Shared research study link
Rep. Finstad on Minnesota Fraud: Constituent Reactions
Understand how Minnesota constituents react to Rep. Brad Finstad's statements about fraud investigations and ICE enforcement, including his claim that fraudsters "played Minnesotans as chumps"
Study Overview
Updated Jan 22, 2026
Research question: How Minnesota constituents react to Rep. Brad Finstad’s statements about fraud investigations (“played us as chumps”) and ICE enforcement (“worst of the worst”).
Research group: Six Minnesota voters (rural/urban mix, including immigrant‑linked caregivers, community volunteers, and compliance/ops professionals) provided 42 responses across seven questions. What they said: Anger at fraudsters but strong rejection of the “chumps” framing as blamey theater; they want concrete, funded fixes-audits, vendor vetting, prosecutions, clawbacks-and to protect programs that serve neighbors.
On ICE, they are skeptical of “worst of the worst” without Minnesota‑specific proof and safeguards-clear definitions, warrants/due process, sensitive‑location limits, independent oversight, and cost transparency.
Notable divergences included a KPI‑first, short‑timeline demand, concern about reputational harm to immigrant/small‑church volunteers, and explicit calls to fund oversight rather than merely mandate it. Main insights: Replace zingers with measurable accountability; target criminals and fix guardrails while preserving essential services; communicate calmly, plainly, and with timelines.
Takeaways (communications): Separate fraud from immigration, retire “chumps,” use respectful language (e.g., “abused our trust”), and commit to a 30–90 day public dashboard with KPIs (clawbacks, charges vs convictions, audit coverage, vendor debarments, tip‑to‑action).
Takeaways (operations): Fund audits/vendor vetting/segregation of duties and whistleblower protections; for ICE define “worst of the worst,” publish county‑by‑quarter metrics, require warrants/body cams/interpreters plus sensitive‑location and child‑safety protocols, and avoid cuts that punish recipients or community helpers.
Research group: Six Minnesota voters (rural/urban mix, including immigrant‑linked caregivers, community volunteers, and compliance/ops professionals) provided 42 responses across seven questions. What they said: Anger at fraudsters but strong rejection of the “chumps” framing as blamey theater; they want concrete, funded fixes-audits, vendor vetting, prosecutions, clawbacks-and to protect programs that serve neighbors.
On ICE, they are skeptical of “worst of the worst” without Minnesota‑specific proof and safeguards-clear definitions, warrants/due process, sensitive‑location limits, independent oversight, and cost transparency.
Notable divergences included a KPI‑first, short‑timeline demand, concern about reputational harm to immigrant/small‑church volunteers, and explicit calls to fund oversight rather than merely mandate it. Main insights: Replace zingers with measurable accountability; target criminals and fix guardrails while preserving essential services; communicate calmly, plainly, and with timelines.
Takeaways (communications): Separate fraud from immigration, retire “chumps,” use respectful language (e.g., “abused our trust”), and commit to a 30–90 day public dashboard with KPIs (clawbacks, charges vs convictions, audit coverage, vendor debarments, tip‑to‑action).
Takeaways (operations): Fund audits/vendor vetting/segregation of duties and whistleblower protections; for ICE define “worst of the worst,” publish county‑by‑quarter metrics, require warrants/body cams/interpreters plus sensitive‑location and child‑safety protocols, and avoid cuts that punish recipients or community helpers.
Participant Snapshots
6 profiles
Hannah Bleau
Hannah, 30, is a St. Paul-based veteran and education implementation manager. Pragmatic and values-driven, she bikes, budgets, mentors, and seeks durable, privacy-safe, time-saving solutions aligned with service, stewardship, and community.
Patty Bryant
Resourceful 58-year-old St. Paul homeowner, divorced, Catholic, with one adult daughter. Budget-minded, community-oriented, and bilingual, she favors durable value, clear information, and local trust. Loves cooking, libraries, walks, and practical, low-dram…
Deneen Schoen
A 62-year-old rural Minnesota legal compliance manager for a Black Protestant nonprofit. Married, debt-averse, community-minded, and tech-practical. Values clarity, ethics, and durability; sings in choir, quilts, gardens, and plans purchases carefully.
