Family Justice Journal // Issue 005

FAMILY JUSTICE JOURNAL

OPPORTUNITIES TO DO GOOD

CareSource is a proud sponsor of both the Institute for Relational Health and The Family Justice Journal

008 The Opportunity to Do Good

FAMILY JUSTICE JOURNAL

Jerry Milner & David Kelly Directors of the Family Justice Group Introduction

Poetry

040 Power

April Lee

Co-Founder of Philly Voice for Change

My Perspective

060 It’s Time to Rethink Mandatory Reporting as the Key to Preventing Child Abuse

Valerie Frost

Strategic Initiatives Associate at Kentucky Youth Advocates

062 Hero

Shaumbay Fuller

Peer Recovery Specialist Intern at George Mason University & a Valued Member of the Connections Family Resource Center team A Better Way

064 Reflections

Where Does Compassion Fit In?

Judge S. Trent Favre

Hancock County Court Judge

012 Features A Longitudinal Analysis of a Rural Family Resource Center and the Cost Benefits to the County-Based Welfare System

Sara Bayless, PhD

Vice President at OMNI Institute & Managing Director for the Center for Social Investment

Melissa Richmond, PhD

Senior Manager for Research at the Healthcare Anchor Network

Peter J. Pecora, MSW, PhD

Managing Director of Research Services for Casey Family Programs in Seattle & Professor, School of Social Work, University of Washington

Alana Anderson, PhD

Senior Research Manager at OMNI Institute

022 Hope in the Heartland

Merideth Rose

President & CEO of Cornerstones of Care

Latosha Fowlkes, LCSW

President & CEO at St. Vincent Home for Children

028 Building Supportive Third Places

E. Susana Mariscal, PhD, MSW

Full Professor at Indiana University School of Social Work

Bryan Victor, PhD, MSW

Associate Professor in the School of Social Work at Wayne State University & Associate Editor for the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research

034 Reclaiming Futures

Alexandria Cinney, JD

Staff Attorney at American Bar Association Center on Children & the Law

Toia Potts

Activist & Organizer for Emancipate NC

Features, continued

042 Realizing the Promise of CBCAP

Patricia A. Cole

Senior Policy Officer within the ZERO TO THREE Policy Center

Rebecca M. Robuck

Partner at ChildFocus & Executive Director of the National Coalition on Child and Family Well-Being

048 Protecting Community-Driven Family Justice

Rashida Abuwala, MSc

Founder & Principal of New Tomorrow

054 These Mothers Are Our Neighbors

Melody Webb

Founder & Executive Director of Mothers Outreach Network

Cathy Krebs

Committee Director of the American Bar Association Litigation Section’s Children’s Rights Litigation Committee & Secretary of the Board of Directors for Mother’s Outreach Network

Linda Brown

Founding member of the Mother Up Community Advisory Board & a Moms Empower Advocacy Fellow

Ditesha McEachin

Advocacy Fellow for the Mother’s Outreach Network

Akua Danqua

Founding member of Mother’s Outreach Network Mother Up Pilot Program Community Advisory Board

Yesmine Holmes

Advocacy Fellow for the Mother’s Outreach Network

Maria Jackson

Advocacy Fellow for the Mothers Outreach Network

Morgan Hicks

Member of the Mother’s Outreach Network Moms Empower Speaker’s Bureau

BOARD MEMBERS

Advisory Board Members

Christopher Baker-Scott Executive Director & Founder SUN Scholars, Inc.

Angelique Day, PhD, MSW University of Washington Seattle Associate Professor Faculty Affiliate of the Indigenous Wellness Research Institute Director of Federal Policy for Partners for Our Children

April Lee Co-Founder of Philly Voice for Change

Dr. Melissa T. Merrick President and CEO Prevent Child Abuse America

Vivek Sankaran Clinical Professor of Law, University of Michigan, Michigan Law

Shrounda Selivanoff Social Services Manager Washington State Office of Public Defense Parents Representation Program

Victor E. Sims, MBA, CDP Senior Associate Family Well-Being Strategy Group The Annie E. Casey Foundation

Paul Vincent, MSW Former Alabama Child Welfare Director Consultant and Court Monitor

Editorial Board Members

Justin Abbasi

Co-Founder, Harbor Scholars: A Dwight Hall Program at Yale

Laura W. Boyd, PhD Owner and CEO, Policy & Performance Consultants, Inc.

Angela Olivia Burton, Esq. Co-Convenor, Repeal CAPTA Workgroup

Melissa D. Carter, JD Clinical Professor of Law, Emory Law

Kimberly A. Cluff, JD MPA Candidate 2022, Goldman School of Public Policy

Kathleen Creamer, JD

Managing Attorney, Family Advocacy Unit Community Legal Services of Philadelphia

Angelique Day, PhD, MSW

Associate Professor, Faculty Affiliate of the Indigenous Wellness Research Center Director of Federal Policy for Partners for Our Children School of Social Work, University of Washington Seattle Adjunct Faculty, Evans School of Public Policy and Governance

Yven Destin, PhD

Educator and Independent Researcher of Race and Ethnic Relations

Paul Dilorenzo, ACSW, MLSP National Child Welfare Consultant

J. Bart Klika, MSW, PhD Chief Research Officer, Prevent Child Abuse America

Heidi Mcintosh

Chief Operating Officer, National Association of Social Workers

Kimberly M. Offutt, ThD

National Director of Family Support and Engagement Bethany Christian Services

Jessica Pryce, PhD, MSW Research Professor College of Social Work Florida State University

Mark Testa, PhD Distinguished Professor Emeritus, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Elizabeth Wendel, MSW, LSW Co-Founder, Pale Blue International Consultant, Family Well-Being and Mental Health Systems

Shereen White, JD Director of Advocacy & Policy, Children’s Rights

Cheri Williams, MS Founder and Chief Co-Creator at CO-3

“Mansa Adarian Grace & Kimoni Isaiah Devonte Grace”

Dawn Blagrove

Dawn Blagrove is the Executive Director and an Attorney at Emancipate NC in North Carolina. She has been a vocal leader in addressing issues such as police brutality, racial discrimination, and criminal justice abolition and has a deep commitment to the intersection of law and social justice. In 2021, she found a new passion that turned out to be a healing journey for her—painting. Dawn’s art aims to reach anyone who needs a touch of hope or a reminder that there’s beauty to be found in this world.

CELEBRATING FAMILY REUNIFICATION MONTH

The month of June is National Family Reunification Month in honor of families who have been separated through the child welfare system and achieved the powerful milestone of reunification.

All children deserve the safety, stability and love of being with their families, who also deserve the support needed to care for their children. The Family Justice Group is dedicated to supporting efforts to preserve families.

There are nearly 400,000 children in foster care in the United States, most of whom can be reunited with their families with needed support.

During National Reunification Month, we acknowledge the journey of healing, growth and resilience represented by parents who work hard to overcome adversity and reunify with their children.

Therefore, the Family Justice Group re-commits its purpose, mission and work to lifting up families, preventing and diminishing the trauma of separation and supporting efforts to build community supports for connection, compassion and hope.

We invite everyone who believes in families to join us in this celebration and renewal of commitment.

David Kelly & Jerry Milner Co-Founders & Co-Directors Family Justice Group

Editor - in - Chief

Jerry Milner

Co-Director of the Family Justice Group

Editor - in - Chief

David Kelly

Co-Director of the Family Justice Group

Design Director

Ann T. Dinh

Design Consultant

The Opportunity to Do Good

Jerry Milner & David Kelly

We have been in many conversations lately about how people are feeling and what they fear. Clear patterns have emerged: fear of cuts; dismay over certain actions, and a growing belief that we cannot move forward until we have all the answers.

The purpose of this issue of the journal is to deliver a simple message and share examples that give us hope.

It is always possible to do good.

We can do good with or without policy changes, with or without funding changes, with or without all the answers, and even with answers we may not like.

No matter where anyone sits politically or professionally- we are in a moment of great uncertainty and change. The size and role of the federal government is rapidly changing and programs and funding streams that have provided critical support to families may be in jeopardy.

Despite all of this, and maybe even because of it, we have cause to pull together across sectors and political parties to create a situation where this is no longer the case in the future. We can do so by committing to a common vision of supporting families in the communities where they live and holding fast to our focus.

Talk of transformation in child welfare has rung hollow. The term is often used to describe tweaks to an ineffective system rooted in child removal rather than actual change into something else. While the discomfort of the current moment can seem staggering, it can be the jolt needed to let go of old ways that do not work to create space for better ways.

We can reshape our approaches by acknowledging three simple truths.

• Nothing is more protective than family when a family has what it needs;

• Nothing supports families more than community

when the community is strong and empowered to do it, and

• The best way to keep children safe is to have strong families and strong communities.

We can do everything within our reach as individuals, organizations, and collectives to make sure poverty is not conflated with neglect, prioritize connection and belonging in all aspects of our work, and create positive child and family experiences no matter what is going on around us.

This is the stuff of change, not off-the-shelf models or tech solutions; action that lets people know they are seen as fellow travelers worthy of kindness, compassion, investment, and love.

We can look around us and marshal all available resources to trusted sources of community-based support. We can encourage and sustain public-private partnerships to support communities in developing resources and opportunities that will enhance parental protective capacities and community protective factors.

No matter what is going on in our Nation’s capital or state capitals, change will always be felt the most locally. There are incredible examples of individuals, organizations and networks that are leading the way. They did not wait for instructions or ask for permission to do good, they simply saw the needs and acted.

As a field we have long used adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) as our focus of attention, reflecting the reactive nature of child welfare. When something bad happens, we react. But adversity will always be present, particularly for economically fragile families and historically disadvantaged populations. Often, our own interventions in child welfare lead to or exacerbate the ACEs in the name of child protection.

We are learning, however, that proactively creating positive childhood experiences (PCEs) can buffer the effects of ACEs and may prevent others from taking root. Some of the more hopeful community-based family support programs and approaches that we have seen are doing just that.

For example, we’ve seen the difference one judge can make in a rural county in Mississippi; by seeking to understand why so many reports were being made to the hotline and pulling the community together to address the underlying causes for reports to a hotline and to create a culture of care rather than judgment for parents experiencing hard times.

It can take the form of a nonprofit organization located in Flint and Saginaw, Michigan that is focused on being a place of connection offering community dinners,

opportunities for families to do positive things together, fun activities for children that their families could not otherwise afford, learning opportunities, and assistance with concrete supports in time of need.

We have seen the continued impact of organized networks offering community responses stewarded by a foundation dedicated to families and keeping children safe in Nebraska that can serve, and is serving, as a national example.

And it can look like a membership organization of traditional child welfare service providers that have decided that old ways lead to the same poor outcomes in Missouri. They are working together to support communities in empowering families and reducing the need for children to ever enter foster care, based on communities’ and families’ priorities.

Evidence of the power of community support can be heard in the story of a grandmother raising her granddaughter after successfully entering recovery. She is now helping other caregivers as a direct result of the trusted support of a family resource center.

Parents whose lives have been turned upside down by child welfare policies and removal approaches speak to the devastating costs of not investing in community support. Many have lost employment due to an unwarranted investigation, instead of family support, or being listed on a registry. Too many have lost their children forever, only to have them spend their growing up years in foster care.

The results of the examples cited above (and many others) include families who live in impoverished and isolated environments who now feel connected to others in the community. They have a trusted place to go to access resources and opportunities. Their children are benefiting from positive and enriching experiences. Community and parental protective capacities and factors are growing. All of this is leading to stronger, more supportive and healthier families and communities.

Each of these examples teaches the same critical lesson. We cannot come into a community with a program or service, or an agenda in mind and try to sell it or seek “buy-in” for it. We must start by asking the community what they want for their families and ask families what they want for themselves. All these examples have also occurred without the federal or state government leading the way. They have largely occurred through public-private partnerships centered on common goals and values.

Still, there remains a huge need to influence federal policies around child welfare so that we can bring this

amazing work to scale and have it be the norm, not the exception. Chief among them, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) which helps make sure children and their families do not go hungry, Medicaid which keeps parents, children and caregivers healthy, HeadStart, which positions students for educational success, and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) whose flexibility helps communities stay safe and meet familial needs.

Doing good at the policy level can look like educating those with power and influence over federal programs and funding and ensuring they know the stories of those families most directly impacted by policies and programs and the differences they make in their lives and futures. This includes education on threats and harms that policy and funding decisions may cause families.

There is also an opportunity to realign harmful and ineffective policies, such as the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) of 1974. CAPTA has led to hotlines being a catch-all for non-emergency situations, at times leaving children who are actually in danger at risk.

Other policies in need of realignment include:

• Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, which funnels billions of dollars to pay for foster care instead of preventing the need for foster care by meeting familial needs,

• The Adoption Assistance and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997, which forever fractures families with arbitrary termination of parental rights requirements and shallow reasonable efforts provisions, and

• The Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA) of 2018, which offers “prevention services” only after a child is on the doorstep of foster care and ignores true primary prevention and family support.

Doing good in addressing these policies can look like advocating for shifting funding to primary prevention so that foster care and adoption are needed less, and elevating the harm of family separation, termination of parental rights, and too-little-too-late prevention policies. Doing good can demonstrate that often, families simply need the resources to raise their children and that these supports are cheaper and make more sense than more intrusive federally-funded interventions.

Doing good can include sharing the successes of efforts across the country to mobilize communities in support

of families, creating new examples of what we can do to support families and children, and breaking free of our traditional ways of work that are not working for families.

We do not need to wait for any of these policy changes to do good now, and our actions can continue to build support for the changes we need.

We can choose not to be distracted.

We can choose to focus together on our common goals and align our actions and resources to move them forward.

And, when we do, we will create something fundamentally good for all.

A Longitudinal Analysis of a Rural Family Resource Center and the Cost Benefits to the County-Based Welfare System

SARA BAYLESS, PhD

Vice President at OMNI Institute

Managing Director for the Center for Social Investment

Sara Bayless, Ph.D., is a Vice President at OMNI Institute and Managing Director of the Center for Social Investment. In these roles, she leads rigorous research and evaluations of programs that support children and families and promote economic security for all and advances the evidence for innovative social investment strategies.

MELISSA RICHMOND, PhD

Senior Manager for Research at the Healthcare Anchor Network

Melissa Richmond, Ph.D., is a senior manager of research at the Healthcare Anchor Network, where she supports health systems to leverage their hiring, purchasing, investing, and other key assets to build inclusive local economies.

PETER J. PECORA, MSW, PhD

Managing Director of Research Services for Casey Family Programs in Seattle Professor, School of Social Work, University of Washington

Peter J. Pecora, M.S.W., Ph.D. has a joint appointment as the Managing Director of Research Services for Casey Family Programs, and Professor, School of Social Work, University of Washington – where he teaches courses in public policy, child welfare program design, and human services management.

ALANA ANDERSON, PhD

Senior Research Manager at OMNI Institute

Alana Anderson, Ph.D., is a Senior Research Manager at OMNI Institute where she leads and oversees research and evaluation of public health and child and family-focused programs.

Introduction

Family Resource Centers (FRCs) are welcoming hubs of support, services, and social connection that provide opportunities for families. FRCs use a strengths-based, family-centered, multigenerational approach that reflects local contexts and needs.i Resources available through FRCs range from basic needs (e.g., food pantries and utility assistance) to parenting classes, peer support, family development, and leadership development, among others. FRCs meet families at their current level of need, help them build on their strengths, and connect them to resources so that they can sustainably meet their needs. In this article, we examine the positive economic impacts that one FRC has achieved through supporting families and strategic partnerships as a model for how others may use this responsive, family-centered model to do good in their community.

FRCs have opportunities to make a difference in their community, county, and state—in both urban and rural areas. In this study we demonstrate the economic good FRCs can have on reducing the incidence of child maltreatment in a small rural community, and the opportunities other communities might have to replicate these results by supporting FRCs. Rural counties generally demonstrate higher rates of substantiated child maltreatment, particularly neglect, compared to urban counterparts.ii This disparity is often linked to limited access to healthcare, mental health services, and high-quality child care, as well as higher turnover rates among child protective services staff in rural areas.iii Additionally, the stigma associated with seeking help in small, close-knit communities may further deter families from accessing essential services.iv As trusted, community-based organizations offering comprehensive family support services, FRCs are uniquely positioned to address these challenges and help prevent child maltreatment and neglect in rural areas. This study contributes to the relatively limited body of research on the effectiveness of FRCs in rural settings.v

FRCs play a key role in preventing child abuse and neglect. Child maltreatment in the United States has far-reaching effects on both individuals and systems.vi For individuals, child maltreatment affects at least one in seven children in the United States annually,vii and in 2015, the estimated cost of child abuse and neglect across the country was $428 billion.viii Child maltreatment can have devastating effects on an individual’s mental and physical health, and can also have far-ranging social and systemic impacts. For example, the cost

to society stemming from child maltreatment is estimated at $268,544 throughout an individual’s life through increased costs to criminal justice, healthcare and education systems, as well as diminished lifetime productivity.ix Therefore, reducing child maltreatment not only benefits children, families, and communities but also has the potential to save the country billions of dollars and allow for investment in other areas of need.x

FRCs often partner with local child welfare jurisdictions to prevent child maltreatment across the child welfare continuum. Partnerships can involve the provision of primary prevention services, targeted services for families who have been screened out of child welfarexi, and services for families during open child welfare cases or postreunification.xii The majority of child maltreatment cases involve neglectxiii that often results from challenges accessing key resources such as food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision.xiv FRCs connect families to vital resources in their communities, thereby reducing the unmet need for basic resources. Additionally, studies have found that FRCs increase protective factors for children’s safetyxv and that programs delivered by FRCs can reduce subsequent family involvement in the child welfare system.xvi

Studies estimating the return on investment of FRCs to local child welfare systems advance our understanding of the role that these communitybased services play within the child welfare system. This current study quantifies savings from an investment in one FRC located in a rural county in the Western United States. This FRC is a member of a state-wide FRC network that follows the National Family Support Network (NFSN) Standards of Quality for Family Strengthening and Support. xvii The NFSN advances the family support field by convening member networks and facilitating knowledge-sharing, promoting family support best practices and evaluation, and raising the visibility of how FRC networks support families across the U.S. In 2021, NFSN commissioned this study to leverage existing data to quantify the economic return on investment that FRCs provide to local child welfare systems.

