ATLRepair AtlantaReparations Study Commission

Results · public aggregate

What Atlanta is saying.

Every submitted survey moves these numbers. Identities stay private, and the public page shows only aggregates. The Commission's ratified direction lives in the Blueprint.

16

Voices recorded

6

Commission

10

Community

Sep 4

Last voice

01

What are reparations, for Atlanta?

Which framing should anchor Atlanta's definition of reparations?

Strong consensusn=16
Full repair, the international framework94%
Start with early wins, build toward full repair6%
Harm-specific remedies0%
Community reparations: collective investment0%

Rank the goals that should guide Atlanta's work.

Divided — needs deliberationn=16
1. Direct repair to harmed people & descendantsavg 2.3
2. Institutional change so harms cannot repeatavg 3.1
3. Closing the racial wealth gapavg 3.3
4. Political power & self-determinationavg 3.9
5. Truth & acknowledgmentavg 4.5
6. Healing & rehabilitation servicesavg 4.9
7. Memorialization & public memoryavg 5.9

How should Atlanta's work relate to federal and state reparations?

Divided — needs deliberationn=16
Complement the federal case38%
Build a national model38%
Act locally either way25%

"Atlanta's celebrated story of Black progress ('the Black Mecca,' 'the City Too Busy to Hate') has obscured the scale of documented harm, and our public work should directly engage with that narrative."

Strong consensusn=16
1
1
0
2
1
3
0
4
14
5
Strongly disagreemean 4.6Strongly agree

It is 2030. Atlanta's reparations process is being called the strongest in the nation. Describe what happened.

Awaiting responsesn=15

15 written responses, read in full by the Commission. Themes surface in the Blueprint.

02

Eligibility & beneficiaries

What should anchor eligibility for individual-level remedies?

Majority directionn=16
Lineage: descendants of enslaved people56%
Different rules for different programs19%
All Black Atlantans13%
Documented local harm & their descendants6%
Defer until the harm record is built6%

Which verification supports should Atlanta build, whichever eligibility rule it chooses?

Majority directionn=16
Free genealogy & records support office69%
Partnerships with genealogical societies & archives69%
Open a descendant & harmed-family registry immediately63%
Community verification board19%
Match paperwork to benefit size6%

What geography should define Atlanta's responsibility?

Divided — needs deliberationn=16
City limits + the displaced diaspora44%
Wherever the City's documented acts caused harm38%
Coordinate the geography with Fulton County19%
Current city limits0%

"Descendants of those directly harmed should hold formal decision-making roles in designing remedies, not only advisory input."

Strong consensusn=16
1
1
1
2
1
3
3
4
10
5
Strongly disagreemean 4.3Strongly agree
03

Harms, eras & scope

Which eras should the Commission formally investigate?

Strong consensusn=16
Jim Crow: massacre, zoning, terror (1906-1954)94%
Convict leasing (1866-1908)88%
Urban renewal & the highways (1954-1975)88%
Public housing & the Olympic city (1975-2000)88%
Harms that continue (2000-present)88%
Enslavement & the founding city (1837-1865)81%

Distribute 100 research points across the harm areas Atlanta should document most deeply.

Divided — needs deliberationn=16
Housing & land18.8 pts avg
Stolen labor14.1 pts avg
Racial terror & massacre14.1 pts avg
Economic exclusion13.8 pts avg
Policing, courts & jail10 pts avg
Education10 pts avg
Civic exclusion7.5 pts avg
Health & environment5.9 pts avg
Cultural erasure & memory5.9 pts avg

Which parts of City government should be formally examined for their role?

Strong consensusn=16
Ordinances & zoning code100%
Police & municipal court94%
Contracting & procurement94%
Urban renewal & development agencies81%
Tax assessment & finance81%
Atlanta Housing Authority69%
Parks & cemeteries69%
Atlanta Public Schools (joint inquiry)69%
Olympic-era entities69%
Public works & utilities63%

"The Commission's mandate should include present-day harms (displacement, appraisal bias, contracting gaps), not only historical ones."

Strong consensusn=16
0
1
0
2
1
3
3
4
12
5
History onlymean 4.7Fully include ongoing harm
04

Research strategy & the harm report

How should Atlanta build its harm record?

Divided — needs deliberationn=16
A full Atlanta Harm Report31%
Rapid synthesis, then remedies31%
Truth hearings first25%
City chapters built onto Fulton's foundation13%

Who should do the research?

Strong consensusn=16
Hybrid: academic rigor + community corps + a staff core81%
University consortium leads13%
Commission-directed staff & consultants6%
Paid community researchers & oral-history corps0%

Should Atlanta put numbers on the harm, and if so, which methodologies?

Strong consensusn=16
Extraction-Accumulation accounting75%
Property-takings audit75%
Stolen-wages calculation69%
Citywide wealth-gap benchmark63%
Losses estimated per year lived under the harm50%
Keep the record qualitative31%

Which truth-telling practices should Atlanta commit to?

Strong consensusn=16
Formal public truth hearings94%
A story-collection site where each person controls their story69%
Counselors and care at every hearing69%
A paid oral-history corps63%
Anonymity & pseudonym options50%
Stipends for testimony & sustained participation38%
05

Community engagement & shared power

Rank the engagement channels Atlanta should invest in most.

Divided — needs deliberationn=16
1. NPU-based briefings & liaisonsavg 3.3
2. Citywide town halls & forumsavg 3.6
3. Schools & youth engagementavg 3.8
4. Going where people already areavg 4.3
5. Digital survey & storytelling portalavg 5
6. Pay trusted community organizationsavg 5.3
7. Arts, culture & commemorative eventsavg 5.3
8. Faith institutionsavg 5.5

How much decision power should the community hold?