Mariam Gallo
Rural Minnesota operations manager, married with two kids, pragmatic and community-oriented. Values durability, clear terms, and time-savings. Moderate politics, outdoorsy, church-involved. Budgets carefully, invests in quality, and expects products to work…
Deborah Duong
Deborah Duong is a Hmong American single mom in rural Minnesota working full-time remote in environmental data. Frugal, faith-grounded, and community-oriented, she juggles kids, spotty internet, and budgets, prioritizing reliability, clarity, and durability…
Yolanda Talley
Grace, 50, is a bilingual Black home health aide in rural Minnesota. Married with two kids, frugal yet warm, she trusts community, values reliability, and prefers simple, low-risk solutions that work with tight budgets and limited transport.
Hannah Bleau
Hannah, 30, is a St. Paul-based veteran and education implementation manager. Pragmatic and values-driven, she bikes, budgets, mentors, and seeks durable, privacy-safe, time-saving solutions aligned with service, stewardship, and community.
Patty Bryant
Resourceful 58-year-old St. Paul homeowner, divorced, Catholic, with one adult daughter. Budget-minded, community-oriented, and bilingual, she favors durable value, clear information, and local trust. Loves cooking, libraries, walks, and practical, low-dram…
Deneen Schoen
A 62-year-old rural Minnesota legal compliance manager for a Black Protestant nonprofit. Married, debt-averse, community-minded, and tech-practical. Values clarity, ethics, and durability; sings in choir, quilts, gardens, and plans purchases carefully.
Mariam Gallo
Rural Minnesota operations manager, married with two kids, pragmatic and community-oriented. Values durability, clear terms, and time-savings. Moderate politics, outdoorsy, church-involved. Budgets carefully, invests in quality, and expects products to work…
Deborah Duong
Deborah Duong is a Hmong American single mom in rural Minnesota working full-time remote in environmental data. Frugal, faith-grounded, and community-oriented, she juggles kids, spotty internet, and budgets, prioritizing reliability, clarity, and durability…
Yolanda Talley
Grace, 50, is a bilingual Black home health aide in rural Minnesota. Married with two kids, frugal yet warm, she trusts community, values reliability, and prefers simple, low-risk solutions that work with tight budgets and limited transport.
Overview
0 participants
Sex / Gender
Race / Ethnicity
Locale (Top)
Occupations (Top)
Demographic Overview
No agents selected
| Age bucket | Male count | Female count |
|---|
Participant locations
No agents selected
Participant Incomes
US benchmark scaled to group size
| Income bucket | Participants | US households |
|---|
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 ACS 1-year (Table B19001; >$200k evenly distributed for comparison)
Media Ingestion
Connections appear when personas follow many of the same sources, highlighting overlapping media diets.
Questions and Responses
7 questions
Response Summaries
7 questions
Word Cloud
Question Summary
Preparing summary…
Summary
Themes
| Theme | Count | Example Participant | Example Quote |
|---|
Outliers
| Agent | Snippet | Reason |
|---|
Analyzing correlations…
Generating correlations…
Taking longer than usual
Persona Correlations
Analyzing correlations…
Overview
Minnesota constituents uniformly reject Rep. Finstad’s "chumps" framing and slogan-driven claims about ICE enforcement. Across demographics there is a clear dual demand: (1) protect local generosity, volunteers, and essential services from being scapegoated, and (2) replace soundbites with funded, measurable operational accountability (audits, vendor vetting, clawbacks, prosecutions, public KPIs). Tone matters: respondents prefer calm, plain-English, Midwestern messaging that admits past misses and outlines a 30–90 day accountable plan. Differences in emphasis track with role, age, and locale - younger urban professionals demand short-cadence, data-driven dashboards; compliance/operations respondents translate fixes into controls and funding needs; rural caregivers and immigrant-linked respondents foreground family, language access, and community trust.
