How Are Leaders Talking About This?
The Core Message Architecture
Safer Cities polling across three surveys — 1,249 likely voters (conducted with Data for Progress), 2,400 registered voters, and 2,503 registered voters — has identified three core arguments for safety ambassador programs, in order of tested effectiveness.
The First Frame: Police Focus and Right Response
The argument: Trained safety ambassadors handle the daily situations that don’t require arrest powers (walking people to their destinations, de-escalating minor disagreements, connecting people in crisis to shelter and services), which lets police officers focus on serious crime: solving robbery, rape, and murder cases.
Why it works: 82% agreement in Safer Cities polling, with a 64-point net positive.1 This frame works across the political spectrum because it does two things simultaneously: it respects police (the argument is explicitly that ambassadors free police for more important work) and it acknowledges the resource misallocation problem (officers doing tasks that don’t require their specific capabilities and legal authority). Conservative audiences respond to the police-focus framing; progressive audiences respond to the “right response” framing; moderate audiences respond to both. It is the argument that generates the most bipartisan agreement in Safer Cities polling, and it is the one that law enforcement leaders themselves use most frequently in their public statements.
Minneapolis City Council Member Jason Chavez captured the frame in a single sentence: “Not every response requires the police department’s response.”2 Duluth, Georgia police described the local ambassador program as “a game changer” precisely because “when civilians take non-emergency calls, it frees police officers to focus on fighting crime.”3
In practice: West Hollywood Mayor Pro Tem Sepi Shyne: “We gave our residents the foot patrols they have been wanting for years.”4 The statement frames ambassadors as what residents asked for — not a substitute for police, but the visible, responsive presence that residents had wanted and not received through police patrol.
The Second Frame: Cost-Effectiveness and More Eyes on the Street
The argument: Trained ambassadors consistently perform the same visible deterrent function for a fraction of the cost of armed police, which means cities can deploy more of them for the same budget — more eyes on the street for the same investment.
Why it works: 77% agreement, 54-point net positive.5 The cost-efficiency argument is most persuasive for fiscal conservatives, budget-focused council members, and taxpayer advocates. The 5-to-1 ratio documented in West Hollywood — five ambassadors for the cost of one armed officer — is among the most precisely documented cost comparisons in the national ambassador record.6 The argument does not ask people to choose between safety and saving money; it frames ambassadors as the more efficient way to provide visible, deterrent public safety presence at scale.
In practice: The force-multiplier language is effective with audiences who value coverage over individual officer capability: “For the cost of one officer, you can put five ambassadors out there, five pairs of eyes, five people who can respond, five people who can build relationships with your businesses and residents.”
The ceiling on this argument: it implicitly concedes that individual ambassadors are less capable than individual officers — they just cost less. In high-crime contexts where capability matters more than coverage, the cost argument loses to the effectiveness argument from critics. The response is to shift to the coverage claim: “For this category of daily situation, an ambassador with training and presence is actually the more capable resource. A police officer who gets there 45 minutes later, if at all, is not more capable — she’s less present.”
The Third Frame: Business Safety and the Right Kind of Deterrence
The argument: Uniformed safety ambassadors provide the same visible deterrent needed to prevent retail theft without creating the atmosphere of danger that comes with stationing armed officers in front of businesses, which drives away customers.
Why it works: 80% agreement.7 This frame is most persuasive for business owners and business communities, a constituency that needs crime deterrence but knows that heavy-enforcement atmospherics can depress foot traffic. The argument is not abstract: it is the Oakland restaurant owner who reports no robberies since ambassadors arrived, or the Gainesville barista who tells reporters she values “the ambassadors’ constant presence” and that they “check on us constantly and ask if we need anything,”8 or the West Hollywood resident who describes a park transformed from a deterrent to a neighborhood asset.
In practice: Greater Saint Louis Inc. used this language in their ambassador launch announcement: “Mere presence of safety ambassadors deters crime” and “adds to the sense of security for everyone.”9 Business communities who fund Business Improvement Districts are already persuaded by this argument because they are paying for it.
Language That Tests Well vs. Language That Tests Poorly
Language Leaders Use
Why the Shifts Matter
“Right responder to the right call” is the most consistently effective tested frame because it is value-neutral and operationally accurate. It doesn’t say police are bad or ambassadors are better; it says matching resources to needs is efficient governance. A rural county commissioner who would never support “alternatives to police” will often support “making sure the right resource goes to the right situation.”