Divided — needs deliberationn=16
Residents draft, Commission ratifies44%
Voting community seats25%
Descendant sign-off19%
Input only13%

Should sustained community participation be paid?

Divided — needs deliberationn=16
No44%
Yes, broadly31%
Yes, narrowly25%

"The Commission should create a formal youth council and a schools strategy, so the generation that inherits this plan helps write it."

Majority directionn=16
1
1
0
2
3
3
5
4
7
5
Strongly disagreemean 4.1Strongly agree
06

Remedies & priorities

Distribute 100 points across the remedy families Atlanta should prioritize.

Majority directionn=16
Direct payments36.3 pts avg
Policy reform so harms cannot repeat11.9 pts avg
Guaranteed income pilot11.3 pts avg
Land return & community land trusts9.1 pts avg
Housing repair & ownership8.4 pts avg
Education7.8 pts avg
Black business & wealth-building5.6 pts avg
Health & healing5 pts avg
Memory & memorials4.7 pts avg

What is Atlanta's stance on direct cash payments?

Majority directionn=16
An essential centerpiece50%
One tool among several44%
Prioritize communal investment instead6%
Later, deliberately0%

Where should the balance sit between individual-level and community-level repair?

Divided — needs deliberationn=16
5
1
1
2
5
3
5
4
0
5
Fully individualmean 2.6Fully community

Early wins or the whole plan first?

Strong consensusn=16
Both at once, on separate tracks75%
Deliver early wins in year one13%
Comprehensive plan first13%

Describe one remedy Atlanta should pioneer that no other city has done.

Awaiting responsesn=12

12 written responses, read in full by the Commission. Themes surface in the Blueprint.

07

Legal strategy & durability

Which legal design should anchor eligibility and program structure?

Majority directionn=16
Eligibility by descent56%
Groups defined by documented harm25%
Parallel tracks19%
Repair by neighborhood0%

How should repair money and benefits be delivered?

Strong consensusn=16
City ordinance + dedicated fund88%
Settling documented claims50%
Community land trust & land transfers38%
Private charitable trust31%
Services & benefits structured as an exchange25%
Nonprofits as go-betweens19%

"We should design every recommendation assuming it will be challenged in court, and build the evidence accordingly."

Strong consensusn=16
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
4
10
5
Overcautious: design for justice, not lawyersmean 4.2Exactly right: build for litigation

How should the Commission handle the State of Georgia?

Divided — needs deliberationn=16
Build a state-level alliance early44%
Make the public case loudly44%
Head down, build quietly13%
08

Funding the work & the remedies

How should the Commission's own work be funded?

Strong consensusn=16
City budget appropriation100%
Philanthropic support for research & engagement81%
University contributions of time and staff69%
External grants63%
Pro bono legal & professional services63%

Rank the funding sources Atlanta should pursue for remedies themselves.

Majority directionn=16
1. A dedicated revenue sourceavg 2.1
2. Annual general-fund commitmentavg 2.7
3. Contributions from implicated institutionsavg 3.5
4. Land & asset transfersavg 4.1
5. Private & philanthropic trustavg 4.5
6. Municipal bond issueavg 5.5
7. A negotiated settlement fundavg 5.6

What scale of ambition should Atlanta declare?

Majority directionn=16
Let the assessment set the number63%
A standing share of the budget25%
Commit to $100M or more13%
Start at proven municipal scale ($10-25M)0%
09

Commission operations & partnerships

How should CARSC organize its committees?

Majority directionn=6
Both at once67%
By harm area17%
By function17%

What staffing should the Commission secure this year?

Strong consensusn=6
A research manager & research team100%
A community engagement lead67%
Communications capacity67%
Dedicated legal counsel33%
Borrowed City staff & departmental liaisons33%
University fellows & graduate researchers33%
A dedicated director / project executive17%

What should the relationship with Fulton County's completed work be?

Majority directionn=16
Independent but aligned50%
Formal joint structure25%
Divide the work by written agreement19%
Push toward one metro program6%

Which transparency commitments should the Commission adopt as standing practice?

Strong consensusn=6
Published agendas, minutes & votes100%
A public progress dashboard83%
Meetings rotating through the NPUs83%
Open research data50%
A public 'you said, we did' log50%
10

Accountability, narrative & success

Which success measures should the Commission publicly commit to?

Strong consensusn=16
Descendant & community satisfaction88%
Programs funded & operating75%
Repair delivered to identifiable people69%
Structural policy changes enacted63%
Recommendations adopted by Council56%
Measurable change in disparities56%
A model other cities adopt31%
Breadth of participation13%

Which risks worry you most for Atlanta's process?

Majority directionn=16
Litigation freezing the program69%
The state overriding or blocking the program63%
Endless study without decisions63%
A symbolic outcome only56%
Community distrust38%
Funding evaporating in a budget cycle25%
Political turnover19%
Commissioner burnout & attrition19%
A scandal in how a program is run19%

"I am prepared to spend real political and personal capital to see this through, including on the parts that will be attacked."

Strong consensusn=6
0
1
0
2
0
3
1
4
5
5
Not there yetmean 4.8All in

What should this survey have asked that it didn't?

Awaiting responsesn=6

6 written responses, read in full by the Commission. Themes surface in the Blueprint.

See it differently? Add your answers.

Take the survey →