Total responses: 42
Key Segments
| Segment | Attributes | Insight | Supporting Agents |
|---|---|---|---|
| Younger urban professionals |
|
Most demanding of short cadence and visible metrics (30–90 day scoreboard, one-page dashboard). They will accept accountability messaging only if it cites time-series, county-level data and repeatable KPIs. | Hannah Bleau |
| Compliance / operations professionals |
|
Translate fraud fixes into operational controls (cycle counts, segregation of duties, vendor debarment, funded audits). They insist oversight be explicitly funded and include named owners, timelines, and enforcement mechanics. | Deneen Schoen, Mariam Gallo |
| Rural frontline caregivers and small-community volunteers |
|
Primary concern is protecting families and local services (food shelves, schools, clinics). They fear rhetoric that chills volunteers or church-based aid and demand language access, child-sensitive procedures, and small-room outreach. | Yolanda Talley, Deborah Duong, Patty Bryant |
| Nonprofit / community-serving respondents |
|
Defensive of Minnesota’s generosity: want fraudsters prosecuted but fear program cuts. Favor accountability approaches that protect services, use plain language, and include community meetings and transparent timelines. | Patty Bryant, Deborah Duong, Deneen Schoen |
| Respondents with immigrant / multilingual community ties |
|
Worried about reputational harm to immigrant churches and volunteers; insist on interpreter access, legal aid, protections for mixed-status families, and careful, narrowly-targeted enforcement with procedural safeguards. | Yolanda Talley, Deborah Duong |
Shared Mindsets
| Trait | Signal | Agents |
|---|---|---|
| Rejection of blame-based framing ('chumps') | Constituents across segments find language that blames donors or volunteers performative and electorally risky; prefer messaging that separates bad actors from the broader civic ecosystem. | Deneen Schoen, Patty Bryant, Mariam Gallo, Hannah Bleau, Yolanda Talley, Deborah Duong |
| Demand for concrete operational accountability | Respondents want auditable, funded steps (vendor vetting, audits, clawbacks, prosecutions) rather than slogans; they expect named owners, timelines, and repeatable processes. | Deneen Schoen, Mariam Gallo, Hannah Bleau, Deborah Duong, Patty Bryant, Yolanda Talley |
| Preference for measurable transparency and cadence | Common desire for county-level, time-bound KPIs (dollars recovered, investigations opened/closed, convictions) displayed in a simple public dashboard with regular updates. | Hannah Bleau, Deneen Schoen, Mariam Gallo, Deborah Duong, Patty Bryant, Yolanda Talley |
| Protect programs and people | Strong consensus that enforcement should not gut services or deter volunteers/beneficiaries; communications must reassure about protections for kids, meals, and medical care. | Mariam Gallo, Patty Bryant, Deborah Duong, Yolanda Talley, Deneen Schoen, Hannah Bleau |
| Skepticism of ICE slogans; demand for safeguards | Across groups there is skepticism about claims like 'worst of the worst' without clear definitions, warrants, due process and independent oversight; respondents call for sensitive-location rules and transparency on enforcement practices. | Hannah Bleau, Deneen Schoen, Deborah Duong, Patty Bryant, Mariam Gallo, Yolanda Talley |
| Tone preference: calm, humble, local | Preferred messenger tone is plain-English, modest, Midwestern; admit mistakes, avoid theatrical zingers, and present a clear short-term plan. | Patty Bryant, Deneen Schoen, Yolanda Talley, Hannah Bleau, Mariam Gallo, Deborah Duong |
Divergences
| Segment | Contrast | Agents |
|---|---|---|
| Younger urban professionals vs Rural caregivers | Younger urban group prioritizes rapid, data-driven public dashboards and KPI cadence; rural caregivers prioritize immediate protections for families, language access and preserving informal volunteer networks over technical metrics. | Hannah Bleau, Yolanda Talley, Deborah Duong |
| Compliance / operations professionals vs Nonprofit volunteers | Compliance respondents push technical controls and funding for oversight; nonprofit volunteers emphasize minimizing program disruption and the reputational consequences for community-serving groups. | Deneen Schoen, Mariam Gallo, Patty Bryant |
| Immigrant-linked respondents vs General public tone preferences | Immigrant-linked respondents place higher weight on language access, legal protections for mixed-status families, and small-room outreach, whereas broader cohorts emphasize public transparency and measurable outcomes. | Yolanda Talley, Deborah Duong, Hannah Bleau |
Creating recommendations…
Generating recommendations…
Taking longer than usual
Recommendations & Next Steps
Preparing recommendations…
Overview
Focus-group feedback is consistent: Minnesotans reject zinger language like "played us as chumps" and demand measurable accountability over rhetoric. They want bad actors prosecuted and funds clawed back while protecting essential services and community volunteers. Claims like "worst of the worst" trigger skepticism without Minnesota-specific definitions, due-process safeguards, and transparent, recurring data. For Claude’s Ditto testing context, the most valuable, non-partisan deliverables are tooling and ops that help partners publish receipts (clear KPIs, cadence, QA) and avoid off-putting language that alienates the very communities they serve-without engaging in targeted persuasion.