Methods

The FRC examined in this study was selected due to the availability of data within the FRC and the child welfare system. The FRC was established in 1992 in a rural county with a population of approximately 25,000 in a western state in the United States. There are no other FRCs in this county. Reflecting

the county population at large, families who receive services from the FRC mostly identify as White (87%).xviii Compared to other families in the county, families served by the FRC experience economic challenges, with 62% of families having no cash savings and 42% of families having incomes below 100% of the federal poverty line, relative to the national average of 8%.xix

We identified 2015 and 2018 as the two comparison years for child welfare outcomes that would best isolate the effects of programmatic shifts and limit the effects of county and state initiatives. The FRC had a partnership with the county child welfare office that began in 2014 as a pilot program and was implemented at scale in 2016. As part of the partnership, when appropriate, the county child welfare system referred families to the FRC for voluntary services. Referrals would typically occur when families were screened out for investigation assignments by child protective services due to the nature of the report (e.g., report does not indicate an imminent safety threat) or that were screened in but had their cases closed without the provision of child welfare services.

To calculate the return on investment of an FRC for the child welfare system, we used a social return on investment (SROI) model. SROI describes the impact of a program or organization in dollar terms relative to the investment required to create that impact.xx

Using the framework provided by the New Economics Foundation,xxi we specified our SROI model as follows:

The following section identifies the data sources and outlines the calculations used to develop the estimates for each aspect of the model.

Outcome and Deadweight

The outcome in this study is child maltreatment as indicated by substantiated assessments of referrals to child protective services in the FRC’s county in 2018, the selected outcome year. Deadweight is represented by the number of substantiated assessments in 2015, the selected baseline year. Data on the number of substantiated assessments were gathered from a public database that reports on child maltreatment occurrences across the state. xxii To control for changes in county population over time, the number of substantiated cases in each year was divided by the total number of children under the age of 18 in the county in that year as reported by the U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS).xxiii This resulted in rates of substantiated cases of child maltreatment for 2018 (Outcome) and 2015 (Deadweight).

Such that:

• Outcome of Interest is a reduction in substantiated assessments of child maltreatment referrals to child protective services;

• Deadweight is the counterfactual number of substantiated assessments that would have occurred in the absence of the FRC;

• Attribution is the share of those substantiated assessments that is attributable to, or results from, the FRC;

• Monetized Value of the Outcome is the child welfare expenditure per substantiated assessment; and

• FRC Intervention Cost is the cost of operating the FRC.

To calculate the reduction of substantiated assessments in the county from 2015 to 2018, we subtracted the Deadweight rate from the Outcome rate. This difference in rate was then multiplied by the number of children in the FRC’s county in 2018, as reported by the ACS, to estimate the reduction in substantiated assessments between 2015 and 2018, controlling for population changes. There was a 62.84% reduction in substantiated assessments from 2015 to 2018. Adjusting for population changes, this translates to 51 fewer cases in 2018 compared to 2015.

Attribution

We estimated attribution as the proportion of children at risk for maltreatment in the FRC’s county in 2018 that were reached by the FRC (i.e., FRC penetration rate). We used the assumption that the

higher the proportion of at-risk children reached by the FRC, the greater the share of reductions in child maltreatment that can be attributed to the FRC. Direct data were not available for either the number of children served by FRC, nor the number of children at risk for maltreatment in their County, so we used available data to estimate these values as described below.

The FRC served 722 unique families in 2018 and estimated that there was an average of two children per family. These data were used to estimate the total number of children served by the FRC in 2018. According to the US Census, there were an estimated 2,297 families with children living in the county at that time, with 8% of those families with household incomes below the poverty level (approximately 184 families) and 1439 families with household incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level.xxiv This suggests that the FRC reached nearly one-third of families living in the county at that time, potentially reaching all families with household incomes under the poverty threshold.

We used two different approaches to estimate the number of children in the county at risk for child maltreatment using known risk factors for experiencing child maltreatment: (1) income-toneeds ratio and (2) child age.xxv The supporting calculations for each approach are detailed below. Income-to-needs (ITN) ratio is the ratio of overall annual income to household or family size and serves as an indicator of socioeconomic status. Although child maltreatment occurs across all levels of socioeconomic status, poverty is one of the strongest predictors of whether a child will experience maltreatment and is associated particularly strongly with rates of neglect.xxvi Although most low-income children will never be involved with the child welfare system, an incomebased measure allows for a compelling single-factor estimate of children at risk for child maltreatment.

xxvii

Income-to-needs ratio. To estimate the proportion of children in the county that may be at risk for maltreatment, we used the FRC’s evaluation and ACS data to extrapolate the ITN ratio of families served by the FRC relative to the overall county child (under 18 years) population. For example, as shown in Table 1, 42% of families served by the FRC have incomes below 100% of the Federal

Poverty Level (FPL), and the ACS estimates there were 758 children with household incomes below 100% of the FPL in the county in 2018. xxviii Therefore, we estimate that 318 children with household incomes below 100% of the FPL are at risk for child maltreatment in the FRC’s county (42% of the 758 children in households with incomes below 100% of FPL equals 318 estimated at-risk children). We combined these calculations across ITN ratio brackets to estimate that the total number of children at risk for maltreatment in the FRC’s county in 2018 is 1,479 (see Table 1).

Child Age. Younger children are more likely to experience maltreatment than older children.xxix We used data on the age of children who experienced maltreatment in the state in 2018 provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).xxx We calculated the percent of children who experienced maltreatment at each age, then multiplied that by the number of children at that age grouping in the FRC’s county in 2018 as provided by the ACS. We combined these calculations across all age groups (from 0-17) to estimate the total number of children at risk for child maltreatment within the FRC’s county in 2018 (see Table 2).

Attribution Rate. We used the estimated number of children served by the FRC (1,444) relative to the estimated number of children at risk for maltreatment based on ITN ratio (1,479) and child age (1,272) to generate attribution estimates. Using the ITN ratio approach, the attribution estimate was 98%; using the age approach, the attribution estimate was 114%.

These estimates suggest that the FRC reaches the population of children at risk for maltreatment in the county. Because of the convergence of these approaches on the estimated number of children at risk being reached by the FRC, we used an attribution rate of 100% in the SROI calculations, attributing all 51 fewer substantiated cases in the county in 2018 to the FRC.

Monetized Value of the Outcome

The monetized value of the outcome was defined as the cost incurred by the county child welfare system for each substantiated assessment in 2018. We estimated this cost using the steady-state methodology in which the total annual child welfare costs in one year serve as a proxy for the lifetime child welfare costs of maltreatment cases in that year. Child welfare services and their associated costs vary widely (e.g., the cost of an in-home service is lower than out-of-home placement) and the length of time that services last can also vary widely, from single points of contact to years of support. However, there are no longitudinal studies that provide direct estimates of the average cost to the child welfare system from a substantiated case; therefore, researchers have drawn on the steady state methodology (used in other fields, such as chronic illness) to provide a best estimate. As applied here, this approach assumes that the types and length of services provided by a child welfare agency remains relatively steady year over year, and that the average cost captures the variation in types of and length of services provided to families and their varying circumstances. xxxi

Using this steady-state methodology, the total child welfare expenditures in a given year are divided by the total number of substantiated assessments in that year. To calculate the estimate specific to the FRC’s county, we used the 2018 Actual Expenditures for the Child Welfare program as reported in the county’s adopted budget in 2020 and the number of substantiated assessments in 2018 as reported by the state’s DHS (the same number used to calculate the outcome).xxxii The resulting estimated cost of $49,026 per substantiated assessment is similar to the national average of child welfare expenditures of $47,255.xxxiii

Intervention Cost

The intervention cost is estimated as the FRC’s total annual expenses in 2018, based on the FRC’s Form 990, accessed via ProPublica.xxxiv The FRC’s total annual expenses for 2018 were $856,194.xxxv

Results

The estimates used to calculate FRC’s return on investment to the county’s child welfare system are provided below. The estimated net value of benefits is $2,500,326; that is, the reduction of 51 substantiated assessments saved the county’s child welfare system $2,500,326 in 2018. Relative to the net value of the investment in the FRC in 2018, there is a return on investment of 292%, or $2.92. In other words, for every $1 invested in the FRC, the county child welfare system saved $2.92.

We conducted a sensitivity analysis by substituting the full range of attribution estimates (between 0 and 100%) into the overall SROI calculation. These sensitivity analyses allow us to identify the minimum number of reduced cases of child maltreatment attributed to the FRC that results in a positive return on investment, specifically a return of at least $1.01. Results indicated the lowest possible attribution estimate for a positive return on investment is 35%; that is, if at least 18 of the 51 cases of reduced substantiated assessments are attributed to the FRC, there is a positive return on investment to the child welfare system in the county where the FRC is located.

Discussion

This study demonstrates an estimated return on investment in a local child welfare system from investment in a Family Resource Center, using quantitative economic assumptions about the benefit of community-based family support services. These findings estimated a measurable benefit to the county child welfare system provided by the FRC serving the county, with a return of $2.92 for every $1 invested.

We examined the return on investment of a long-standing, well-established FRC that began implementing two new programs designed to serve children and families who may be at heightened risk for child welfare involvement. Those two new programs included partnerships 1) utilizing the FRC as a key referral resource for families screened out of child welfare and 2) implementing enhanced family supportive services through additional state funding. The FRC’s nearly thirty-year history in the county and direct partnership with its child welfare system likely contributed to their ability to effectively serve families, and, in turn, generate economic benefits. Further, these findings suggest that even in locations where FRCs already exist, there are opportunities to expand and strengthen the benefits provided to families, communities, and the child welfare system through strategic partnerships and prevention programming designed to reach families most at risk for system involvement.

This study adds to existing research describing the estimated economic return on investment for FRCs. A similar study found cost savings to the child welfare system with an estimated return of $3.65 for every $1 invested in a California FRC.

xxxvi Additionally, in 2014 the Alabama Network of FRCs, provided an estimated return of $4.93 in

immediate and long-term social value to the State of Alabama. The Alabama return on investment estimate was derived from estimates of the overall direct and long-term social value of 224,316 individual services provided by the Alabama Network of FRC members, relative to the total funding used to provide those services.xxxvii The more narrow focus of the current study (examining only returns to the child welfare system, versus the entire state government) and the more localized pre-post analysis provide a more focused understanding of the return on investment that FRCs provide on a community level.

The findings from this study have implications for child welfare and family support services policy and practice. The observed return on investment reinforces the economic and social value of funding community-based FRCs, particularly those with strong ties to the local child welfare system. Policymakers can use this study to support justification for investment in FRCs as a cost-effective and cost-saving preventive strategy that alleviates burden on child welfare agencies. Furthermore, the success of the two new programs examined in this study—partnering with FRCs as a key referral resource for families screened out of child welfare, and providing enhanced family supportive services through additional state funding—highlights the importance of strategic, targeted programming that addresses service gaps for at-risk populations, such as economically disadvantaged families in rural communities. For providers and practitioners, the study underscores the potential of FRCs to act as hubs for early intervention and prevention, especially when supported by state-level funding and integrated into formal child welfare processes. Scaling such partnerships and support structures could lead to broader systemic changes that prioritize prevention and community-based care, ultimately contributing to healthier family systems and reduced demand for costly, intensive, and traumatic child welfare interventions.

Limitations

FRCs provide responsive services designed to meet the unique needs of the families and communities they serve. They often blend and braid funding and allow families enrolled in services broad access to the many resources and referral networks at its disposal. As a result, it is challenging to disentangle the impact FRCs have on families, or on the child welfare system. Best practice in SROI includes a rigorous outcomes study to estimate the degree to which the program had positive benefits, and ideally, this is done through experimental or quasiexperimental designs. For example, estimates of

return on investments for parenting programs have been based on randomized implementations of programs at the county level,xxxviii and other SROI estimates for FRCs have been based on propensity score matching of service areas.xxxix Indeed, when originally designing this study, we sought to identify a comparison county that would facilitate a quasi-experimental design through a differences-in-differences approach. We identified 11 counties in the state that were not served by an FRC. Of those 11, two were demographically similar (e.g., with respect to race/ethnicity, unemployment, poverty, resident turnover, and the ratio of children to adults). However, two potential comparison counties had significant policy changes or situational differences during the 2015-2018 period that would have introduced a significant confound to our comparisons (e.g., presence of a differential response model; use of a reporting hotline). Therefore, we relied on an estimate of reductions in child maltreatment over time that corresponded with changes in programming delivered by the FRC. With this approach, we also were not able to track child welfare outcomes for families served directly by the FRC, instead relying on county-level data. FRCs, networks, and states should pursue efforts to directly link data systems that would allow tracking of service provision by FRCs and child welfare outcomes over time.

No definitive guidance exists in the estimation of attribution in SROI models.xl The indicators of income-to-needs ratio and child age used to inform the attribution estimate provided imprecise estimates for the proportion of children at risk for child maltreatment in the county that the FRC impacted. The attribution rate may be less than 100%; that is, although the selection of 2015 and 2018 was designed to isolate the effects of the FRC as closely as possible, other systemic changes not accounted for in this analysis (e.g., local economic conditions or school-based programs) could be responsible for some portion of the decrease in child maltreatment. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the return on investment is positive if the attribution rate is greater than 35%, while lower attribution rates return lower estimates of this return.

Our analyses were limited to two years (2015 and 2018) to best isolate the impact of programming at the FRC within larger county and state child welfare initiatives. Future research should seek to include multiple years of data in the analyses to provide a more robust understanding of how child maltreatment changed over time and make the estimates less susceptible to the influence

of unknown system-level factors. Additionally, this study estimated the impact of one FRC in one county in a western US state and may not be generalizable to other communities; thus, this analysis should be considered a case study of the possible return on investment in one community.

Nevertheless, these findings contribute to a growing body of evaluative data on the benefits of FRCs for their communities.xli Specifically, this study demonstrates the economic benefits that an FRC can provide to a local child welfare system by reducing incidences of child maltreatment. The findings here suggest that for this rural county, the FRC provides not only a community-based hub for families but also a meaningful return on investment to the child welfare system, with a return of nearly three dollars for every dollar invested.

Acknowledgments

This study was developed by Omni Institute, in partnership with the National Family Support Network (NFSN) and Casey Family Programs (CFP). We thank NFSN and CFP for supporting this project with funding and technical advice. We also thank the participating Family Resource Center for their partnership in conducting this study.