“Trained public safety professionals” matters because the “glorified security guard” attack works by diminishing the ambassador’s status. Describing ambassadors as trained professionals — with specific training (Narcan, CPR, de-escalation, crisis recognition) and specific accountability (body cameras, reporting requirements) — counters the diminishment before it lands.
“Voluntary compliance” with the specific number is a key evidence frame. Austin’s 86% voluntary compliance rate lands in a public hearing precisely because it is specific and program-reported.2 Vague claims about how people respond well to ambassador presence don’t land; the number does.
Common Objections and How Officials Respond
Objection 1: “These are just glorified security guards who can’t do anything when real crime happens.”
This is the enforcement-capability attack. It frames ambassadors as inadequate because they lack arrest power.
How officials typically respond:
Lead with the 86% voluntary compliance rate: “In 86 of 100 situations, asking someone to change their behavior works without any enforcement. We don’t need arrest power for 86% of the situations we’re trying to address.”
Name what police actually respond to when ambassadors are operating: “When serious crime happens, police respond — that’s what they’re there for. What ambassadors handle is the other 86% of calls that were going unanswered before.”
Reframe the counterfactual: “The question isn’t whether ambassadors are as capable as police officers. The question is whether five ambassadors who can handle most of the daily friction in a commercial district are more useful than one officer who is unavailable for most of it.”
What makes this response work: It concedes the correct premise (ambassadors can’t make arrests) while reframing which situations actually require arrest power.
Objection 2: “This is a social experiment that distracts from real law and order.”
The “social experiment” attack frames the program as untested and ideologically motivated rather than practically grounded.
How officials typically respond:
Lead with law enforcement endorsement: “The Duluth police chief called this a game changer. The St. Louis police chief welcomed it. The Honolulu police department said they welcome the extra eyes and ears. This isn’t a social experiment — it’s what police departments in cities across the country have said they want.”
Name specific outcomes: “In Gainesville, 100 people were connected to housing and medical services in two months. In Austin, ambassadors resolve 86% of quality-of-life situations without any enforcement. This isn’t a theory — it’s documented.”
Ground in fiscal conservatism: “This program costs a fraction of what we spend on police response to non-criminal calls. That’s not a social experiment — that’s good government.”
What makes this response work: Authoritative voices (police chiefs) and concrete outcomes (86% compliance, 100 service connections) shift the argument from values/ideology to evidence.
Objection 3: “This just pushes problems to other neighborhoods without solving anything.”
The displacement critique frames ambassadors as managing visible disorder in commercial districts by moving it elsewhere.
How officials typically respond:
Acknowledge the legitimate concern: “That’s a fair question, and it’s why we measure contacts and service connections, not just presence.”
Name the service connection data: “In Gainesville, 100 people were connected to housing and medical services in two months. In Denver, 150 unhoused people were connected to services in two weeks. Connecting people to services is the opposite of displacement.”
Reference the criminological evidence: “The research on area-based deterrence consistently finds that benefits spread to adjacent areas — not that problems do.”
What makes this response work: Acknowledging the concern is more credible than dismissing it; specific service connection data is more persuasive than abstract claims about the model.
Objection 4: “We need more police, not more bureaucracy.”
The direct competition argument frames ambassador funding as money that should go to hiring sworn officers.
How officials typically respond:
Return to the cost frame: “You could hire one more officer, or you could put five ambassadors on the street. What’s the right use of the budget for what we’re trying to do?”
Name the specific call types: “Officers are currently responding to requests for walking escorts, directions, people in doorways who need services. We’re not asking them to stop investigating crimes to do that — they’re already doing it. Ambassadors let them stop.”
Name police endorsement: “Police chiefs in St. Louis, Duluth, Honolulu, and Minneapolis all want these programs. If police leadership is asking for ambassadors, the ‘we need more police, not this’ argument is fighting with the police themselves.”
The Political Landscape: Where the Program Sits
The dual-attack structure of safety ambassador criticism (too soft on crime from the right, serving commercial interests over vulnerable people from the left) actually describes the program’s political position accurately: it sits in a broad, bipartisan middle that most voters occupy.