- What to operationalize: neutral KPI specs, a reusable “Receipts” dashboard, data governance, and language-quality guardrails.
- How: quick MVP in 30 days; iterate to a validated, auditable pipeline by 60–90 days with clear ownership and update cadence.
Quick Wins (next 2–4 weeks)
| # | Action | Why | Owner | Effort | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Publish a neutral "Receipts Metrics" spec | Codifies requested KPIs (e.g., clawbacks, charges vs convictions, audit coverage, debarments, tip-to-action days) with clear definitions and sources so partners can show the receipts fast. | Research Ops | Low | High |
| 2 | Prototype an Accountability Scoreboard | Stand up a sandbox dashboard with mocked data to validate layout, drill-downs, and refresh cadence before wiring production sources. | Data Engineering | Med | High |
| 3 | Create a Language & Tone QA checklist | Flag off-putting or stigmatizing terms (e.g., “chumps”) and nudge toward neutral, respectful phrasing to reduce reputational risk-without audience targeting. | Content Standards | Low | Med |
| 4 | Define a 30/60/90 reporting cadence | Sets expectations for monthly/quarterly updates, ensuring constituents see progress without relying on soundbites. | Program Management | Low | Med |
| 5 | Draft a Community Safeguards checklist | Standardizes due-process and transparency asks (warrants, interpreter access, sensitive-location policies, child-safety protocols) for any public data pack. | Policy & Governance | Med | High |
Initiatives (30–90 days)
| # | Initiative | Description | Owner | Timeline | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Receipts Dashboard V1 (MVP) | Build a reusable, non-partisan dashboard template with core KPIs:
|
Data Engineering | 0–30 days (prototype), 31–60 (data wiring), 61–90 (QA + publish) | Receipts Metrics spec, Data source access, Design system components |
| 2 | Metrics Governance & Auditability | Create a data dictionary, source registry, refresh SLAs, QA checks, and an evidence log for each metric so numbers are verifiable and independently reviewable. | Research Ops | 0–60 days for governance v1; ongoing QA thereafter | Receipts Dashboard V1, Policy & Governance review |
| 3 | Language & Tone QA System | Operationalize a lightweight content-quality gate to identify inflammatory or stigmatizing terms and suggest neutral alternatives, with human-in-the-loop review to avoid targeted persuasion. | Content Standards | 0–45 days for checklist + linting prototype; 46–90 days for workflow integration | Legal & Policy review, Design system (copy guidelines) |
| 4 | Community Transparency Pack | Package neutral materials partners can publish: definitions (e.g., what counts as violent offenses), due-process safeguards, sensitive-location rules, interpreter access, and complaint pathways. | Policy & Governance | 0–45 days for draft; 46–75 days for validation with external subject-matter reviewers | Legal counsel, External SME validation |
| 5 | Oversight ROI Model | Estimate costs and returns of funded oversight (audits, site checks, vendor vetting) to prioritize high-ROI controls and inform budget requests. | Strategy & Finance | 0–60 days for v1 model; refine quarterly | Metrics Governance, Access to historical cost data |
KPIs to Track
| # | KPI | Definition | Target | Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Time-to-first dashboard publish | Days from project kickoff to MVP Accountability Scoreboard available to stakeholders. | <= 30 days | Weekly until launch; monthly thereafter |
| 2 | KPI coverage | Share of defined Receipts Metrics implemented with documented sources and QA. | >= 90% by day 60 | Biweekly |
| 3 | On-time refresh rate | Percent of scheduled dashboard updates delivered on or before SLA. | >= 95% per quarter | Monthly |
| 4 | Data quality error rate | Material issues found per refresh (e.g., mismatched totals, stale sources). | <= 1 material issue per quarter | Monthly |
| 5 | Policy compliance score | Share of content passing Language & Tone QA and political-safety checks on first review. | >= 98% | Monthly |