References

i Omni Institute (2013). Key components of Family Resource Centers: A review of the literature. https://docs.wixstatic.com/ ugd/20e556_7d6b57ed42d34674a87ac78d28f01bc8.pdf

ii U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2021). Child Maltreatment 2019. Administration for Children and Families.; Sedlak, A. J., Mettenburg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson, K., Greene, A., & Li, S. (2010). Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS–4). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

iii Zellman, G. L., & Bell, R. M. (2012). The role of neighborhood characteristics in child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(6), 447–452.

iv Belanger, K., Price-Mayo, S., & Espinosa, D. (2008). The role of rural and urban contexts in child maltreatment rates. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(9), 1041–1050.

v Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2019). Definitions of child abuse and neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau. https://www.childwelfare. gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/define/

vi Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2021). Preventing child abuse and neglect. https://www.cdc.gov/ violenceprevention/childabuseandneglect/fastfact.html; Safe & Sound (2019). The economics of child abuse: A study of California. https://safeandsound.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/SafeSound-2019-CA- Report.pdf

vii Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2021). Preventing child abuse and neglect. https://www.cdc.gov/

violenceprevention/childabuseandneglect/fastfact.html

viii Ibid.

ix Safe & Sound (2019). The economics of child abuse: A study of California. https://safeandsound.org/wp- content/ uploads/2019/08/Safe-Sound-2019-CA-Report.pdf/

x Fang, X., Brown, D. S., Florence, C. S., & Mercy, J. A. (2012). The economic burden of child maltreatment in the United States and implications for prevention. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(2), 156165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.10.006

xi Screened out cases refer to instances where a report made to child welfare does not meet the criteria for child abuse or neglect; often, families are referred to community resources.

xii Russo, A. (2019). Partnering Family Success. Policy and Practice. https://gallery.mailchimp.com/ed250daa64bb471a0a16ac92e/ files/1c3d397d-9f03-493d-86eb- adc37c86f5c9/P_P_ December2019_FamilySuccess_NFSN.pdf

xiii In 2019, 74.9% of child maltreatment victims were neglected, and 61% of all cases of child maltreatment included neglect only (i.e., did not also include physical or sexual abuse). U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2021). Child Maltreatment 2019. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/ report/child-maltreatment-2019

xiv U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau. (2022). Definitions of child abuse and neglect: Summary of state laws. Child Welfare Information Gateway. https:// www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-HE23_1200-PURLLPS124431/pdf/GOVPUB-HE23_1200-PURL-LPS124431.pdf

xv Casey Family Programs (2019). Supportive communities: Do place-based programs, such as Family Resource Centers, reduce risk of child maltreatment and entry into foster care? https://www. casey.org/family-resource-centers/

xvi Social Work Research Center: Colorado State University (2018). Colorado Department of Human Services Colorado Community Response final evaluation report 2014-2018. https:// earlychildhoodframework.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/10/ CCR-Evaluation-Report-FINAL-DRAFT-2014-2018.pdf

xvii National Family Support Network (2021). Standards of quality for family strengthening and support. https://www. nationalfamilysupportnetwork.org/standards-of-quality

xviii Omni Institute (2018). Community Partnership Family Resource Center CFSA 2.0 evaluation report: July 1, 2017- June 30, 2018.

xix Ibid.

xx Olsen, S. & Lingane, A. (2003). Social return on investment: Standard guidelines. UC Berkeley: Center for Responsible Business. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6xp540hs

xxi New Economics Foundation (2008). Measuring value: A guide to social return on investment. https://commdev.org/wp-content/ uploads/pdf/publications/Measuring-Value-A-Guide-to-SocialReturn-on-Investment.pdf

xxii Colorado Department of Human Services, Office of Children, Youth & Families, Division of Child Welfare (2021). Community Performance Center, Child safety. Data pulled in January 2021.

xxiii U.S. Census Bureau (2021). 2010-2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimates subject tables: Age and sex. https:// data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Teller%20County,%20 Colorado&tid=ACSST5Y2018.S0101&hidePreview=false

xxiv U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). POVERTY STATUS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS OF FAMILIES. American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables, Table S1702. Retrieved April

23, 2025, from https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2018. S1702?q=Teller+County+Colorado&t=Families+and+Living+ Arrangements:Income+and+Poverty.

xxv Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2021). Preventing child abuse and neglect. https://www.cdc.gov/ violenceprevention/childabuseandneglect/fastfact.html

xxvi Although socioeconomic status is a strong predictor of child maltreatment, the relation is complex and not causal; for example, child welfare investigations are disproportionally targeted at families living in poverty, and most families in poverty do not maltreat their children. Berger, L. M., & Waldfogel, J. (2011). Economic determinants and consequences of child maltreatment. OECD Social, Employment, and Migration Working Papers, No. 111. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/5kgf09zj7h9ten.pdf?expires=1626728749&id=id&accname=guest&checksum= C4BD422492208B3462767100ACDBFCEF

xxvii Sedlak, A.J., Mettenburg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson, K., Greene, A., and Li, S. (2010). Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS–4): Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_ pdf_jan2010.pdf

xxviii Data for the County child (under 18) population includes the American Community Survey estimate plus the full margin of error for each group to create the most conservative (i.e., largest) estimates possible.

xxix U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau (2020). Child maltreatment 2018. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/report/child-maltreatment-2018

xxx Ibid.

xxxi See for example:

• Birnbaum, H., Leong, S., & Kabra, A. (2003). Lifetime medical costs for women: Cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and stress urinary incontinence. Womens Health Issues, 13(6), 204–213. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2003.07.001

• Fang, X., Brown, D. S., Florence, C. S., & Mercy, J. A. (2012). The economic burden of child maltreatment in the United States and implications for prevention. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(2), 156-165. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.10.006

xxxii The annual County Adopted Budgets report the actual spending for each department two years prior. The budget is publicly available at www.co.teller.co.us. To ensure funding included in the estimate of the monetized value of the outcome was not also included in the estimate of the intervention cost, we confirmed with the FRC that they did not receive any funding from the child welfare division of the County Department of Human Services in 2018

xxxiii $47,255 is an inflation-adjusted estimate in 2019 dollars calculated by Safe & Sound (2020) based on the original estimate in 2016 dollars calculated by Child Trends (2018). See for example: • Safe & Sound (2020). The economics of child abuse: A study of California and its counties, Technical Appendix. https://economics.safeandsound.org/static_reports/Safe. Sound.-.2020.Economics.Report.-.Technical.Appendix.pdf;

• Child Trends (2018). Child welfare financing SFY 2016: A survey of federal, state, and local expenditures. https:// www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ CWFSReportSFY2016_ChildTrends_December2018.pdf

xxxiv Given that we examined change in substantiated cases from 2015 to 2018 as the outcome, an alternative approach is to calculate the difference in the FRC’s annual expenses in 2015 and 2018 as the estimate of intervention cost. This alternative approach assumes that only new expenditures contribute to the reduction in substantiated cases. We opted not to use this approach given that FRCs take a comprehensive, family-centered approach to services

(e.g., those families referred to the FRC through the Colorado Community Response program could access any of the services available at the FRC, many of which have been available prior to 2015). The implementation of the Colorado Community Response and Family Support Services do not reflect just new services, but also a new model of partnering with the county and making services available to families. In addition, FRCs are funded through a variety of mechanisms, including programming funded by grants that change over time, and they blend and braid funding in ways that make it difficult to isolate costs associated with county-wide outcomes. Therefore, we were concerned that using the difference in expenses could underestimate the total costs of the intervention.

xxxv Per communications with County DHS, the FRC did not receive any funding from the County’s child welfare division in 2018.

xxxvi Douglass, Richmond, Pecora & Ariza. (2025). Returns on Investment of a Family Resource Center to the Child Welfare System: Estimates from a QuasiExperimental Study from the Western United States. The Family Justice Journal.

xxxvii Community Services Analysis Company LLC (2014). Alabama Network of Family Resource Centers: Social return on investment analysis. http://csaco.org/ files/103503730.pdf

xxxviii Prinz, R. J., Sanders, M. R., Shapiro, C. J., Whitaker, D. J., & Lutzker, J. R. (2009). Populationbased prevention of child maltreatment: the U.S. Triple p system population trial. Prevention Science, 10(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-009-0123-3

and Lee, S., Aos, S., Drake, E., Pennucci, A., Miller, M., & Anderson, L. (2012). Return on investment: Evidencebased options to improve statewide outcomes, April 2012 (Document No. 12-04-1201). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

xxxix Bayless, S., Ariza, A., Richmond, M. & Pecora, P.J. (2025). Returns on investment of a family resource center to the child welfare system: Estimates from a quasi-experimental study from the western United States. Family Justice Journal, Vol. 22, 10-16. Retrieved from https://www.thefamilyjusticegroup.org/

xl Solorzano-Garcia, M., Navio-Marco, J. & RuizGomez, L, M. (2019). Ambiguity in the attribution of social impact: A study of the difficulties of calculating filter efficiencies in the SROI method. Sustainability, 11, 386. doi:10.3390/su11020386

xli Casey Family Programs (2019). Supportive communities: Do place-based programs, such as Family Resource Centers, reduce risk of child maltreatment and entry into foster care? https:// www.casey.org/family-resource- centers/; National Family Support Network (2021). Advancing the family support and strengthening field project. https://www. nationalfamilysupportnetwork.org/resources

Hope in the Heartland

Doing Good Through Private Sector Leadership

MERIDETH ROSE

President & CEO of Cornerstones of Care

LATOSHA FOWLKES, LCSW

President & CEO at St. Vincent Home for Children

In Missouri, a coalition of private sector providers, the Missouri Coalition for Children (MCC), is working to ensure families have the connections and community support they need to thrive and reduce the likelihood that families become ensnared in the child welfare system. In 2023, MCC began implementing an approach called Connected Communities, Thriving Families (CC-TF) that supports communities in developing strategies to make resources, opportunities, and supports available to families in their communities. FJJ has been following MCC’s efforts closely.

Over the past two years we have had the opportunity to have ongoing conversations with two leaders participating in CC-TF; in particular, Merideth Rose, the President and CEO of Cornerstones of Care in Kansas City, and Latosha Fowlkes, President and CEO of the Core Collective at Saint Francis in St. Louis. They are leading historical organizations that focused primarily on residential placement and foster care in bold new directions.

They are courageous leaders who have inspired us, and we hope their examples will encourage and fortify others to move boldly forward for good.

What led you to this work? Have your life experiences shaped the way you see traditional child welfare approaches and the need for change?

Latosha: I’ve always been certain of two things: I would become a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) and I would build a family. The paycheck didn’t matter; what mattered was the calling—to serve my neighbors, protect children, and uplift communities. I believed that I could be part of a generation that could create lasting change.

Through my years of working with thousands of children and families in the St. Louis region and my own life experiences, I came face-to-face with the harsh realities of our national and local child welfare systems. Growing up, I was handed a formula: college, marriage, financial security, and then a family. As a young Black girl from a small town in Illinois, I believed this was the key to success: just follow the path.

But there were unforeseen challenges and pain along the way. It first came with efforts to start our own family, which we attempted to do through the Missouri foster care system.

We received the pictures and profiles of two beautiful Black girls and began preparing our minds and home for the idea that we could have children in our home in as soon as two weeks. We had to find a school, a doctor, childcare, and prepare to decorate their room to their liking. In our heads, we could already see them in our home; we felt them in our hearts. A few hours after the interview, we got the call and heard the words that broke our hearts, “You were not selected.”

What we experienced wasn’t isolated. It mirrored the very challenges within the foster care system that I had been fighting to reform and the impact it has on families. As a social worker, I had witnessed these barriers firsthand, but as a hopeful parent, I now felt them deeply in my own home.

This deepened my empathy for all families involved with the child welfare system and what happens to them---parents waiting with bated breath for the return of their children, or longing for the next time they see each other.

Drawing from my family’s personal experience and the voices of youth, biological, foster, and adoptive families, we at The Core Collective, alongside our community, have made significant strides in preventing the harmful separation of families and investing in communities to help them thrive.

Merideth: Like Latosha, my experience navigating the child welfare system was personal, and has deeply and intimately framed the way in which I champion the preservation of families in this space through the critical prevention work of Cornerstones of Care.

As a successful byproduct of a kindship adoption at just 2 months old, my origin story was plagued with the harms of complex traumas including sexual assault as a minor, abusive and domestically violent relationships, poverty, and homelessness. Raised by a loving and faith-filled single woman, my mother did all she could to ensure I had access to the love and care to enrich my education, my sense of responsibility, and my pride in doing everything with a spirit of service and excellence. As an adolescent, however, I often found my traumas manifested in poor decisions, poverty-mindset, and an inability to understand the potential harms of my traumas.

By some miraculous condition that I can only describe as God’s unmerited grace, I graduated from my small Lutheran high school with a class size of less than 50, and a school population of 200, of which I was the lone black student all four years. I blazed straight ahead as ‘good girls ought’ to Missouri’s largest public state college with no identity, direction, clue or healing. Nine months later I was back home in Kansas City, now a teenage mother of twins. I was a baby with babies, a single mother struggling to find purpose, safety, support and joy. I knew I needed to get back to college but couldn’t afford housing and barely had the basic needs to care for myself, let alone twin babies. I ultimately found myself homeless with newborn babies while in unsafe and unsavory relationships.

Neighbors made a hotline call to Missouri’s Children Division (CD) about my lack of ‘care and concern’ for the safety and well-being of my twins. They were removed from my custody and placed in the temporary guardianship of my mother, nearly an hour away with no offers of support for me. I was given one goal, to get my children back, packaged and presented in a CD caseworker with little hand holding. But there was no guide and no safety-net to catch me when my world collapsed.

As a woman raised in faith, I knew God’s greatest desire was for humans to live and thrive in community. True to the essence of Ubuntu, indeed a caring community of people who looked nothing like me, played a critical part in helping my mother raise what was obviously a very broken child. Although I was isolated from that community of care that would ultimately help me heal and get on the path to restoration and wellness, I was ultimately blessed with new champions from that community that helped to heal and inspire my resilience and restoration.

In July 2022, my journey led me to Cornerstones of Care, an organization personally meaningful as its therapeutic services had been a part of my mother’s caring more than twenty years prior. It was like coming ‘home’ to lead the organization that ultimately was one of the cornerstones of my intensive and tedious journey toward healing, made possible in and through the supportive hands of community.

What are you (Core Collective and Cornerstones of Care) doing differently, and why? What do you believe these changes can make possible with and for families and their communities?

Latosha: Our vision for transformation extends to our 110,000-square-foot building and 22 acres of land, which we are converting into a vibrant hub of healing, housing, and well-being. This comprehensive one-stop center, supported by a coalition of diverse organizations, will offer services that cater to the diverse needs identified by our community, setting a new standard for wellbeing in St. Louis.

In a groundbreaking move, The Core Collective at Saint Vincent launched a cross-systems partnership with the local juvenile courts, a local school district, the local police cooperative, local business owners, and other stakeholders united by a shared commitment, to streamline access to essential resources that significantly enhance the well-being of youth and families. Through the voices and lived experiences of our community, we are investing in prevention.

We are dedicated to easing the burden on youth aging out of foster care by extending support well beyond traditional age limits. A report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation found that extending foster care services to age 26 significantly improves outcomes in education, employment, and housing stability. By raising the age limit for foster care services and investing in long-term, holistic support, we are committed to addressing the evolving needs of these young adults and their communities.

We cultivate space for transformation regardless of age, race, gender, or preferences, ensuring that the community’s voice is heard in developing our programs and policies that impact them so profoundly. We’ve created an environment where healing, learning, recreation, and community connections flourish. “Trauma-informed care models emphasize community connections in healing, particularly for communities that have experienced systemic inequities” (SAMHSA, 2020). No longer just St. Vincent Home for Children, we are now The Core Collective—a thriving community invested in the transformational power of our youth. In the words of one of our alumni, “With a 170-year history, we were the strongest when we surrounded our youth within

an environment where people of all generations gathered to invest in their well-being.” We leaned into our history.

Since launching our new strategic direction in 2022, The Core Collective has experienced a remarkable 76% increase in service engagement. Even more significantly, 83% of the youth aging out of foster care in our Transitional Living Program have reported meaningful gains in the skills essential for their independence. Our approach is replicable and can be adapted to create lasting impact wherever it is implemented.

Growing up in a tight-knit community that poured into my well-being, I am now driven to create that same environment for the children we serve. My husband and I still cling to the hope that one day, our empty bedrooms will be filled with the joy and laughter of children who no longer face the fear of aging out of foster care or having their families wrongfully disrupted.

If creating trauma-responsive spaces for children to receive the immediate care they need is the must do, then upstream prevention and walking alongside families to mitigate the trauma is the right thing to do.

– Merideth

Merideth: For Cornerstones of Care, our new strategic plan moves toward prevention by providing the best possible care with the least disruption to families, a foundation of our culture for more than 155 years. While we continue our traditional work in foster care and adoption, the plan pushes us to increase our focus to expand intervention programs like Build Trybe, our outpatient clinical services, and our Intensive InHome and Intensive Family Reunification Services. Build Trybe provides marketable job skills to youth as they transition out of foster care to reduce chronic unemployment, homelessness, and food insecurity that too many youths face after aging out of foster care.

Our Kansas team reduced the number of youth in foster care by 47% since 2019 thanks to our foster care work in Wyandotte, Leavenworth, and Atchison counties. Our goal is to engage with families in ways that don’t begin with a hotline call and safety concerns.

Each year, Cornerstones of Care serves more than 15,000 children and families spanning 115 counties across Missouri and Kansas, with the goal of keeping children safe, healthy and whole within their family units. Our short-term crisis intervention program meets individuals in the places where life occurs, in homes and communities, and supports families where mental illness, emotional disturbances, substance abuse, behavior disorders, neglect, abuse, or family violence are present. Most important, our prevention posture is one of hope and healing, believing all children and adults deserve the opportunity to work towards being well.

Similarly, our Intensive Family Reunification Services (IFRS) have been provided by Cornerstones of Care since 1992 to families and youth transitioning back into the home after foster care. Across both our reunification and crisisintervention programs, we have seen a success rate of more than 85% of children and families remaining.

There’s risk involved for a private sector institution/organization to move away from its traditional line of business. Why was the time right to do it?

Latosha: Change began for us during the middle of the Covid pandemic, which is quite powerful in

a historic sense because we were originally founded when a cholera epidemic had taken the lives of thousands of residents in the area. We reflected a lot on what Saint Vincents was created to do 175 years ago. We needed to be vulnerable enough to look at how we began and what we evolved into. We decided to take the conversation to the community and ask hard questions about how families see us, our impact, and what we could and should be doing. We had to learn from our history to find our future.

We determined that the biggest risk as an organization was to keep doing the same thing — staying the course was the risk and liability; the need for deep change came through clearly from the community.

– Latosha

Merideth: The pandemic was a great equalizer and revealer for us too. Coupled with all that was going on in the country regarding social justice and racial unrest, like most human and social service community-based organizations, we became keenly aware of how and where we were contributing. And we realized we had a choice; we would take an intentional and clear stance to do no harm and work to improve those systems where harm had historically been consistently pervasive.

It’s as if what was happening in society—the death of George Floyd, the inequity of which communities were being most impacted by the pandemic—were acting as a trail of breadcrumbs that we must follow backwards.

We began looking at the data in different ways. For example, we realized it was harmful not to ask questions about why children were coming into foster care. This process led to insights on where we can better impact and understand trauma much further upstream.

We follow a Sanctuary Model of trauma-informed care that, among other things, requires us to do no harm. Within this model, safety is the first and most important cornerstone. In order to help others heal from trauma and to adopt behaviors of growth and change that prevent further traumatization, we must first establish a foundation of safety. And so it was in that, holding up our own operational mirror, we realized that safety meant more than enacting programs that were trauma-informed, but in order to effectively avoid causing harm, we had to evolve and stretch to become trauma-responsive: actively

evaluating, assessing, improving and transforming our work in a way where harm was absolutely void of our hands. We pivoted our lens and our language to clearly understand and articulate both the wins and woes of the child and family welfare system. And once we started seeing and understanding the harm more clearly, it couldn’t be unseen. We started to understand where and what accelerated harm, and utilized the seven commitments of our Sanctuary Model including social learning and social responsibility to actively combat against it.

