid the culturally expected "the data tends to show . . ."

Say, "the results are favorable . . ." Leave out the word "tends." They don't want to know how favorable, they want help to get a bill passed.

Timing is Everything:
In the research culture, findings have a permanence that is taken for granted. Published research is there . . . forever (even after new research contradicts it). In the policy making world, there is no forever. A Congress lasts two years. After that, the universe starts over. Memory is short.

Policy makers don't rely on published material that they can turn to whenever there is a need; they rely on their memory, and that memory is as long as an issue is before them, and extends to the last argument they have seen or heard. The issue before them then, is the window during which their memory is open to what anyone has to say. Relevant research must reach the policy maker at the functional time that he or she needs it, not when the researcher is ready.

The policy "argument," then, must be targeted to the strategic policy maker, in a useful form, at the right time. Citizen lobbying can do this, with help.

As a Constituent:
Elected members of the U.S. Congress make policy for all Americans, but communicating with them is not easy except for their direct constituents. Letters are irradiated and take many weeks to get there, telephone calls get recorded messages, and personal visits usually get interviews with a junior staffer. Constituents can send emails, through websites, but emails from non-constituents are either blocked or not read. These emails are structured to encourage brevity (wisely). Your institutional identity (with its accompanying status), has to be written into the text of the message, for there is no letterhead. Faxes can include a letterhead, but for non-constituents are disregarded.

Elected officials always want to hear from their constituents. They don't read each letter carefully and machines generate topical replies onto regular mail, but they do keep score how their mail is running. Timeliness is important. If a vote on a bill is imminent, how the mail is running for the leaning-middle can be the difference. It could also get an ally to the floor to vote.

This website will try to facilitate contact. But if you email or fax them once, you'll be on their mailing list. Don't cringe, you will want to keep track.

Go to two websites: http://www.senate.gov/ and http://www.house.gov/ and click in your state and zip code respectively, then go to the websites of your two Senators and Congressperson and save them. Each website is different, but each one has a place to email your representative. As you learn of impending bills and their timeliness, of your interest and expertise, you can email them in a few minutes.

As an Expert:
The opinion of experts (researchers, professors, persons with status) is not of much concern to legislators for their floor votes on bills before the whole chamber, but they are of great interest in committees. Go to the websites noted above and easily find out what committees they are on. Most crime legislation, but not all, is assigned to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, and each of those has a crime subcommittee (with a longer formal title), and any legislation that requires funding (which is most) must also pass through Appropriations Committees, and each chamber has a subcommittee called Commerce, State, Justice, and the Judiciary. If any of your three elected officials are members of those committees, especially the subcommittees, you have an excellent access to crime policy making. Even if you are not such a constituent, you can influence those subcommittees—on the record—which means, published in The Congressional Record.

It is in those subcommittees where you can influence the writing of legislation, not just on the up-or-down floor votes. Again, there is a fairly narrow timely window of opportunity when the record is open and letters can be placed "on the record" for the committees. You need to be attentive. The record will be closed five business days after subcommittee hearings.

These letters are on institutional letterhead when faxed, and addressed to the subcommittee chair. Address them to "The Honorable _______", U.S. House of Representatives, or Senate, Washington, DC 20515. In the first sentence identify the bill if you have the number as "H.R. ____" or "S.____" or the title. Keep these letters to one page or less, get to the point quickly, identify the basis of your expertise, and although you don't have to explicitly be for or against a bill, make it clear which side your research and expertise puts you on. They think in terms of "sides," not nuance. After awhile, you will have the skills to follow legislation and respond with a minimum of time.

In rare cases experts are asked to literally travel to Washington to testify before a committee or subcommittee. Congress does not pay expenses, but supportive interest groups might. Witnesses are invited by the majority party (three) and the minority party (one). What has been said before applies here too, partisan opinions don't change, so the target audience are the few undecided. This is considered the gold standard of policy influence. Professional lobbyists never testify, although they can have a lot to say about who is invited.

Interest Groups:
There is a lively activity of interest groups in legislation, and they need assistance by researchers. These groups participate in the ways noted above, but they also play an important role in the initiating and writing of legislation. Only an elected member can introduce a bill, but many kinds of groups can be behind the initiatives, including the Presidency and executive bureaucracy, who can be influenced, and well organized groups with contacts in the research community. Once again, Washington liaison work and communication is very helpful, but without it we can still monitor the system.

To summarize, most members of the criminal justice research and professional community, who is the target audience of this essay and the website, are educated in crime and the system; but not in the policy process, where effectiveness requires its own set of skills. Relevant participation does not require politics as a way of life, but blocking out politics and how the process works is unrealistic. The mission here is to facilitate relevant participation by a constituency of experts, who can do so without altering the basic structure and rhythm of their professional lives. This public can become a constituency, make its voice heard, improve the quality of legislation, and enrich its own professional experience. We have to work together on this. It requires thinking and honesty. I think it is worth it. 		.
.

back to top

. . . .
5505 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Box 300, Washington, DC 20015-2601 301-270-5944