| 6 | Stakeholder satisfaction (CSAT) | Average satisfaction rating from pilot users on clarity, usefulness, and trust in metrics. | >= 4.3/5 | Post-release + quarterly |
Risks & Mitigations
| # | Risk | Mitigation | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tooling used for targeted political persuasion rather than neutral transparency. | Implement policy gates, reviewer approvals, and audit logs; restrict features to descriptive reporting and prohibit audience targeting. | Policy & Governance |
| 2 | Data gaps or inconsistent definitions undermine trust. | Publish a data dictionary, note limitations inline, and prioritize high-signal metrics with verifiable sources. | Research Ops |
| 3 | Reputational risk from inflammatory language slipping through. | Language & Tone QA checklist + human review; maintain a denylist and examples of neutral alternatives. | Content Standards |
| 4 | Delayed delivery due to multi-source integration complexity. | Time-box MVP with mocked data; phase integrations; define SLAs and critical-path dependencies. | Data Engineering |
| 5 | Low stakeholder adoption if outputs are too complex. | One-page summaries with plain-language tooltips; gather pilot feedback; iterate on usability. | Product Management |
| 6 | Legal/privacy constraints on case-level transparency. | Aggregate metrics only; legal review; apply minimum cell suppression and privacy-preserving techniques. | Legal Counsel |
Timeline
0–2 weeks: Metrics spec, QA checklist, cadence calendar, sandbox dashboard with mocked data.
30 days: Dashboard MVP live to pilot users; governance v1; Transparency Pack draft.
60 days: Data wiring to priority sources; KPI coverage >= 90%; Oversight ROI model v1.
90 days: QA hardening, on-time refresh >= 95%, external SME validation of definitions; publish v1 playbook.
120+ days: Iterate with user feedback, expand metrics, independent review, and formalize quarterly update rhythm.
30 days: Dashboard MVP live to pilot users; governance v1; Transparency Pack draft.
60 days: Data wiring to priority sources; KPI coverage >= 90%; Oversight ROI model v1.
90 days: QA hardening, on-time refresh >= 95%, external SME validation of definitions; publish v1 playbook.
120+ days: Iterate with user feedback, expand metrics, independent review, and formalize quarterly update rhythm.
Research Study Narrative
Objective and context
Objective: Understand Minnesota constituents’ reactions to Rep. Brad Finstad’s fraud statements (including “played us as chumps”) and his support for ICE “arresting the worst of the worst,” then translate findings into operational recommendations, tone guidance, and measurable next steps.
What we heard (cross-question synthesis)
Across all questions, Minnesotans reject the “chumps” framing as performative and disrespectful of the state’s generosity. The immediate reaction pairs anger at fraudsters with a demand to fix oversight, not shame donors or dismantle aid. Deneen Schoen: “It feels like a sound bite, not stewardship.” Patty Bryant: “Tired of politicians peacocking on TV.” The dominant ask is concrete, funded controls-audits, vendor vetting, segregation of duties, site checks-plus visible metrics and timelines. Mariam Gallo: “Hammer the fraudsters… charge them, claw back money, ban them from future grants.” Hannah Bleau: “Show the receipts: dollars clawed back; charges vs. convictions; vendor debarments; audit coverage pre/post; time from tip to action.” Respondents insist enforcement protect programs and families, not chill volunteers or punish vulnerable people.
On ICE, constituents accept removing violent offenders in principle, but view “worst of the worst” as a slogan until backed by Minnesota-specific definitions and data (by county/quarter). They want warrant checks, due process, interpreters, medical access, and strict limits on sensitive locations (schools, churches, clinics), with body-cam/use-of-force transparency and complaint/error rates. Concerns include collateral harm to children and mixed-status families and employer/worksite disruption. Skepticism is reinforced by local incidents (a lethal encounter; an apparent mistaken arrest of a U.S. citizen).