We needed to develop an ethos for how to slow down the pipeline. Foster care should not be used just to access vital mental health services. Foster care will always have a place, but it should be like the emergency room: reserved for those who absolutely need it to be safe, and time spent there should be as short as is safely possible. The entry point to foster care is far too broadly accessed.

We became clear that mission and must do’s take precedence over monetary gain, and commitment to mission and must do’s is what will lead us into a successful future. This did feel like upsetting the apple cart to a lot of people who were invested in the historic ways and it did and continues to require courage.

Latosha: When we began to ask the community questions, we were surprised and excited that there were other groups and organizations out there thinking the same things. There’s a growing realization and awareness that we can heal ourselves. We just recently facilitated a community convening that we hope is the beginning of something powerful and unifying; over 100 organizations from across St. Louis showed up.

What were the biggest challenges in changing direction for such well-established organizations and how did you deal with those challenges?

Merideth: One of the biggest challenges we faced was helping the board understand the harm that the child welfare system causes. Unless impacted directly by the system, it’s not common for people to understand the harm that comes from it. As an organization and business, there is an ethical and moral responsibility not to participate in causing harm and certainly not to benefit from it. We do not need to create revenue from causing harm.

It’s also the case that many of the traditional types of contracts—for example foster care contracts with the state—fall short of meeting the actual costs for providing the services. This raises the fiduciary issues that boards must deal with.

In essence, we faced two major challenges: addressing public perceptions about the relative harms and benefits of child welfare, and building trust among the board that if we do this right, we will build continued trust, partnership viability, and operational sustainability within and alongside the communities we desire to serve.

Latosha: It’s not only a journey to get board members there, but also to keep them there. We have to constantly stay grounded in our mission and not allow drift to occur. We’ve got to remain vigilant for not going back to old ways that may feel familiar or comfortable.

Fear is a challenge. Fear from the board that a shift in focus will hurt the business, fear from the team that they may not know how to make the shift or that the shift might somehow negatively affect their role or position. Fear of the new or unknown. Fear that the effort or cause is too big.

There may be times when the leader is the only person in the room who actually believes we can do this . Staying grounded and building trust are key challenges.

– Latosha

What guidance would you give to other leaders seeking to make similar changes?

Start with one thing. Start with that courageous “must do.”

– Merideth

Merideth: Don’t start with things that leave you less sustainable, and don’t do what we’ve always done. If there is one strategy that we can do to make a change, start there.

Also, partnerships are essential. We sit at tables where people are living their lives—use that experience to understand the risks and challenges. Learn how “disruption” and “broken” happens and come back to those tables with options for that courageous “must do.”

Latosha: The first bit of guidance I have is to honor your own journey and learn from it. Our personal experiences and our organization’s histories always brought us back to what was needed and how we could improve.

We were lucky that our board and staff were ready to make a shift, but that’s not true for everyone. Forming partnerships is essential.

Be bold and courageous in your vision and put data behind it. Ask the community the questions and then map out your way forward. Understand that we don’t have to throw it all away to start something new. We can stand firm on the new direction while honoring the journey to get us there.

Final Thoughts and Reflections

With a state of urgency and a conviction that the broken must stop, we celebrate the rise of new and visionary leaders who embrace public-private partnerships, interagency collaborations and most importantly, the lived experience of Missouri youth and, families. In Missouri, we best describe the way as the spirit of “Ubuntu.”

The African philosophy of Ubuntu has its roots in the Nguni word for being human. The concept emphasizes the significance of community and teaches that ‘a person is a person through others.’ Purely translated, Ubuntu means, I am because you are, you are because we are. In other words, as human beings, there is a profound sense of connection—we rely on each other, therefore we are interdependent upon one another, particularly the most vulnerable. For the child welfare system to move away from its prolific tendency of disrupting homes and threatening the viability of family units, we cannot ignore the vast capability and catalytic power that rests in the hands and hearts of community. It’s a power to heal, to help and to restore individuals whole.

The magnitude of restorative and systemic transformation that is needed is not a journey that a single person nor entity can take on alone. Transforming our child welfare system is undeniably complex but far from impenetrable.

And we must remember what binds us in this fight is the heart of Ubuntu, a shared ownership of social responsibility, particularly for the most vulnerable in our communities. This means taking a unified voice, posture and promise that we will do all we can together.

Building Supportive Third Places

The Use of Arts-Based Programming in Family Resource Centers to Promote Resilience and Prevent Maltreatment

Abstract

E. SUSANA MARISCAL, PhD, MSW

E. Susana Mariscal, Ph.D., MSW is a full professor at Indiana University School of Social Work. She is a community-engaged scholar with an active research agenda centered on the prevention of child maltreatment and promotion of resilience among children and families. She directed Strengthening Indiana Families, a federally-funded, strengths-based, data-informed primary child maltreatment prevention project. Her current research includes an arts-based, trauma-informed, resilience-enhancing program for teens and their families; a collaborative partnership to support young families of caregivers who have cancer; and a national survey of Latina victimization and resilience.

BRYAN VICTOR, PhD, MSW

Bryan Victor, Ph.D., MSW is an associate professor in the School of Social Work at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan and currently serves as an associate editor for the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research. His research focuses on maltreatment prevention and the use of artificial intelligence in social work practice.

Family Resource Centers (FRCs) have the potential to function as welcoming “third places”—similar to public libraries—that effectively support families while avoiding the stigma often associated with formal interventions. This article explores how arts-based programming can be integrated into FRCs to strengthen family protective factors and healing through non-clinical approaches. We provide an illustrative case example, detailing how federally-funded FRCs in Indiana offered a manualized sequence of A Window Between Worlds (AWBW), a 10-week trauma-informed nonclinical arts program. Facilitated by trained community members, AWBW emphasized safety, peer connection, and creative expression. Our evaluation showed significant reduction in trauma symptoms among caregivers who completed the program to fidelity, suggesting that trauma-informed arts-based programming, specifically AWBW, can enhance resilience without professional clinical training. Ongoing implementation of nonclinical programming that can enhance protective factors and promote healing and resilience is needed to ensure family resource centers function as effective third places for proactively and holistically meeting family needs and preventing maltreatment—while also expanding opportunities for healing, connection, and collective good. To achieve this, sustained investment in local FRCs and the networks that support them is essential.

Third places, a concept introduced by sociologist Ray Oldenburg (1989), are informal public gathering spaces distinct from the “first place” of home and the “second place” of work or school. Third places are marked by a welcoming, neutral atmosphere that can help in fostering social interaction, relaxation, and community connection. Examples include coffee shops, where people can linger over drinks and conversation, and public libraries, which offer not only books but also workshops, kids’ activities, and communal seating. These spaces can be particularly important for families as they provide affordable and accessible opportunities to bond and engage with others. Parents can connect with peers, reducing isolation, while children interact in unstructured play or shared activities, building social skills. Third places also offer a break from routine, allowing families to relax together outside the demands of home and work, fostering a sense of belonging and strengthening community ties that support collective well-being.

We make the case here for conceptualizing family resource centers (FRCs) as an important third place in nationwide efforts to promote family resilience and prevent child maltreatment. FRCs are strengths-based and family-centered community or school-based hubs that respond to local needs, at no or low cost, and that promote peer and community connection (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2025). At their best, community members lead the design and operation of FRCs to support families by offering tailored resources, education, and community connections. These centers provide a welcoming, nonjudgmental environment where families can access resources like parenting workshops, material supports, computers, and play groups. Unlike clinical or institutional settings, FRCs prioritize informal interaction and peer support, fostering trust and reducing the stigma often associated with seeking help. For example, a parent might attend a community-led stress-management class while their toddler joins a supervised playgroup, or a caregiver might connect with others over coffee while accessing information on housing supports or wellbeing services. By addressing systemic stressors like isolation, financial strain, and lack of social support—key risk factors for child maltreatment—FRCs help mitigate crises before they escalate. Nationally, scaling such centers could strengthen protective factors for families, promoting resilience through community-building, skill-sharing, and early support.

How Third Places Mitigate Risk Factors for Maltreatment

Child maltreatment is shaped by systemic risk factors such as parental stress, social isolation, economic hardship, and concentrated community disadvantage (Austin et al., 2020; Han et al., 2024; Hunter & Flores, 2021). These stressors erode protective factors—like emotional regulation, social support, and access to resources—that buffer families from crises. Third places like FRCs have the potential to disrupt these pathways by addressing root causes of maltreatment through non-clinical programming. For example:

• Reducing Isolation: Social isolation is a key predictor of parental stress and maltreatment (Lee et al., 2022). FRCs foster informal peer networks through communal spaces (e.g., coffee hours, playgroups), creating opportunities for caregivers to share coping strategies and normalize challenges.

• Alleviating Material Hardship: Financial strain correlates strongly with heightened abuse risk (Skinner et al., 2023). By connecting families to material supports, FRCs can mitigate economic stressors that strain caregiver-child relationships.

• Strengthening Protective Buffers: Shared activities in third places can strengthen a range of protective factors and foster community cohesion, which has been shown to reduce rates of child maltreatment (Kim & MaguireJack, 2015; Williams & Hipp, 2019).

These mechanisms position FRCs as proactive, community-driven alternatives to reactive child welfare interventions.

Ensuring Family Resource Centers Function as Third Places

Family resource centers function effectively as third places when they maintain governance structures that prioritize community leadership and personal decision-making authority, creating an authentic sense of ownership that transcends traditional service-provider relationships. The physical environment plays a crucial role, with successful FRCs typically featuring informal, comfortable spaces that encourage spontaneous interaction—such as communal kitchens, play areas with adult seating nearby, and flexible gathering spaces that adapt to multiple purposes. Strong third-place FRCs demonstrate high levels of regular attendance by diverse community members

who come not only for specific services but also for social connection. That might look like families staying beyond scheduled activities to socialize and the development of autonomous peer support networks.

An FRC’s third-place status can be jeopardized, however, when centers shift toward more formalized, surveillance-oriented approaches that prioritize data collection and compliance monitoring over relationship-building. The result of such a shift is to create environments where families feel scrutinized rather than supported. Additionally, an overemphasis on clinical, professional-led interventions—rather than community-driven, strengths-based programming—risks transforming these centers into institutional spaces that replicate the power dynamics and stigma associated with traditional social services, undermining their unique position as neutral, welcoming community hubs.

A Window Between Worlds

Deliberate selection and implementation of programs that honor community voice, foster connections, and create welcoming spaces directly supports the third-place function of FRCs. Here we offer an example of an arts-based program implemented in four Indiana-based FRCs, funded by a Community Collaborations Grant to Strengthen and Preserve Families from the U.S. Children’s Bureau. This program was grounded in the work of A Window Between Worlds (AWBW), a nonprofit organization dedicated to using art as a healing tool to empower and transform individuals and communities impacted by violence and trauma. Since its founding in 1991, AWBW has collaborated with human service agencies to provide art workshops that offer a safe, nonjudgmental space for participants to express themselves, build resilience, and foster healing.

Adaptation and Implementation

To ensure consistency and replicability, the program was manualized into three distinct 10week sequences tailored for children (ages 7–11), teens (12–17), and adults. These sequences were developed by the first author (a certified AWBW trainer), in collaboration with Rudy Hernandez (AWBW purveyor), and community stakeholders. The design emphasized flexibility, resilienceenhancement, and cultural responsiveness, with a strong foundation in trauma-informed care. AWBW facilitators received training and a

detailed workbook with session guides, art activity instructions, and trauma-informed elements, aligned with AWBW fidelity principles, such as offering choice, fostering peer support, and centering safety and agency. Facilitators completed a fidelity form after each session to gauge adherence to the program’s core components.

Our adapted version of AWBW was facilitated by trained community members, including FRC staff and local partners, who did not require clinical credentials, but participated in structured training led by the first author. Training included role-playing scenarios and practical guidance on creating spaces where participants could engage at their own pace without pressure to disclose trauma — “Observing is participating” (AWBW, 2021).

All AWBW sessions were held at Family Resource Centers, ensuring that if participants experienced emotional distress, they had immediate access to center staff who would follow established protocols for supporting individuals and connecting them to appropriate resources as needed. This comprehensive safety approach aligned with both AWBW’s trauma-informed principles and our family-centered, strengths-based framework, which emphasizes relationship building and serving as compassionate witnesses throughout the intervention process.

Session Structure and Activities

Adhering to AWBW fidelity, each session followed a trauma-informed framework with three core components designed to foster emotional safety, choice, and connection:

1. Opening/Invitation: Facilitators began with a grounding activity or check-in to build safety and connection. For example, participants might share a word describing their mood or engage in a brief meditation. Community agreements were revisited, and facilitators introduced the session’s theme, offering an open invitation to create in a safe space. To support engagement and clarity, facilitators often shared a personal example of their own creation related to the prompt.

2. Creation: The heart of each session, this phase allowed participants to explore themes like feelings, resilience, identity, or hope through art. Activities ranged from painting and collage-making to crafting “resilience stones” engraved with affirming words. Facilitators emphasized that there was “no right or wrong way” (AWBW, 2021, p. 7) to create, inviting participants to interpret prompts freely. Art

supplies were provided, and sessions often included optional creation activities along with soothing elements like calming music or flexible seating.

3. Closing: Participants were invited—but never required—to share their artwork and reflections. Facilitators guided a group discussion exploring how insights from the session could relate to participants’ lives, reinforcing peer support, validation, and connection. This closing circle helped transition participants gently, restoring a sense of calm and collective strength.

Logistical Support and Tailoring

FRCs reduced barriers to participation by offering meals, childcare, and art supplies. As part of our collaborative implementation, FRC staff prepared the space before each session, thoughtfully setting out AWBW worksheets, art supplies, and a shared meal to create a welcoming, calming environment. Facilitators also received ongoing coaching from the project team and completed AWBW fidelity forms to balance adherence to the model with real-time adaptations. For instance, when younger children struggled with scissors, facilitators substituted markers; when late arrivals disrupted timing, sessions were adjusted to prioritize relationshipbuilding over rigid agendas.

Measurable Impact

To assess the impact of this adapted model on family wellbeing, we implemented a focused evaluation approach using both standardized quantitative measures and qualitative methods. Our evaluation measured changes in trauma symptoms among adults and children. Changes in behavioral functioning and protective experiences were also assessed among children. We complemented these measures with focus groups and interviews to capture participants’ lived experiences and perspectives on how the adapted AWBW programming influenced their wellbeing. This combined approach allowed us to document not only measurable outcomes but also the ways participants experienced the program within the third-place context (Mariscal, Victor et al., 2025).

Our evaluation findings indicated that participation in AWBW had significant positive impacts on family wellbeing (Mariscal, Victor et al., 2025). Adults who completed AWBW to fidelity showed statistically significant reductions in trauma symptoms, while children showed improved

behavioral regulation and greater exposure to protective factors. Participants consistently reported that AWBW provided “a healing space and time,” helping them process emotions, develop coping skills, and recognize their resilience. The group format fostered genuine peer support and social connection, with one participant reflecting, “We all come from different backgrounds and we all have different stories, and it made me feel good to know that I’m not alone.”

Alignment with Third-Place Values

AWBW’s success as a third-place activity stemmed from its emphasis on accessibility and peer connection. By avoiding clinical language and centering art as a universal medium, the program welcomed participants who might avoid traditional services—particularly considering the stigma associated with mental health services. One facilitator noted, “It’s not about fixing people—it’s about giving them space to breathe and create.” Participants echoed this sentiment, describing AWBW as a “mental break” where they could “just be” without judgment. The group format naturally fostered informal bonds, with caregivers building sustained connections beyond the program or exchanging parenting tips and children inviting peers to participate in the program. These interactions, combined with the program’s focus on strengths rather than deficits, reinforced the FRC’s role as a community hub where healing and connection flourished organically. These findings illustrate how small, everyday moments—creating art, sharing space, connecting with others—can become meaningful opportunities to do good within community life, allowing families to heal and grow in environments rooted in care rather than correction.

Moving Forward

Our findings underscore the promise of traumainformed, nonclinical programming like AWBW within FRCs nationwide. While clinical interventions are vital within a continuum of care, community-based arts programs offer a compelling opportunity—especially for families who may avoid traditional services due to stigma, mistrust, or past system involvement. Policymakers and practitioners should recognize that communityled programming like AWBW can function not merely as supplemental “nice-to-have” activities, but essential contributors for building protective factors and fostering resilience at both individual and community levels.

To maximize this potential, targeted funding is critical. Resources should be directed toward community-based organizations to ensure they can sustainably implement non-clinical programming, allowing FRCs to maintain their status as third places. Strategic investment in community-based organizations facilitates strong local ownership, leadership and innovation, enabling FRCs to respond effectively and authentically to community needs. While funding through state-level channels plays an important role in human services, prioritizing direct funding to local organizations and FRC networks ensures FRCs retain their welcoming, informal nature and remain guided by community expertise rather than external compliance demands.

As the national momentum behind FRCs continues to grow, we have a timely opportunity to expand the ecosystem of third places designed for families. The success of trauma-informed arts programming like AWBW underscores how structured yet flexible activities—rooted in creativity, safety, and peer connection—can reduce isolation, foster emotional regulation, and amplify protective factors. By prioritizing non-stigmatizing engagement over surveillance or compliance, such programs honor family agency while addressing systemic risk factors for maltreatment, from intergenerational trauma to social disconnection. This approach redefines family support as a collective, strengthsbased process rather than an individual deficitfocused intervention. It aligns with the core purpose of third places—to nurture belonging and mutual aid—and creates sustained opportunities to do good while interrupting cycles of stress and isolation. Through sustained commitment to community governance, diverse non-clinical programming, and funding models that prioritize local leadership, we can realize the full potential of FRCs as vital third places where prevention and wellbeing become woven into the everyday fabric of community life.