The 74% of Republicans who find ambassador programs effective and the 83% of Democrats who do are not finding the same thing effective for the same reasons. Republicans respond to the police-focus and cost-efficiency frames; Democrats respond to the “without criminalizing poverty” and service-connection frames. The programs serve both audiences because they actually address both sets of concerns: they free police from non-criminal calls and they engage vulnerable populations with services rather than enforcement.
The dual-attack is a sign that the programs occupy a practical middle rather than a compromised one. Programs attacked from both the enforcer right and the abolitionist left are programs that the enforcers find insufficiently punitive and the abolitionists find insufficiently transformative, which means they are probably doing something practically useful that neither pure-enforcement nor pure-service models would do as efficiently.
Officials who understand this can hold the dual-attack frame with some confidence: “The program is too soft for some people who want more arrests, and not transformative enough for some people who want to solve poverty. We’re trying to address the real daily needs of the real communities we serve, and the evidence suggests we’re doing that.”
Sample Statements by Context
City council budget hearing:
“For the cost of one sworn officer, this program puts five trained public safety professionals on the street seven days a week. They’ve handled [X] service connections and [Y] assisted people in [neighborhood]. The police chief supports this program because it lets officers focus on serious crime. This is efficient government.”
Business community presentation:
“Your customers feel safer when they see our ambassadors. Your employees have someone to call when they see a situation developing. You’ve told us crime reports have decreased on your block. And you’re getting this for a fraction of what additional armed officers would cost. That’s why businesses in [other city] are funding it directly through their BID assessments.”
Press question about whether ambassadors are “defunding the police”:
“This program adds capacity — it doesn’t reduce police. Officers keep doing what they do; this adds eyes on the street, Narcan in public spaces, and service connection for people who need help. Police chiefs across the country call these programs a game changer for exactly that reason.”
Response to a critic who says problems are just being moved:
“We track service connections, not just contacts. [Number] people were connected to housing, medical care, and services. We also track whether situations required police — the answer is [X]%. The program is designed to connect people to help, not move them from one block to the next.”
Bottom Line
The rhetoric of safety ambassador programs is clear and defensible when built on what the data actually supports: documented voluntary compliance rates, specific life-safety outcomes (especially from transit programs), and named law enforcement endorsements. The frames that test best (police focus, cost-efficiency, and right-deterrence) all work because they start from what is observable and verifiable rather than from values claims that opponents can challenge. The objections that programs face are predictable and answerable; leaders who know the objections before they face them are better prepared to respond honestly rather than defensively. The political position (bipartisan majority support with vocal critics on both ends) is actually a durable place to stand, and leaders who understand why they are being attacked from both directions are less likely to be knocked off balance by either attack.
Safer Cities national survey of 2,400 registered voters, police focus argument testing. Polling data measures argument effectiveness and public sentiment, not program outcomes.
Minnesota Daily, Maya Bell, March 18, 2025. https://mndaily.com/293044/city/community-safety-ambassador-program-for-south-minneapolis-starts-in-may/
WSB-TV Atlanta (WSB-TV 2), Matt Johnson. https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/gwinnett-county/civilians-take-non-emergency-calls-duluth-freeing-police-critical-duties/VBFYGRJ2UVBV5B7EMOHE3GE2Y4/
West Hollywood Mayor Pro Tem Sepi Shyne, posted on social media following the council vote on program expansion. Documented in Safer Cities newsletter, July 2022. https://safercitiesresearch.com/the-latest/two-big-bets-on-the-power-of-unarmed-security-ambassadors-to-increase-safety Note: the specific quote about foot patrols was posted by Shyne on social media (tweet), not in the Beverly Press article.
Safer Cities poll: cost-effectiveness argument, 77% agreement, 54-point net positive.
West Hollywood program documentation: 5 to 1 cost ratio versus armed officers. Documented in Safer Cities newsletter, July 2022. https://safercitiesresearch.com/the-latest/two-big-bets-on-the-power-of-unarmed-security-ambassadors-to-increase-safety
Safer Cities poll: business safety argument, 80% agreement.
WUFT Gainesville, Martine Joseph, “Downtown Ambassadors’ night watch is making a difference,” March 21, 2025. Jessie Ives quote confirmed verbatim. https://www.wuft.org/public-safety/2025-03-21/downtown-ambassadors-night-watch-is-making-a-difference
Greater St. Louis, Inc. press release, October 2024. https://greaterstlinc.com/news/downtownstl/greater-st-louis-inc-announces-launch-downtown-public-safety-ambassador-program