Persona correlations and nuances
- Younger urban professionals (e.g., Hannah Bleau): Demand fast, KPI-driven transparency-30-day one-page scoreboard; two-quarter test of progress; county-level trends.
- Compliance/operations (e.g., Deneen Schoen, Mariam Gallo): Translate outrage into funded guardrails: vendor vetting, segregation of duties, conflict checks, debarments; name owners and timelines.
- Rural caregivers and community volunteers (e.g., Patty Bryant, Deborah Duong): Prioritize protecting essential services (food, clinics) and community trust; avoid rhetoric that scares off helpers.
- Immigrant-linked voices (e.g., Yolanda Talley): Emphasize reputational harm to small churches/volunteers; insist on interpreter access, child-safety protocols, and small-room, bilingual outreach.
Recommendations
- Disentangle fraud from immigration in messaging; lead with neutral, plain-English facts. Replace zingers with “abused our trust” and specific fixes.
- Fund the boring guardrails: audits, vendor vetting, segregation of duties, conflict checks, site verification; publish vendor suspensions/debarments.
- Launch a “Receipts” dashboard within 30 days: dollars clawed back (trend), charges vs. convictions (with timelines), audit coverage (pre/post), vendor debarments, tip-to-action days.
- ICE transparency pack: define “worst of the worst,” publish quarterly county-level arrest breakdowns, warrant status, conviction history, arrest locations, and error/complaint rates; reaffirm sensitive-location limits and due-process safeguards.
- Community-first delivery: monthly, bilingual one-pagers; church-basement Q&A; interpreter access; whistleblower protections and follow-through on tips.
- Tone: calm, humble, Midwestern; acknowledge past misses; “publish the receipts,” then update on a clear cadence.
Risks and guardrails
- Alienating donors/volunteers via blame-loaded language-mitigate with respectful wording and visible protections for programs.
- Credibility gap if rhetoric outpaces results-mitigate with time-bound KPIs, independent validation, and on-time refresh SLAs.
- Collateral harm from enforcement-mitigate with warrants, interpreters, child-safety protocols, body-cam/use-of-force logs, and sensitive-location adherence.
- Data gaps/definitions-publish a data dictionary, note limitations, and prioritize verifiable metrics.
Next steps and measurement
- Within 30 days: Publish a one-page Receipts scoreboard; define KPI spec and data dictionary; stand up language/tone QA; schedule bilingual listening sessions.
- By 60 days: Reach ≥90% KPI coverage with documented sources/QA; wire priority data; issue the ICE transparency pack draft.
- By 90 days: Achieve ≥95% on-time refresh; publish county-level ICE metrics; validate definitions with external reviewers; report vendor debarments and audit coverage deltas.
- Core KPIs: dollars clawed back; charges vs. convictions and timelines; vendor suspensions/debarments; audit coverage (pre/post); tip-to-action days; ICE arrest mix, warrant status, conviction history, locations; error/complaint rate.
- Cadence: monthly one-page updates; quarterly deep dives by county.
- Accountability: name owners for each KPI; publish SLAs and change logs; if needles don’t move after two quarters, revisit controls and resourcing.
Recommended Follow-up Questions
Updated Jan 22, 2026
-
Please rate how each of the following statements by Rep. Finstad affects your view of him: (a) “These fraudsters played us as chumps.” (b) ICE is “arresting the worst of the worst.”matrix Quantifies political impact of each statement to assess message risk/benefit.
-
Should fraud investigations and immigration enforcement be discussed together or separately by elected officials?single select Validates whether combining topics alienates or reassures constituents for future messaging.
-
From the following ways of describing the Minnesota fraud, which sound most and least appropriate for a public official to use?maxdiff Identifies acceptable phrasing to minimize backlash while maintaining clarity and resolve.
-
Which actions should be prioritized to prevent and respond to program fraud in Minnesota?maxdiff Guides policy and budget focus toward the highest‑value actions for constituents.