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by the Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families, USDHHS, under grant #90CA1864. The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Children’s Bureau.

References

Annie E. Casey Foundation (2025). Congress renews and increases Title IV-B child welfare funds. Retrieved on March 30, 2025 from www.aecf.org/blog/congress-renews-and-increasestitle-iv-b-child-welfare-funds

Austin, A. E., Lesak, A. M., & Shanahan, M. E. (2020). Risk and protective factors for child maltreatment: A review. Current Epidemiology Reports, 7, 334-342.

A Window Between Worlds (2021). Facilitator manual. A Window Between Worlds, Los Angeles, CA.

Han, Q., Jocson, R., Kunovski, I., Raleva, M., Juhari, R., Okop, K., Oppler, A., Wilson, K., Cirovic, T., Gwebu, H.S., Alampay, L., Eagling-Peche, S., Calderon, F., Vallance, I., Muharam, F., Chen, Y., & Lachman, J. (2024). The bidirectional temporal relationship between parenting stress and child maltreatment: A cross-lagged study based on intervention and cohort data. Journal of Affective Disorders, 354, 302-308.

Hunter, A. A., & Flores, G. (2021). Social determinants of health and child maltreatment: a systematic review. Pediatric Research, 89(2), 269-274.

Kim, B., & Maguire-Jack, K. (2015). Community interaction and child maltreatment. Child abuse & neglect, 41, 146-157.

Lee, S. J., Ward, K. P., Lee, J. Y., & Rodriguez, C. M. (2022). Parental social isolation and child maltreatment risk during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Family Violence, 37(5), 813-824.

Mariscal, E.S., Victor, B.G., Liang, S., Commodore-Mensah, M., Hernandez-DeCrane, L., Parker, V. L., Wu, W., Ames, J., Elliot, J., Mariscal, J. & Duncan, T. (2025). Strengthening Indiana Families Final Report. Unpublished report. Indiana University School of Social Work.

Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place: Cafés, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. Paragon House.

Skinner, G. C., Bywaters, P. W., & Kennedy, E. (2023). A review of the relationship between poverty and child abuse and neglect: Insights from scoping reviews, systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. Child Abuse Review, 32(2), e2795.

Williams, S. A., & Hipp, J. R. (2019). How great and how good?: Third places, neighbor interaction, and cohesion in the neighborhood context. Social Science Research, 77, 68-78.

Reclaiming Futures Ending TPR and Strengthening Family Bonds

TOIA POTTS

Activist & Organizer for Emancipate NC

Legacy is everything. My children have greatgrandparents who are still alive—elders in their 80s and 90s who long to meet them, hold them, and share stories with them. But because of termination of parental rights (TPR), that connection has been severed.1 These are relationships that can never be replaced, and with every passing day, the time to create those memories slips away. I have already lost so many moments with my children that I can never get back, but at least I still have the hope of building new ones. That is what family is about— survival, strength, and future generations carrying forward the love and history that came before them. TPR doesn’t just take children from parents; it takes them from an entire lineage that is waiting with open arms.

When I imagine a world without TPR, the first thing that comes to mind is birth rights and the unbreakable connection between parents and their children. I think about birth certificates—official documents that tell a child where they come from and who their parents are. But when the state terminates parental rights, it erases that connection, often changing birth certificates to remove the names of biological

ALEXANDRIA CINNEY, JD

Staff Attorney at ABA Center on Children and the Law

parents. It feels like a deliberate act of historical erasure, not unlike what happened during slavery when families were torn apart, and records were altered or lost. Every child deserves to know where they come from, to have a paper trail that tells their story, and to have access to their roots. TPR takes that away, rewriting history as if we never existed in our children’s lives.

The termination of parental rights or, more accurately, the termination of the parent-child relationship, is a deeply impactful legal action that severs not only a child’s connection to their biological parents, but also their ties to their broader family, heritage, and community. Many state supreme courts have likened TPR to a “civil death penalty,” acknowledging the irreversible and profound nature of severing the legal relationship between parent and child.2 Under the federal framework established by the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (“ASFA”), TPR became a more routine practice rather than a last resort, pushing courts to sever parental rights if a child spent 15 of the last 22 months in foster care.3 ASFA was passed with the stated goal of promoting timely

1 In 2018, Toia

lost her two young sons to the family regulation system— not because she harmed them, but because she couldn’t explain how her baby had gotten hurt. Even after the charges against her were dismissed and she had completed every requirement, the court terminated her parental rights. Despite having family members ready and able to care for her sons, they were placed for adoption outside of their biological family. Through it all, Toia held onto hope. Today, as an organizer with Emancipate North Carolina, she channels her experience into advocacy by working to support other parents navigating the system. She believes that families deserve to be strengthened, not broken apart, and is committed to ensuring others don’t face the same challenges alone.

Potts

2 Matter of T.M.R., 137 Nev. 262, 265 (2021; In re D.T., 625 S.W.3d 62, 69 (Tex. 2021); In re Bates, 8 N.W.3d 578, 586 (Mich. 2024); In re K.A.W., 133 S.W.3d 1, 12 (Mo. 2004).

3 Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-89, 111 Stat. 2115 (codified in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.).

4 Adoptive and Foster Family Coalition of New York, Intentions and Results: A Look Back at the Adoption and Safe Families Act, pp. 8–10 (2015).

5 Martin Guggenheim, The Failure to Repeal the Adoption and Safe Families Act Will Long Be a Stain on This Period of American History, 18 Fam. Integrity & J. Q. 54, 60 (2023) (citing Christopher Wildeman et al., The Cumulative Prevalence of Termination of Parental Rights for U.S. Children, 2000–2016, 25 Child Maltreatment 32 (2020)).

6 Christopher Church & Vivek Sankaran, Applying Strict Scrutiny in Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings: Why Alabama’s Jurisprudence Should Reshape Child Protection Practice, 76 Ala. L. Rev. 383 (2024).

7 U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., Off. of the Assistant Sec’y for Plan. & Evaluation, Report on Adoption and the ASFA Timeline (2005).

8 Id.

permanency for children—particularly through adoption—under the belief that children should not remain in foster care indefinitely. But for too many children, that promise has gone unfulfilled. Many are never adopted after their parents’ rights are terminated, instead aging out of the system disconnected from both legal and familial ties.4 Others endure disrupted or failed adoptions, and many ultimately return to their families after leaving care, underscoring the enduring bonds that TPR attempts to erase.

Since ASFA became law, an estimated 1 in 100 children have their legal relationship with their parents severed by TPR before they turn eighteen.5 The overutilization of TPR disproportionately destroys Black and brown families, compounding the racial disparities that exist at every stage of the child welfare system. Black children in foster care are 2.4 times more likely than white children to experience the permanent loss of their parents through court-ordered TPR. On a real-life level, TPR means not just the loss of custody but the formal severing of the parent-child relationship, eliminating a child’s right to know their siblings, history, lineage, traditions, and the cultural ties they share with their family.

While ASFA sets a federal baseline, states apply TPR inconsistently—some pursue termination aggressively, while others allow more time for reunification.6 Research from a federal assessment published in 2021 highlights the inconsistency and difficulty of applying ASFA’s timelines at the state level,with the proportion of children who experience TPR varying widely from 9% in one state to 44% in another.7 These findings underscore how professionals within the system struggle to reconcile the federal timeline with the legal standards required under state law, often describing “mismatches” that make implementation incoherent or legally untenable.8 In that same report, caseworkers expressed how difficult it is to apply the TPR timeline fairly due to unclear and shifting expectations about what progress parents must demonstrate for reunification—a reality that mirrors Toia’s experience of endlessly evolving case plan demands. This patchwork approach not only adds unpredictability for parents but also reinforces systemic inequities, highlighting the urgent need for a national commitment to family preservation.

In my case, the system punished me for circumstances beyond my control. It punished me for not knowing how my child got hurt, something I had no answers to, yet was expected to explain. I was punished for not fabricating a story that fit their narrative. This was never truly about the

safety and well-being of my children; it was about finding someone to blame, someone to punish.

The system didn’t stop there. I was punished for completing a case plan that the agency told me to follow, but in the end, the judge decided didn’t address the topics she felt were necessary. I completed every service they said I needed, and still, it wasn’t enough. Every step I took to comply was met with further demands, further hurdles. And yet, the system still saw fit to terminate my rights, making it clear that no matter how hard I tried or how much I sacrificed, it was never going to be about what was best for my children. Instead, it was about punishing me for not fitting into their rigid expectations and narratives. How could anyone honestly say that TPR isn’t punitive when the entire process is built on penalizing parents for circumstances beyond their control, for not adhering to a system that is often arbitrary and unjust? The true punishment of TPR isn’t just in losing my children, but in the way the system deliberately and cruelly punishes parents for being human—imperfect, vulnerable, and caught in a system that offers no real chance for redemption or understanding.

Had the state prioritized keeping my family together rather than separating us, we might have felt human, valued, and supported instead of discarded. I often said, “Forget me.” Even if they had decided my children couldn’t return to me, why did they overlook my entire family? Multiple relatives stepped up, prepared to take them in, but the system still threw my whole family away. If my children had been placed with family, they would have grown up surrounded by people who loved them, people who would have kept my presence alive in their lives. Even without direct contact, at the very least, my family would have sent me pictures, told my babies about me, and made sure they knew I was still here. My love would have reached them in ways that no foster home or adoptive placement could replicate.

Supporting my family instead of punishing us would have meant acknowledging the truth—that the charges against me were dismissed in superior court, proving my innocence. But instead of admitting their mistake, the system doubled down, refusing to take accountability for the harm they caused. They maintained their power by keeping my children from me, not because it was right, but because it was easier than admitting they were wrong. Even if they had decided I wasn’t the right placement, why did they refuse to support my family? Why did they ignore every single relative who offered to take my children in? We never felt

supported, not as individuals, not as a family, not as human beings.

After my rights were terminated, my entire family was devastated. I don’t think people fully understand what that means, how deep that kind of loss runs. It still feels unbelievable that this happens today—that the government can erase a mother from her children’s lives as if she never existed. My papa is still fighting for them, still holding onto hope, but every day, I live with the reality that my children deserve to be home. The pain doesn’t fade. I miss another birthday, another first, another milestone I will never get back. I don’t have photos, I don’t know what my children are doing, how they are feeling, if they are okay. As a mother, not knowing is unbearable.

The system didn’t just take my children, it tried to erase me from their lives entirely. They changed their birth certificates, removed my name, and even changed their names as if that could wipe away who they really are. From the beginning, the system prioritized adoption over reunification, allowing a focus on permanency to eliminate efforts to support family reunification. They said my children were bonded with their foster parents, and instead of seeing that as a reason to preserve all the relationships in their lives, they used it as an excuse to cut me out completely. Termination wasn’t about what was best for my kids; it was about making adoption possible. What the system doesn’t understand—or refuses to admit—is that this trauma could have been prevented. Even if they had chosen not to return my children to me, they could have placed them with family, kept our bonds intact, and allowed me to remain in their lives. But instead, they chose the ultimate damage: complete and total separation. And that is something none of us will ever fully heal from.

The devastating impact of TPR extends across generations, inflicting lasting harm on both parents and children. Research shows that children who experience TPR often struggle with attachment, identity, and long-term emotional distress.9 Many adopted through the foster system face instability, cycling through placements or experiencing failed adoptions, while others age out without a reliable support network. Meanwhile, parents endure profound, unrecognized grief, comparable to the death of a child.10 Despite these consequences, there is a troubling lack of reliable data on adoption failures and the number of children who later seek to reconnect with their families after TPR. As Toia describes, family separation through TPR perpetuates trauma across generations, increasing the likelihood of future removals and

deepening child welfare involvement, particularly in marginalized communities. Rather than breaking cycles of harm, TPR entrenches them, making family healing and reunification even more difficult.

When TPR is a legal outcome that guides the trajectory of a case, it shapes the roles of those involved in ways that can either support or undermine family unity. When foster care is approached as a temporary support, resource parents can be true allies in reunification—offering stability and care while families work toward being together again. But as Toia points out, when TPR is on the table from the start, it can create conflicting motivations, shifting the focus away from supporting families toward making adoption possible. This shift doesn’t just impact individual cases—it influences how people show up in a family’s journey, either as part of a system that preserves relationships or one that severs them. By ending the use of involuntary TPR, we create more space for a network of care that keeps families connected with a focus on healing, growth, and long-term well-being for both parents and children.

Why We’re Challenging TPR: The Urgent Need for Change

If I had received the right community support at the beginning of my case, I truly believe I would have had a better chance of keeping my family intact. I think having an attorney like Elizabeth from the beginning of my case, who would have guided me and fought harder for me, would have made all the difference. In fact, I often think about the mom who later had a case in front of the same judge but had an entire community pushing back. She ended up reunifying with her kids, and I can’t help but wonder if that was because I started pushing back first—my case started the movement in our small corner of the world. Maybe things would have been different for me if I’d had that same level of support at the beginning of the case instead of two years after the foster family got my kids.

Looking back with the understanding I have now, I can see that terminating my parental rights was just part of the legal process for the system to finalize my children’s adoption by the foster family that they were pushing all along. The system needed to maintain their narrative, but it didn’t have to be that way. Instead of terminating my rights, they could have placed my children with their family. My grandparents were more than willing to take them in, with my aunt, dad, and little sister ready to help. After my rights were

9

(2009).

10 Monique B. Mitchell, The Family Dance: Ambiguous Loss, Meaning Making, and the Psychological Family in Foster Care, 8 J. Family Theory & Rev. 360, 362 (2016).

Kristin M. Bass, Ambiguous Loss of Home: The Experience of Familial Impermanence Among Young Adults with Foster Care Backgrounds, 31 Child. & Youth Servs. Rev. 1229, 1229–39

11 Christopher Church & Vivek Sankaran, The Ties That Bind Us: An Empirical, Clinical, and Constitutional Argument Against Terminating Parental Rights, 61 Fam. Ct. Rev. 246 (2023).

12 U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Admin. for Children & Families, Trends in Foster Care and Adoption: FY 2019.

13 Child Welfare Info. Gateway, Discontinuity and Disruption in Adoptions and Guardianships.

terminated, my godparents petitioned to adopt my kids so they could stay with family. There were alternatives, and the system deliberately overlooked them at every turn.

TPR is often framed as a measure to protect children’s safety and well-being, but this presents an opportunity to rethink what true stability looks like. Once a child has been removed from an allegedly unsafe environment and placed in state custody, immediate safety concerns are addressed—yet courts frequently proceed with terminating parental rights, even when children would benefit from maintaining relationships with their families. Importantly, TPR is not a legal prerequisite for a child to achieve permanency. Alternative legal arrangements, such as kinship care or guardianship, provide lasting stability and continuity without the harm of severing critical family ties.11 Several states and tribal communities already implement these models, demonstrating that the permanent severance of family ties is not required to ensure a child’s well-being. In Toia’s case, the court acknowledged that she posed no risk to her child, yet still upheld TPR—illustrating how the system too often prioritizes legal finality over children’s actual well-being. By embracing solutions that keep families connected while ensuring children’s safety, we have the chance to build a more just and compassionate system.

Rather than providing meaningful or lasting permanency, TPR often creates instability for children and families. This presents a critical opportunity to rethink how we support children’s long-term well-being. Each year, more children experience the termination of parental rights than are adopted, leaving many in legal limbo.12 Even among those who are adopted, research shows that a significant percentage of adoptions disrupt or dissolve, highlighting the need for alternatives that prioritize stability and connection.13 By shifting away from rigid, arbitrary timelines and toward solutions that strengthen family bonds—such as guardianship, kinship care, and community-based support—we can create a system that truly serves children’s best interests.

Building a Future Without TPR: The Path Forward

Since losing my parental rights to Mansa and Kimoni, I have given birth to a beautiful baby girl who I named Journi. Her name couldn’t be more fitting. She has been my light in the darkest moments, a reminder that I am still whole, still a mother, still worthy. Her presence is healing, but

the pain of losing my boys never fades. Every day, I wake up knowing they should be here too.

The system tried to break me. They took my children and expected me to disappear, to lose myself in grief. But I refused. Even on the hardest days, when the weight felt unbearable, I kept fighting. That fight—that fire—is the proof of who I am as a mother. No court ruling, no case file, no judge’s words could ever erase the truth: I am, and always will be, my children’s mother.

Journi is living proof that I never stopped being that mom. The love I have for my children isn’t conditional, isn’t dependent on a system’s approval—it’s unshakable, unbreakable. A future without TPR means families stay whole. It means parents are recognized not as obstacles, but as irreplaceable connections in their children’s lives. It means the system finally understands that support—not separation—is what keeps children safe.

My path forward is one of healing, advocacy, and love. I will never stop being Mansa and Kimoni’s mother. I will never stop being the best mother I can be for Journi. My story is proof that TPR isn’t just arbitrary, it’s cruel. It’s wrong. And it doesn’t have to be this way. Families deserve better. We deserve futures where love isn’t severed, but strengthened.

What really resonates with me about the work I see others doing to eliminate TPR is the momentum and energy it has gained. This issue is now getting the attention it deserves, and that’s what we need to make change happen. The most crucial steps we can take forward are to educate ourselves about the realities of TPR, engage with elected officials about those realities, and support families during the critical early phases of system involvement. If people are willing to stand up, challenge the system, and push for reform, we can start to make a difference.