-
How important is each of the following safeguards in ICE enforcement within Minnesota?matrix Determines must‑have safeguards to maintain trust and reduce collateral harm.
-
Rank the sources you would trust most for Minnesota‑specific updates on fraud investigations and immigration enforcement.rank Identifies credible messengers and channels for ongoing transparency and updates.
For the maxdiff items on phrasing, test neutral alternatives (e.g., 'betrayed public trust,' 'abused the system,' 'defrauded taxpayers,' 'exploited oversight gaps'). For fraud action priorities, include audits, vendor vetting, clawbacks, prosecutions, debarments, whistleblower protections, site checks, and public reporting. For ICE safeguards matrix, include warrants, clear offense definitions, attorney/interpreter access, medical care, sensitive-location limits, body-cam/use-of-force reporting, independent oversight, and cost transparency.
Study Overview
Updated Jan 22, 2026
Research question: How Minnesota constituents react to Rep. Brad Finstad’s statements about fraud investigations (“played us as chumps”) and ICE enforcement (“worst of the worst”).
Research group: Six Minnesota voters (rural/urban mix, including immigrant‑linked caregivers, community volunteers, and compliance/ops professionals) provided 42 responses across seven questions. What they said: Anger at fraudsters but strong rejection of the “chumps” framing as blamey theater; they want concrete, funded fixes-audits, vendor vetting, prosecutions, clawbacks-and to protect programs that serve neighbors.
On ICE, they are skeptical of “worst of the worst” without Minnesota‑specific proof and safeguards-clear definitions, warrants/due process, sensitive‑location limits, independent oversight, and cost transparency.
Notable divergences included a KPI‑first, short‑timeline demand, concern about reputational harm to immigrant/small‑church volunteers, and explicit calls to fund oversight rather than merely mandate it. Main insights: Replace zingers with measurable accountability; target criminals and fix guardrails while preserving essential services; communicate calmly, plainly, and with timelines.
Takeaways (communications): Separate fraud from immigration, retire “chumps,” use respectful language (e.g., “abused our trust”), and commit to a 30–90 day public dashboard with KPIs (clawbacks, charges vs convictions, audit coverage, vendor debarments, tip‑to‑action).
Takeaways (operations): Fund audits/vendor vetting/segregation of duties and whistleblower protections; for ICE define “worst of the worst,” publish county‑by‑quarter metrics, require warrants/body cams/interpreters plus sensitive‑location and child‑safety protocols, and avoid cuts that punish recipients or community helpers.
Research group: Six Minnesota voters (rural/urban mix, including immigrant‑linked caregivers, community volunteers, and compliance/ops professionals) provided 42 responses across seven questions. What they said: Anger at fraudsters but strong rejection of the “chumps” framing as blamey theater; they want concrete, funded fixes-audits, vendor vetting, prosecutions, clawbacks-and to protect programs that serve neighbors.
On ICE, they are skeptical of “worst of the worst” without Minnesota‑specific proof and safeguards-clear definitions, warrants/due process, sensitive‑location limits, independent oversight, and cost transparency.
Notable divergences included a KPI‑first, short‑timeline demand, concern about reputational harm to immigrant/small‑church volunteers, and explicit calls to fund oversight rather than merely mandate it. Main insights: Replace zingers with measurable accountability; target criminals and fix guardrails while preserving essential services; communicate calmly, plainly, and with timelines.
Takeaways (communications): Separate fraud from immigration, retire “chumps,” use respectful language (e.g., “abused our trust”), and commit to a 30–90 day public dashboard with KPIs (clawbacks, charges vs convictions, audit coverage, vendor debarments, tip‑to‑action).
Takeaways (operations): Fund audits/vendor vetting/segregation of duties and whistleblower protections; for ICE define “worst of the worst,” publish county‑by‑quarter metrics, require warrants/body cams/interpreters plus sensitive‑location and child‑safety protocols, and avoid cuts that punish recipients or community helpers.
Awaiting responses…
Usually takes — seconds
Taking longer than usual
Question
0 responses
Waiting…
| Name | Response | Info |
|---|