Ending TPR isn’t just about preventing harm, it’s about creating better futures. By investing in concrete resources and community-driven support that help families navigate challenges without state intervention, control, or coercion, we open the door to a process that prioritizes connection, healing, and lifelong support. Families and their communities are already leading the way, creating non-punitive alternatives that keep people together and surround children with more love, not less. Instead of a system that severs ties, we can build one that strengthens them—shifting power from agencies back to families, who know

what works best for them. This means making it easier for extended family to step in when needed and ensuring legal processes support, rather than obstruct, kinship care. In support of this shift, a 2023 federal rule change now allows Title IV-E agencies—including all states and participating tribes—to create kin-specific licensing standards for foster homes, removing barriers for relatives and expanding access to family-based placements across the country.14 Implementation efforts are currently underway nationwide, as states and tribes work to align their licensing practices with these new standards and ensure more children can remain safely with kin.15 It also means recognizing the strength of communities that raise children together, ensuring that parents can continue to be part of their children’s lives, growing and rebuilding alongside them.

We must uphold constitutional protections for families by challenging outdated legal standards and strengthening due process in child welfare proceedings. The termination of parental rights is one of the most severe legal consequences a person can face—yet in many cases, courts apply an insufficient standard of review that fails to reflect the gravity of permanently severing a parent-child relationship. Because parental rights are fundamental, courts should apply strict scrutiny—a standard of review that requires the government to demonstrate that termination is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest and constitutes the least restrictive means of protecting a child’s well-being.16 Instead, many families are subjected to a system that prioritizes expediency over fairness, often without adequate legal representation to challenge the state’s case. Strengthening due process protections—through access to high-quality legal counsel, meaningful judicial oversight, and heightened evidentiary requirements—can ensure that families are not needlessly separated. By demanding a higher standard of proof and ensuring families receive robust legal advocacy, we can push back against a system that too often dismantles families and instead work toward one that truly supports them.

The End TPR Initiative: Our Blueprint for Change

The American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law’s End TPR Initiative is building a strong foundation for challenging the legal practice of involuntary TPR. By bringing together impacted parents, youth, attorneys, social workers, researchers, and advocates across jurisdictions,

the initiative serves as a national hub for collaboration, strategy, and systemic reform. At its core, the initiative seeks to challenge the practice of involuntary TPR by shifting the way we approach family well-being—moving from a system that looks for reasons to sever parental rights to one that asks how we can support families, children, and communities as a whole. By starting with the presumption that TPR should not be an option, we create space for real solutions that strengthen families rather than tear them apart. Equally central to this work is recognizing that those directly impacted by TPR already rely on their communities and extended families for support—systems that should be reinforced, not severed. By centering their voices, we can advance legal advocacy and implement alternatives that build on existing support networks to keep families together.

The initiative hosts educational webinars and workshops on critical topics, including challenges to the best-interests framework, leveraging constitutional protections for families, and litigation strategies that incorporate expert testimony and case law. Advocates have highlighted promising state-level reforms—such as Washington’s guardianship preference in HB 1747 and Alabama’s practice of avoiding TPR when a child is placed with relatives—demonstrating that alternatives to termination already exist and can be expanded. The initiative also draws from existing practices in communities and tribes, where children are surrounded by more love, not stripped of it. For example, tribal approaches to customary adoption allow children to be cared for when a parent is unable—whether temporarily or long-term— without requiring legal severance. These practices show that TPR is not necessary to ensure a child’s safety and well-being.

Finally, the initiative creates a space for professionals across the child welfare system—attorneys for children and parents, agency attorneys, and decision-makers—to critically evaluate every stage of a case, from the initial decision to remove a child to the choice to file a TPR petition. This includes a critical examination of the structural forces that shape these decisions, including the financial incentives built into federal law that reward states for finalized adoptions but not for successful reunifications. These incentives—offered through Title IV-E subsidies and adoption bonuses—have helped

14 Separate Licensing or Approval Standards for Relative or Kinship Foster Family Homes, 88 Fed. Reg. 66844 (Sept. 28, 2023).

15 Kin-Specific Foster Home Approval Recommended Standards of National Organizations, Grandfamilies. org (2025); KinSpecific Licensing Progress Map, Grandfamilies.org (May 2025).

16 Church & Sankaran, Applying Strict Scrutiny in Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings, 76 Ala. L. Rev.

17 Gupta-Kagan, (De)Funding Family Separations, 2024 Colum. L. Rev. (forthcoming).

normalize adoption as the preferred outcome, even when families could be preserved with the right support.17 Strengthening research and data collection is a core commitment of the initiative, particularly around failed and disrupted adoptions—outcomes often ignored in discussions about permanency. By compiling critical data and amplifying firsthand accounts, the initiative sheds light on the instability

created by TPR and dispels the notion that legal severance leads to better outcomes for children.

Ultimately, the initiative challenges the assumption that terminating parental rights is necessary to love and care for a child, affirming that the strongest legacy we can offer children is the continuity of family, where love and history endure through connection, not separation.

April Lee

April Lee is a community activist based in Philadelphia who has dedicated herself to supporting families at the intersections of substance use, child welfare systems, and the ongoing War on Drugs. Her advocacy spans various organizations and initiatives including the Family Justice Law Clinic Advisory Board, Philadelphia Coalition on Children and Opioids, and the Governor’s Act 2 Opioid Abuse Child Impact Task Force. She also brings her expertise to the national advisory board of Stop Overreporting our People (STOP) an initiative promoting racial equity by mitigating bias and racism from mandated reporting decisions involving Black and Indigenous families.

April lives her life in service to others, from feeding the homeless, facilitating life skills groups, mentoring women throughout the community, to taking care of her family. When not working on other’s needs April has a passion for writing and has performed her poetry on many stages throughout the City of Philadelphia and abroad.

POWER

Power, control, and egos unchecked.

They smile in your face then embrace you to put a knife in your back.

Who gave you power over autonomy, body, and choice.

Who gave you the power to silence our Voice.

Systems, systems built to take.

Systems, systems built to break.

Break families, individual, spirits, and faith.

Systems, systems it’s time for a remake.

Why is that we continue to run into brick walls.

How is that we’re held captive by Fucking know it all’s.

People that kill you with your best interest at heart. Inside of rigged games without unlimited lives but with unlimited starts.

You, good job you made it so take a step forward.

Wait, the finish line moved so, you will no longer be rewarded.

You, good job you served your time and you have nothing to prove.

Oh wait you have fines that cannot be removed.

I know you have fought and are completely tired.

You are battered and bruised yet, you know the saying, we have more work to do.

It is not by chance that we chose today.

It’s completely intentional to pay homage to those who paved the way.

Today we gain leaders while recognizing those we have lost. Like Malcolm, Nina, Rosa, Langston and Fredrick we are answering the call.

To raise up our Voice and to fight for our people.

To show systems that we were never deemed free or equal.

It’s alright though because like Cooke said, Change is going to come.

And no, we don’t give a damn about where you come from.

The pursuit of happiness is a constitutional right. So is Family, love and life.

When one person loses, it is all our duty to fight.

I will no longer stand here hiding in plain sight.

Keeping parts of my pain down to make my truth more palatable.

It’s time for us to show that systems can be malleable in a way that speaks truth to power. Not bent, contorted, and shaped to suit those whose thoughts shift by the hour.

Depending on who has the funds, privilege and enough blind hate.

Those who never had to second guess whether food would be on the plate.

I am not saying you had to struggle in order to understand.

What I am saying is words, actions, and deeds are the true measure of man.

What you do matter and can have a lasting effect.

So be mindful, wise and open to the things you lack.

This is our time to overcome and rise out of the ashes.

So raise your voice, build the village and pray that freedom will no longer pass us.

Realizing the Promise of CBCAP

A Legislative History and Call to Action

Introduction

PATRICIA A. COLE

Patricia Cole is a Senior Policy Officer within the ZERO TO THREE Policy Center. Drawing on her expertise in early childhood policy on a range of issues, she provides strategic advising and issue development for ZERO TO THREE’s policy agenda and implementation to create a holistic approach for policies supporting infants, toddlers and families. Patty has over thirty years of experience in policy at the federal and state levels, including serving as staff to Senator Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Children and Families, with oversight of Head Start, child care, and child abuse prevention and treatment. She holds a BA in History and Political Science as well as an MA in History from Duke University.

REBECCA M. ROBUCK

Rebecca Robuck is a Partner at ChildFocus, where she works with philanthropy, advocates, policymakers, and subject matter and lived experts to improve policies that affect children and families, with a focus on child welfare and safety net programs. She serves as the Executive Director of the National Coalition on Child and Family Well-Being (previously, the National Child Abuse Coalition), a coalition of more than 30 national organizations advocating for federal policy reforms to strengthen community-based supports to families, improve child protection, and promote healing and treatment for children and families. Earlier in her career Rebecca served as a Legislative Assistant to Representative Jim Cooper (TN-05) where she handled a range of domestic policy issues, with an emphasis on child welfare. She also has experience as a caseworker and as a policy advisor to city child welfare officials. Rebecca holds a BA in History from Davidson College, and an MSW and MPA from the University of Pennsylvania.

Current policy discussions about child welfare and early childhood almost inevitably lead to the same place: the need to focus more effort on preventing families from entering the child welfare system by providing services and support earlier. Prevention and promotion might seem like a daunting, sprawling concept to embed in policy on a large scale. But we have been here before. The small toehold in family support created by the Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) program over thirty years ago offers

a place to get started—an opportunity to build community supports now widely recognized as important to strengthen families.

Although CBCAP exists in federal policy as Title II of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), it was never intended to be placed there, nor was it intended to be a grant program focused on child abuse and neglect. Indeed, when it was first conceptualized (one of the authors of this article, Patty Cole, was the Congressional staffer instrumental in establishing the program), it was part of the human services programs from which

CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-320, 124 Stat. 3459 (2010).

ii Stoltzfus, E. (2009, November 4). The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA): Background, Programs, and Funding. Congressional Research Service.

iii Ibid.

iv Department of Defense and FullYear Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, Pub.L. No. 112-10, 125 Stat. 38 (2011).

v Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Pub. L. No. 116-94, 133 Stat. 2534 (2019).

vi Colorado Department of Human Services. (2020, April 13). Essential baby supplies delivered to Colorado from FEMA [Press release]. https://cdhs. colorado.gov/ press-release/ essentialbaby-suppliesdelivered-tocolorado-fromfema.

vii American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-2, 135 Stat. 4 (2021).

viii Stoltzfus, E. (2025, March 3). Child Welfare: Purposes, Federal Programs, and Funding. Congressional Research Service.

ix Puls, H.T., Chung, P.J., and Anderson, C. (2022). Universal child care as a policy to prevent child maltreatment. Pediatrics 150 (2).

x U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. (1973). Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (Senate Report 93-308). 93rd Congress.

the family resource and support movement had evolved, outside the domain of child welfare. The approach gained such bipartisan support that it was expanded, and then—for political expediency— folded into CAPTA, increasing the emphasis on child abuse and neglect.

The legislative history of CBCAP is little-known, but sheds light on how difficult it has been—and continues to be—to meaningfully invest public dollars in prevention services for families. Yet its history also offers a useful window into how we might, in the future, move policy toward building community-based systems of support for all families, instead of an afterthought of the child welfare system. Reflecting on CBCAP’s history, the prevention efforts in legislation that followed, and lessons learned also underscores the need both to amplify prevention and to reframe it as family strengthening outside the scope of child welfare, reorienting to what it takes to help families thrive from the start.

What is CBCAP?

CBCAP has always been a program with big goals and small means to achieve them. As of this writing, the program is authorized at $80 million a year and funded at just over $70 million.i For much of its existence, its funding levels were much lower.ii CBCAP’s purpose is to help states develop networks for community-based family resource and support, including parenting education and support, connections and referrals to early childhood development, outreach, community, and social services, including housing assistance and job training.iii In short, its focus is on supporting communities to create networks for resources and support for families.

What makes CBCAP unique is its emphasis on systems building through flexible dollars. This sets it apart from the more proscribed categories of services in funding authorized by the Family First Prevention Services Act or specific health services available under Medicaid. CBCAP provides the critical connective tissue that allows families to access governmental and nongovernmental services and supports in their own communities to support their well-being. CBCAP dollars were originally intended to flow to a non-governmental entity—typically, a children’s trust fund or other nonprofit—although increasingly the program has been administered by child welfare agencies. For these reasons, CBCAP complements other funding streams and, importantly, can detach

family support from public systems eligibility. The approach embeds itself in the community by leveraging and pooling private and local funding sources, whose uses can then be tailored to family and community needs.

Despite what its low funding levels might suggest, CBCAP’s principles and community-based approach have always enjoyed wide appeal across the political spectrum. As the utility of CBCAP’s approach has become clearer in recent years, appropriations have inched up. From 2011 to 2020 alone, funding for the program increased from $41 million in 2011 to $55 million in 2020.iv,v The importance of community systems that are in touch with families—and CBCAP’s role in fostering those systems—became apparent in the pandemic, when CBCAP was one of the few conduits to community infrastructures that could quickly distribute aid. Early on, for example, Colorado distributed diapers obtained with emergency funding through Family Resource Centers.vi In 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act channeled $250 million through CBCAP to allow the program to help more families.vii Annual funding has continued to slowly increase since then, although CBCAP remains the smallest of the child welfare funding streams by far.viii

Finding CBCAP’s Roots

CBCAP’s core thinking emerged outside of CAPTA and outside of child welfare policy, in the Human Services Act, which promoted communitybased approaches that embedded family support in programs providing economic support and early childhood development. The approach was developed in parallel to, but distinct from, efforts to promote prevention services in federal child welfare programs.

Foundations of our modern child protection system Congressional activity leading up to the enactment of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) in 1974 reflects a core tension of CAPTA. The law was passed in the aftermath of a multi-year robust debate in Congress regarding comprehensive childcare in 1970-1971 that highlighted the need to provide essential supports to families; that childcare legislation was ultimately vetoed by President Nixon.ix During the committee hearings on CAPTA, committee members acknowledged the role of poverty, lack of parent support, and other root causes of child abuse and neglect.x But Walter Mondale, CAPTA’s chief architect and champion, was clear that a comprehensive child welfare bill could not pass, so the more limited

approach of CAPTA was pursued.xi Despite the word “prevention” in the name, it did not include any investments in family support or the prevention of child abuse and neglect, and instead established the framework for the system of child protection and reporting that remains in place today. The passage of CAPTA was followed six years later by the enactment of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (AACWA), which established the foster care financing structure that also largely remains in place today.xii

In the absence of federal prevention investment, by the early 1980s several states took action on prevention by creating Children’s Trust Funds, which are child abuse prevention funds at the state level raised through surcharges on marriage licenses, birth certificates, and divorce actions. These inspired the creation of the Child Abuse Prevention Federal Challenge Grants Act in 1984. The Challenge Grants represented the first legislative acknowledgement of the need for federal investment in prevention and were developed to encourage all states to establish and maintain funds to support these efforts. The number of states receiving funding under the program increased from 33 states in fiscal year 1986 (the first year of appropriations for the program), to 47 states in fiscal year 1990, which were awarded a total just under $5 million.xiii

Family Resource and Support Centers

In the late 1980s, a new idea for family support began to take hold outside of child abuse prevention legislative discussions. The Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1990 included a new pilot program, the Family Resource and Support grants.xiv The fit was natural, as the family resource movement had grown out of Head Start and other approaches emphasizing community-based programs to strengthen families central to the Human Services Act, and the 1990 program was considered the first step in realizing this broader concept. Congressional intent for the pilots was to build a system that was more comprehensive and less siloed; in other words, to provide the flexibility communities need to fill gaps and create collaboration, with parental and family representation to design approaches.xv Most importantly, the frame was that families deserve and need support from their communities to thrive—not that parents should receive services because they potentially could maltreat their children.

The competitive grants funded states to establish statewide networks of family support programs, in collaboration with health, education, and

social services agencies within the state. A small appropriation of $5 million for FY1992-94 allowed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to award three grants of $1.5 million each to Maryland, Virginia, and Connecticut. These states had a base of family resource initiatives on which to build, including a Maryland non-profit model that pooled funds for services, school-based family services in Connecticut, and a public healthfocused approach administered by the Health Department in Virginia.xvi

Programs were designed consistent with the family support philosophy: the basic relationship between programs and the family is one of equality and respect; families who participate are a vital resource; programs are community-based and culturally and socially relevant to the families they serve; parent education, information about human development, and skill building for parents are essential elements of every program; and programs are voluntary.xvii Preventing child abuse and neglect was an important outcome for these programs, but again, not the driving force.

Two bipartisan commissions in the early 1990s amplified the need for the federal government to do more to promote this type of family support approach. In 1991, the bipartisan National Commission on Children, established by Congress as part of P.L. 100-203, published its final report, Beyond Rhetoric: A New American Agenda for Children and Families, which included recommendations aimed at promoting “comprehensive community-level approaches to strengthen families.”xviii The recommendations read: “We believe that early family support and the availability of preventive services will ultimately lessen the need for children to be removed from their homes. We therefore urge that programs and services for vulnerable children and their families be restructured to include: 1) Promoting child development and healthy family functioning through locally controlled and coordinated community-based family support networks that offer access and referrals to broad range of services, including health and mental health care, education, recreation, housing, parent education and support, employment and training, and substance abuse prevention and treatment. 2) A comprehensive community-level approach to strengthen families. Family support and the availability of preventive services will ultimately lessen the need for children to be removed from their homes.xix

A 1994 report by the United States Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect reiterated the need for an increased emphasis on shifting

xi T. Birch, Personal communication, October 13, 2016.

xii Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-272, 94 Stat. 500 (1980).

xiii U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources (1995). Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 1995 (Senate Report 104-117). 104th Congress.

xiv U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. (1990). Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1990 (Senate Report 101-412).

101st Congress.

xv Ibid.

xvi U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources (1995). Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 1995 (Senate Report 104-117). 104th Congress.

xvii Ibid.

xviii National Commission on Children. (1991). Beyond Rhetoric: A New American Agenda for Children and Families. U.S. Government Printing Office.

xix Ibid.

xx U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1994). Neighbors Helping Neighbors: A New National Strategy for the Protection of Children. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

xxi See, for example, Hinds, M.D. (1990, March 17). The instincts of parenthood become part of crack’s toll. The New York Times.

xxii U.S. House of Representatives. (1994). Human Services Amendments of 1994 Conference Report to Accompany S. 2000 (House Report 103-497). 103rd Congress.

xxiii U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources. (1993, April 21). President Clinton’s budget proposal for new funding for child welfare services targeted for family support and preservation services. 103rd Congress.

xxiv Stoltzfus, E., & Spar, K. (2002, January 24).

Child Welfare: Reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program in the 107th Congress. Congressional Research Service.

xxv Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115123 § E, Title VII (2018).

federal resources towards community-based family support. In Neighbors Helping Neighbors: A New National Strategy for the Protection of Children, the Advisory Board recommended that: “Rather than the current investigation-centered process that exists today to protect children, there should be a three-tiered service system. One level would promote child development and healthy family function through community-based family support networks with access and referrals to human services. A second level would assist families and children with specific, imperative needs, and a third level would protect abused and neglected children through more comprehensive child protective services.”xx

These strong, bipartisan endorsements are particularly striking considering how dominant the narratives around the rise of crack-cocaine use and its impact on children and the foster care system were in the late 1980s and early 1990s.xxi Even in that context, support for prevention was not only acknowledged but strongly emphasized as a necessary role of the federal government in promoting both child safety and child and family well-being.

Prevention begins to emphasize child abuse and neglect

Because the response to the Family Resource and Support program was so positive, Congress looked to expand its reach in the next Human Services authorization in 1994. To increase funding and create a more far-reaching vision, Congress consolidated several small prevention-oriented programs to increase their overall impact in building systems of support for families. In addition to the Family Resource and Support Center grants, the legislation included several programs, including the Emergency Child Abuse Prevention Services Grants and the Temporary Child Care for Children with Disabilities and Crisis Nurseries Act of 1986. The new program, the Community-Based Family Resource and Support Networks, was placed in CAPTA with a one-year authorization to secure its passage.xxii

While consolidating the programs was meant to assist states in building systems to support families and increase the amount of funding available to jump-start the program, the political need for placing the new program in CAPTA led to highlighting the support of child abuse and neglect prevention activities more prominently. A feature continued from the original pilots was encouraging states to leverage and pool a broad array of public and private funding for the development of the networks’ family support activities. The goal was to

provide a channel through which smaller amounts of funding could be pooled to have greater impact, and funding sources could be directed into a unified approach to reaching families upstream.

As the program was revisited over the years, the name ultimately changed to Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention, the funding never grew, and states increasingly turned to more discrete child abuse prevention activities—obscuring the original intent of building easily accessed statewide systems for families to find support. And yet, the idea of using these funds as seed money for, or at least a contribution to, family support systems remained in many states.

Prevention funding becomes tethered to child welfare system

The Family Resource and Support grants also influenced other legislation during this period. Notably, in its 1993 budget the Clinton Administration included a child welfare proposal focused on family support and preservation services, which drew on the Children’s Commission report and the grants for inspiration.xxiii This proposal became Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF), Subpart 2 of Title IV-B of the Social Security Act. PSSF required specific percentages for each portion of the continuum of services for families: family support services, family preservation services, family reunification services, and adoption promotion.xxiv Infusing Title IV-B with this language ensured that the overall approach would have more funding. However, it further reinforced the connection between prevention and child abuse and neglect.

In 2018, Congress took the first major step towards investing in prevention services by passing the landmark Family First Prevention Services Act (Family First). What made Family First so significant was its effort to realign child welfare financing to promote prevention services. For the first time, it allowed the Title IV-E entitlement— which previously funded only costs associated with children who had already been removed from their families—to pay for time-limited, evidence-based prevention services designed to keep children from entering foster care with their families. xxv While Family First was a significant step forward, the structure of this breakthrough legislation means that it pays for services, not comprehensive approaches to supporting families. Moreover, Family First maintains the close proximity of prevention and child welfare by tying eligibility for services to findings that individual children are at risk for removal. The need to connect children to the child welfare system, even if only a formality to

receive reimbursement, creates tension for services meant to be truly voluntary, such as home visiting programs.xxvi

Implementation of Family First has shined a light, once again, on the need for the connective tissue approach of CBCAP. Yet, Family First itself contains an opportunity—the community-based pathways approach that some states such as Connecticut are adopting—that allows services to flow more easily to children and families who are not connected to the child welfare system.xxvii This option is important to keep in mind as we assess how CBCAP could be used to build robust community-based systems that also could use available resources such as those provided by Family First more effectively.

Returning to CBCAP’s Roots

It is time for a new frame for supporting families that builds on their strengths rather than fixing deficits. CBCAP could make that pivot—if it returns to its roots outside the child welfare system and incorporates the lessons learned in the years since its inception. Those roots recognized that improving child and family well-being has many positive impacts: reducing child abuse and neglect and child welfare system involvement is one, but so is stronger child development, more success in school, improved child and adult mental health, and increased employment and economic security for families.

Since the 1980s and 1990s, our understanding of factors that have contributed to findings of child maltreatment and child welfare involvement has grown, along with awareness that we are failing to provide the support that most families need at a point at which it could make a real difference in their lives. Yet, the CBCAP name alone reflects how we have been approaching child welfare policy and financing since CAPTA’s inception in 1974: first fund the intervention, then if we have time and leftover money, the prevention, despite strong evidence, and lawmaker recognition, that supporting and strengthening families at all stages is better for children and families, and better for public spending.

Those who have been through the child welfare system provide testament that having services early and in a comprehensive, supportive way would have made the difference for them and their children avoiding the system. Heather C. in Washington State describes how she struggled to care for her young children with the stress of unmet needs and lack of support contributing to mental health

problems and substance use: “We encountered homelessness, food insecurity, and separation of our family through child welfare involvement… I had to give up my subsidized housing to go to treatment. I had to choose between my children to stay in treatment. I’ve had to leave affordable housing programs to reunify with my children… I wonder how different it could have been for me and my older children if we had [services] to help us connect to what we truly needed early on instead of separating us.”xxviii

Many states and communities have continued to work to build systems of connections for families.xxix For example, in Guilford County, North Carolina, Get Ready Guilford works to improve child and family outcomes, including creating readily accessible family support services through Family Connects, HealthySteps and Nurse-Family Partnerships.xxx New Jersey has a system of Family Success Centers that are “one-stop” shops for families to access information and referral, life skills services, parent education, housing services, and more.xxxi

We want to be clear that meaningful investments in community-based family strengthening should not take the place of child protection, even as they strive to reduce the need for the latter. Additionally, strengthening families and enabling them to meet their children’s needs will require major investments in large structural programs providing income support, childcare and early learning, housing, and health and mental health care. Even so, there is a pivotal role for communities in helping many families who are juggling, and sometimes overwhelmed by, so many needs. Communities should provide a place that is supportive, not threatening; helps parents become strong and confident by nurturing relationships with their children; links families with existing services and collaborates to fill gaps; and promotes connections with other families that in turn strengthen the fabric of community life. Above all, communities must see parents and families as partners. There is no mystery to why the prototype of the early Family Resource and Support program was called “Friends of the Family.”

A new CBCAP frame would build on these lessons and its own origins to elevate strengthening families and promoting wellbeing and positive child development—and center this work in communities. Using CBCAP as a vehicle helps states build on foundations they have already begun. The challenge is to reframe and revitalize the program to elevate and ingrain visible community resources and support into the essential service structure,

xxvi National Home Visiting Coalition. (2024). Considerations for implementing early childhood home visiting through Family First Prevention Services Act.

xxvii Davis,S., Thomas, K., and Wilks, O.K. (2023, April 27). Installing a community pathway to Family First Prevention Services: Implementation strategies & lessons learned [Slide deck]. Chapin Hall and Connecticut Department of Children and Families.

xxviii Heather C. was a participant in the WA Infant-Toddler Court Program.

xxix CBCAP Data Profile. (2025). Friends National Resource Center. Accessed May 10, 2025 at https:// friendsnrc.org/ cbcap/cbcapdata-profile/.

xxx Pratt, J. & Gebhard, B. (2021). Aligning Early Childhood Services in Communities. The Model Convening Project.

xxxi State of New Jersey Department of Children and Families. (2025). Family Success Centers. Accessed May 10, 2025 at https://www. nj.gov/dcf/ providers/fcp/fsc/.

xxxii These recommendations are adopted from recommendations developed by members of the National Coalition for Child and Family Well-Being (formerly known as the National Child Abuse Coalition).

just as child protection and foster care are ingrained into the current child welfare structure.

A new CBCAP would:

• Have as its primary purpose developing and supporting family strengthening systems and services that help families build protective factors linked with the promotion of child and family wellbeing.

• Spur the development of coordinated and robust networks of resources for children and families that would build on existing systems and strengths of communities and families.

• Use these multiple approaches to provide families with strategic and welcoming access points within communities.

• Engage families as core partners in designing, implementing, overseeing, evaluating and improving structures and services.

• Use this infrastructure as a conduit for other funding that seeks to provide similar supports and outcomes (such as Family First Community-Based Pathways discussed above).xxxii

Two other changes from the current program would help elevate family strengthening and support as a prominent policy and practice: far more robust funding than currently allocated to enable states to build networks of services across communities, and moving the program’s administration to an agency more focused on communities and centering all families in its work.

Prevention is a long-recognized, but far underresourced, priority for federal policymakers. As prevention approaches take center stage in the child welfare and early childhood policy agendas, it is time to stop relying on child welfare dollars alone as a source of federal prevention resources— and indeed refocus efforts on empowering communities to develop comprehensive approaches to supporting children and families.

Realizing the promise of CBCAP means heeding the lessons of the past as well as what we know from developmental science and plain common sense: supporting thriving children and families is critical to our future. Policies aimed at building systems that center this purpose should be embraced and elevated, and communities should be the locus of this work.

Protecting Community-Driven Family Justice

1 House Committee on Appropriations. (2025, April 29). 100 days in, Trump blocks at least $430 billion dollars in funding owed to American people. Retrieved from https://democratsappropriations.house. gov/100-days-trumpblocks-least-430billion-dollars-fundingowed-americanpeople

A case for participatory grassroots funding models in an era of right-wing federal policy change

RASHIDA ABUWALA

Rashida Abuwala, MSc, is the Founder and Principal of New Tomorrow, a research and advisory firm that partners with foundations, movements, advocacy groups, and direct service organizations to promote participatory, communitypowered change. A philanthropic advisor, applied researcher, and non-profit executive, Rashida collaborates with communities impacted by carceral systems, especially the family policing system, to build a more just society through research, philanthropic, and policy initiatives.

2 Urban Institute. (2205, February 21). What is the financial risk to nonprofits of losing government grants? Retrieved from https://www. urban.org/research/ publication/ what-financial-risknonprofits-losinggovernment-grants

3 Democracy Funders Network. (2024, December 3). The authoritarian threat: Preparing for the repression of U.S. philanthropy & civil society. Retrieved from https://docsend.com/ view/hk9xbngknbswz taa

4 It is important to note that Democracy in America has been used to justify causes on both the left and the right, while also criticized for its omission of the subjugation and oppression of women, Black and Indigenous Americans. In the first part of the 20th century, Tocqueville was championed by the anti-fascist left, and in the past 40 years, lauded by neoconservative thinkers. Tocqueville, A, (2023) Democracy in America and Two Essays on America (p. 599). Great Britain: Penguin Books.

5 Democracy Funders Network. (2024, December 3). The authoritarian threat: Preparing for the repression of U.S. philanthropy & civil society. Retrieved from https:// docsend.com/view/ hk9xbngknbswztaa

6 Anheier, H. K. (2005). NGO social dictionary (p. 117). Published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2006. Retrieved from https://ngosindia. com/documents/ngosocial-dictionary.pdf

7 Flores, W., & Samuel, J. (2019). Grassroots organisations and the sustainable development goals: No one left behind?

BMJ, 365, l2269. Retrieved from https:// doi.org/10.1136/bmj. l2269

8 Watkins, A. (2024, September 16). Community relationships strengthen public trust in nonprofits. Retrieved from https:// blog.candid.org/ post/public-trustin-nonprofits-takesstrong-communityrelationships/

Community-based organizations have long been lifelines for families striving for a better future. Nonprofits, private groups, and faith-based organizations play a central role in preventing family separation and instability due to financial hardship. While federal funding cuts pose challenges to the vital work of community-based organizations, they also create an opportunity for the philanthropic sector to increase their investment in support systems for families. These shifts offer grant-makers a chance to augment funding for essential services, sustain progress in communities, and protect child and family well-being. This is especially critical for organizations rooted in highly-policed communities, where deep local ties and a strong understanding of challenges enable them to provide reliable access to necessary assistance for families. The longstanding challenge for non-profits in securing funding to support their communities has worsened, as increasing needs coincide with shrinking federal resources.1 This context presents an urgency for the philanthropic sector to expand access to funding for community-based organizations, particularly smaller grassroots groups, to sustain community-led solutions and protect the well-being of children and families.

Our society stands to lose a lot in the weakening of non-profit and community-based organizations, and fear is mounting. Across the country, an estimated $300 billion in federal grants support 2 in 3 nonprofit organizations, operating in every state and in more than 95% of counties.2 In other words, non-profit and community-based groups touch nearly all Americans, and attempts to weaken them may impact nearly all Americans. The Trump administration’s federal policies seek to undermine and weaken community groups by threatening investigations, cutting federal funding, revoking non-profit status, banning the use of “DEI language”, or legislating onerous reporting requirements. Groups perceived as doing work counter to the Trump agenda, including those working for immigrant rights, LGBTQ+ rights, Black liberation, and reproductive justice, are particularly vulnerable.3

Attacking non-profit and community-based organizations is an intentional strategy to erode community power and civil society. The formation and activity of community groups have long been recognized as a cornerstone of American democracy, serving as vital expressions of civil society in action. Today, community-based organizations continue to play a critical role in fostering civic engagement and collective progress. Even nineteenth-century political and democratic theorists underscored the essential relationship between a thriving democracy and an actively engaged civil society. Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America highlighted the formation

of “associations” as a uniquely American approach to solving social problems. In 1840, Tocqueville celebrated his observations of collective action as a powerful force: “as soon as several of the inhabitants have taken up an opinion or an idea they wish to promote in society, they seek each other out and unite together…From that moment, they are no longer isolated but have become a power seen from afar whose activities serve as an example and whose words are heeded.”4 Non-profit and community-based organizations are important modern manifestations of civil society, and a key way community members build power and improve their communities at a local level.

While larger non-profit groups are expected to be at greater risk from federal policy and federal funding cuts, they often have the infrastructure, endowments, and connections to private funding that will allow them to better withstand these threats. However, for small grassroots community organizations, we can anticipate a destabilizing trickle-down effect. “There’s been a lot of anxiety and doubt in our community about funding”, says Tanesha Grant, community organizer and Executive Director of Parents Supporting Parents NY, expressing concern as to “whether we’ll secure funding for the next fiscal year with everything happening at the federal level. We feel targeted, and it’s left everyone on edge about what’s next. It will be our vulnerable communities that have been vulnerable for centuries that will be hit the hardest.” As private and individual donors seek to plug the funding leaks of more well-known entities, small grassroots organizations are more likely to be left behind.

Grassroots organizations are especially vital in disinvested communities, serving as centers for collective action, community power and mutual support. When these groups are underfunded or weakened, historically marginalized communities— including Black, Latine, immigrant, Indigenous, and lower-income populations—face even greater challenges, particularly in the face of carceral systems. Grassroots organizations are uniquely positioned in holding trust, filling gaps, and addressing local needs in a just and equitable way. They also have the potential to be more resilient to authoritarian forces, as noted by the Democracy Funder’s Network: “civil society organizations will be more difficult to ‘take off the field’ if they are embedded in communities and have constituencies who will stand up for them.”5 Community organizer and Executive Director of Black Families Love and Unite, Imani Worthy, suggests that “in this political climate, it’s easy to get distracted… but the danger in that is losing sight of the ongoing struggles within systems that continue to impact so many.” Now, perhaps more than ever, it is critical that

the philanthropic sector develops strategies to better resource and support grassroots organizations.

How grassroots organizations are uniquely positioned to support family well-being

A defining feature of grassroots organizations is that they are formed by impacted people, who are collectively seeking to improve the conditions of their community and hold governments accountable. Inherent to their formation is an understanding of their role as “vehicles through which disadvantaged people organize themselves to improve the social, cultural and economic well-being of their families, communities and societies.”6 Proximity to challenges that impact their community allow grassroots groups to have a deep understanding of the drivers of social issues and how to address them. Historically, across the globe, broader awareness of systemic challenges invisible to dominant actors are often brought to light by grassroots groups.7 Actively involving the community in shaping their work and priorities is a distinguishing characteristic of grassroots organizations.

The bottom-up approach embodied by grassroots groups allows them to hold the trust and support of their community members. A 2024 study measuring trust in nonprofits and philanthropy underscores that “trust is built from strong relationships, and it thrives on proximity,” finding that 69% of respondents are more likely to trust nonprofit organizations operating directly in their neighborhoods.8 Trust is also built from community members seeing themselves reflected in the staff of grassroots organizations, and is recognized as central to their work. This is echoed by community leaders working on the ground. Barbara Alicea of Bronx-based organization CDC the Point observes that, “the community wants to know that the person they come to when they’re struggling...is someone they feel they can trust and that we’re going to help them.”9

These characteristics uniquely position grassroots organizations as hubs for advancing communityled solutions that build family integrity, justice, and strength. They promote family well-being both through direct support and in activating and organizing their members in movements to dismantle the family regulation system. Predicated on trust and relationships, grassroots groups are flexible and responsive to community members, and provide concrete resources that mitigate symptoms of poverty including food, baby supplies, drop-in childcare,

housing navigation and support, legal support, and support for survivors of intimate partner violence.10 Tanesha Grant describes the community-centered approach of smaller grassroots organizations as able to “offer help right when it’s needed, without piles of paperwork—funds and resources are often set aside for immediate use. They are usually run mostly by volunteers who care deeply about their community and want to see it thrive. Larger nonprofits, on the other hand, operate more like jobs, with a nineto-five structure.” The flexibility and immediacy of support provided by grassroots groups “can keep them safe, meet their needs, and help them avoid harmful, carceral systems,” says Tanesha. Grassroots organizations are seen as reliable resources for community care, mutual aid and respect.

While grassroots groups are hubs for communityled supports, they are also experienced as pathways to liberation. Community organizer and prominent abolitionist Joyce McMillan, founder of JMAC for Families, emphasizes the importance of trust in how parents can engage with supports. Describing BREATHE, a new mental health group they offer, Joyce says “parents keep telling me they trust this space because it’s coming from a place leading change that they seek. In court-ordered spaces, they don’t feel safe—they’ve got to act like everything’s fine just to be heard. But here, they can open up, be real, and ask for help without worrying about backlash. That’s the difference between what the system offers and what a grassroots group creates.”

Social movements historically and globally often originate from grassroots groups who organize their collective vision and power to improve their situation.11 Organizers have been central in amplifying the harms of the family policing system, bringing awareness to systemic disparate treatment, leading narrative shifts, and building community power. Joyce McMillan underscores the value of collective power, observing that “dismantling the family policing system can only happen collectively. It’s about people coming together, seeing the value in the ideas being shared, and building strong relationships that make honest conversations possible. When we build relationships and get things done collectively, that’s when we gain momentum and support.” Tanesha Grant emphasizes how community organizing builds intergenerational power, noting that “it’s about people on the ground stepping up to help those affected, and rising up to say enough is enough. It’s people of all ages—those who’ve been harmed for generations—standing together to fight for change.”

The approach of grassroots groups particularly differs from large non-profit organizations that have government contracts. The latter effectively work as

9 B., N., Washington, H., Holiman, M., & Abuwala, R. (2025, February). From the ground up: How investment in grassroots organizations supports family well-being (p. 10). Rise Magazine. Edited by McCarthy, N. Retrieved from https://www. risemagazine.org/ item/from-the-groundup-how-investmentin-grassrootsorganizations-supportsfamily-well-being/

10 B., N., Washington, H., Holiman, M., & Abuwala, R. (2025). From the ground up: How investment in grassroots organizations supports family well-being (p. 10).

11 Staggenborg, S., & Taylor, V. (2005). Grassroots social movements and the shaping of history. Retrieved from https://www. researchgate.net/ publication/22713 1782_Grassroots_ Social_Movements_ and_the_Shaping_of_ History

12 Bennett, Y., et al. (2025, March). The Child and Family Wellbeing Fund: New state funding to support community-led, family supportive investments (p. 14). Retrieved from https://scaany. org/wp-content/ uploads/2025/03 /The-Child-and-FamilyWellbeing-FundNew-State-Funding-toSupport-CommunityLed-Investments_ March2025.pdf

13 Children’s Rights. (2024, August). NY Mandated Reporting Working Group: Who We Are (p. 5). Retrieved from https:// www.childrensrights. org/wp-content/ uploads/2024/08 /NY-MandatedReporting-WorkingGroup-WHO-WEARE.pdf

14 SCAA. (2025). The Child and Family Wellbeing Fund: New state funding to support community-led investments (p. 14).

15 Stelter Blog. (2024, June 25). Giving USA 2024: Inside

the numbers, plus a look back and a look ahead. Retrieved from https://blog.stelter. com/2024/06/ 25/giving-usa-2024inside-the-numbersplus-a-look-back-anda-look-ahead/

16 Brooklyn Community Foundation. (2024, August 1). Black Philanthropy Month matters. Retrieved from https://brooklyn. org/article/blackphilanthropy-monthmatters/

17 Young, Black & Giving Back Institute. (2023, August 29). Most Black-led nonprofits operate on less than $500,000, study finds. Retrieved from https:// philanthropynewsdi gest.org/news/mostblack-led-nonprofitsoperate-on-less-than500-000-study-finds

18 Candid & ABFE. (2024, October 10).

Key facts on nonprofit Black leadership. Retrieved from https:// blog.candid.org/post/ key-facts-on-nonprofitblack-leadershipcandid-abfe/

19 Candid & ABFE. (2024). Key facts on nonprofit Black leadership.

20 Young, Black & Giving Back Institute. (2023). Most Blackled nonprofits operate on less than $500,000, study finds.

21 The Social Change Agency. (n.d.). Grassroots movements vs funders: Resistance to risk

Retrieved from https:// thesocialchange agency.org/blog/ grassroots-movementsvs-funders-resistanceto-risk/

22 Inside Philanthropy. (2021, August 31). Why big philanthropy falls short at supporting the grassroots—and how it can do better. Retrieved from https://www. insidephilanthropy. com/home/20218-31-why-bigphilanthropy-fallsshort-at-supporting-thegrassrootsand-how-itcan-do-better

government sub-contractors, with their programs subject to oversight, and their services enmeshed with government databases, policies, regulations, and limitations. In New York City, for example, 70% of social service spending goes to large non-profit groups contracted to provide services in community.12 In other words, organizations with government contracts operating in highly-policed communities are often experienced as extensions of the very systems that have caused harm to community members.

This is prevalent among government subcontractors providing services to children and families, as their staff are typically mandated reporters subject to mandatory reporting laws, which require them to report symptoms of poverty or mental health as neglect, even when there is no known willful intention to maltreat a child. Mandatory reporters have noted this tension: “I think that there’s something very uncomfortable with, you know, punishing a parent who’s struggling with mental health or substance use through a report if there are other ways to get urgent support in the home.”13 Large non-profit groups with government contracts have “longstanding ties to CPS” and are less likely to operate in the neighborhoods where impacted communities live.14

Grassroots groups working to support families have an inherently more liberatory approach as they are made up of community members, collectively organizing to provide direct support to one another, to develop solutions to challenges faced by their community, and to organize and advocate to make those changes.

Grassroots organizations face systemic barriers in accessing resources

Although grassroots groups often have a significant role in supporting their communities, they are chronically underfunded. Grassroots groups face revenue and asset disparities, keeping them from accessing the multi-billion-dollar philanthropic sector— a gap that becomes even wider for groups led by Black, Indigenous, Latine and other people of color. In 2023 in the US alone, charitable giving reached approximately $557 billion.15 Whereas, BIPOC-led organizations operate with only 4%16 of philanthropic dollars, suggesting an estimated $500+ billion funding gap compared to white-led organizations.

Nonprofit organizations that are Black-led and work in Black communities are often grassroots groups, working locally with deep community ties, with nearly half powered largely by volunteers.17

Black-led nonprofit organizations face even more financial disparities, with 61% operating on budgets under $100,000 and only 2% exceeding $10 million, compared to 21% and 8% for majority white-led nonprofits, respectively.18 Additionally, their median annual revenue is $302,000 versus $908,000 for white-led organizations, and their total sector-wide revenue is less than $3 billion compared to $85 billion for white-led organizations.19 Three-quarters of Blackled nonprofits operate on budgets under $500,000 annually, with one-third managing with as little as $30,000.20

Philanthropy’s current approach to funding typically fails to support the groups most connected to the issues it seeks to address. The aforementioned multi-billion-dollar resource gap is created by many complex factors, including the philanthropic sector’s perception of risk in supporting grassroots groups, and the challenges grassroots organizations face in navigating onerous funding systems while operating under conditions of scarcity. Reliance on personal relationships, burdensome application processes, and a selective focus on grants as “strategic investments” favor well-resourced organizations. As a result, the grant-seeking process is experienced as exclusionary and can perpetuate inequities. 21 22

The data shows that organizations led by Black, Indigenous, Latine and other people of color face more financial challenges than white-led organizations, limiting their sustainability, impact and growth trajectory. These drastic disparities in financial resources point to the need for grant-makers to develop strategies that distribute charitable dollars more equitably.

Scarcity faced by grassroots organizations can harm communities

Inconsistent and insufficient funding for grassroots organizations leaves marginalized communities that are heavily impacted by family policing without adequate support, while simultaneously over-extending these small groups as they try to meet expanding community needs. Research has shown a positive relationship between the type of collective action that can be achieved by these grassroots groups and its positive impact on community-level health outcomes in a variety of US contexts.23 Even in communities that have faced significant disinvestment, robust communitydriven initiatives—built on trust and collaboration among residents—have been shown to address a range of underlying issues, ultimately reducing the

risk of involvement with the family policing system, including reducing crime rates and domestic violence, improving health outcomes, mitigating adult depression, and supporting children’s development and behavior.24

Without these community-level supports, children and families are exposed to heightened risks and vulnerabilities. In both the near- and long-term, scarcity of resources harms community members and can directly compromise the well-being of children and families. Barbara Alicea feels this tension, “I’m trying to service our families as much as possible because the Bronx is overwhelmed. The city right now is overwhelmed with so many of the things happening, those services that were there are barely there now because we’re all at capacity at this point.”25

For these communities to thrive, there is an urgent and growing need for funders to adopt equitable and collaborative methods to increase the accessibility of philanthropic dollars to grassroots groups, particularly those led by Black, brown, Indigenous, and impacted community members. Participatory philanthropy offers a pathway forward.

When participatory approaches empower community members to lead and direct the grantmaking process, they can catalyze regenerative change.28 By entrusting community members with leadership in the grantmaking process, funding opportunities can become more inclusive and accessible for grassroots organizations led by BIPOC individuals, and lead to grants that are more effective and closely aligned with the genuine needs of the community. LaTroya Lovell, a researcher and educator who does participatory grantmaking, mentions that “nearly all the time, decisions are made on behalf of marginalized communities without including their very valuable perspectives, which ends up reinforcing the same systems that hold these communities back. The people who have experienced these systems are well-positioned to provide real-time solutions for what is most needed.”29 Participatory philanthropic practices have the potential to build the capacity of communities to mobilize resources to groups that would ordinarily be left out, to resource groups who are deeply rooted in and accountable to their communities, and to augment sustainable solutions to society’s most pressing challenges.

23 Flores, W., & Samuel, J. (2019). Grassroots organisations and the sustainable development goals: No one left behind?

24 SCAA. (2025). The Child and Family Wellbeing Fund: New state funding to support community-led investments (p. 10).

25 B., N., Washington, H., Holiman, M., & Abuwala, R. (2025). From the ground up: How investment in grassroots organizations supports family well-being (p. 16).

26 Gibson, C. (2019). Deciding together: Shifting power and resources through participatory grantmaking. GrantCraft.

How collaborating with community through participatory philanthropy can resource grassroots organizations to drive transformative change

Participatory grantmaking is a philanthropic approach designed to transfer decision-making power from funders to communities impacted by funding decisions. This method operates on a spectrum, ranging from minimal to full power-sharing. At the higher end of the spectrum, communities actively influence philanthropic processes, such as setting priorities, shaping practices, and deciding funding allocations. While key participants may include donors, community members and individuals with lived experiences play a significant role in determining how resources are distributed.26 An advanced form of participatory grantmaking allows community members to take complete control over funding decisions, including priority-setting, resource distribution, and evaluation.27 This could, for example, take the form of a community-led fund where locals independently create criteria, select grantees, and assess outcomes, all without external interference.

While traditional methods of grantmaking still dominate the philanthropic sector, participatory philanthropy has a demonstrated track record of success in the US context. For 40 years, the Funding Exchange (FEX), established in 1979, developed a national network of participatory funds where community activists directed funds to resource social justice movements.30 FEX’s local foundations were early supporters of activists advancing social justice causes, including racial and economic equity, nuclear disarmament, environmental justice, combating violence against women, LGBTQ+ rights, and fighting right-wing extremism. They funded transformative movements and supported activists who laid the groundwork for many of today’s social justice movements. Their approach continues through sixteen independent local funds working towards resourcing grassroots organizations around the country.31 Many of the locally-funded efforts today impact communitydriven family justice work, including supporting child-care cooperatives, advancing parental rights in the family policing system, healing justice and mutual aid for survivors of domestic violence, peer support for expectant parents, amongst others.32

Participatory approaches to funding grassroots organizations are beginning to be embraced to promote family justice and well-being. In New York, a collaborative fund called Youth and Families Forward (YFF) awarded $1.4 million for communityled solutions that support family justice using a participatory approach early this year.33 A committee of community leaders who were personally impacted

27 Conrardy, A. (2024, February 1). Sharing power with your nonprofit’s stakeholders doesn’t have to be an all-or-nothing pursuit: The shared power spectrum. Prosper Strategies. Retrieved from https://prosperstrategies.com/sharedpower-spectrum/

28 Justice Funders. (2016, December). Resonance: A framework for philanthropic transformation. Retrieved from https:// www.justicefunders. org/resonance

29 The New York Trust. (2004, August 16). New participatory grantmaking program aims to prevent harmful child welfare system practices in New York. Retrieved from https:// thenytrust.org/news/ new-participatorygrantmaking-programaims-to-preventharmful-child-welfaresystem-practices-innew-york/

30 Lurie, T. (2016). Change, not charity: The story of the Funding Exchange. The Funding Exchange.

31 Funding Exchange. (n.d.). [Funds]. Retrieved from https:// fex.org/#funds

32 North Star Fund. (n.d.). Together: 2024 Action Report. Retrieved from https://northstarfund. org/2024-actionreport/together/

33 The New York Trust. (2025, March 5). Youth and Families Forward announces $1.4M in participatory grantmaking to prevent harmful child welfare system practices in New York. Retrieved from https:// thenytrust.org/news/ youth-and-familiesforward-announces1-4m-in-participatorygrantmaking-toprevent-harmfulchild-welfare-systempractices-in-new-york/

34 Youth and Families Forward Fund. (n.d.). [Homepage]. Retrieved from https://www. youthandfamilies.org/

35 In Rise’s 2021 Report An Unavoidable System, parents stress the need for strong community care networks with childcare, housing, jobs, therapy, and community centers. Shamara Kelly, N. B., Landrau, M., Smith, Y., Washington, H., & Worthy, I. (2021, September). An unavoidable system. Rise Magazine. Retrieved from https:// www.risemagazine. org/wp-content/ uploads/2021/09/ AnUnavoidableSystem. pdf

36 B., N., Washington, H., Holiman, M., & Abuwala, R. (2025).

From the ground up: How investment in grassroots organizations supports family well-being (p. 19).

37 B., N., Washington, H., Holiman, M., & Abuwala, R. (2025). From the ground up: How investment in grassroots organizations supports family well-being (p. 19).

by the family policing system oversaw every stage of the grant-making process, from setting criteria, developing the application process, leading the outreach and support to grant-seekers, and making final decisions.34 “Our involvement broadens perspectives and drives equitable solutions in philanthropy. By funding grassroots organizations— often without the financial resources for grant writers—we help ensure they have a fair chance at securing support to sustain their impact” describes Anni Keane, an advocate for children and families and a YFF participatory grantmaking committee (PGC) member. PGC member Tanesha Grant emphasizes the connection between participatory approaches and alignment to real community needs, sharing that “it is important that power be shared in this way with the people who have been impacted by the family policing system…real tangible resources and care is needed to keep families together and each of these organizations do exactly that.”

The initiative supports grassroots organizations focused on movement-building, policy, and advocacy; direct and concrete support; prenatal, maternal health, and early childhood services; and culturally relevant mental health resources for community healing. While still nascent, YFF’s PGC members feel encouraged and optimistic about the impact these resources will have on improving family wellbeing. PGC member LaTroya Lovell describes how the funded organizations “are doing critical work across multiple systems that impact youth and families. From programs uplifting Black and Brown boys to those improving maternal health outcomes for young moms faced with socioeconomic barriers, our grantees are addressing the root causes that often lead to harmful system involvement.” Parent advocate and PGC member Nancy F adds that grantee organizations “equip families with the support, resources, and power to advocate for themselves, in addition to shifting power back to the community, breaking cycles of harmful intervention, and building stronger, self-determined futures.”

Participatory philanthropy encourages trust, accountability, and stronger alignment with community priorities. It is shown to more effectively identify community needs and opportunities, resulting in more effective grants. It strengthens the power and capacity of local leaders and community members, while also creating a sense of ownership that can increase engagement, support and collective action around shared goals. It also makes philanthropic resources more accessible to groups who would otherwise be excluded. By directly sharing decisionmaking power over the distribution of philanthropic dollars with communities, grant-makers can more effectively support grassroots organizations and

collaborate with the most marginalized groups to drive lasting change and advance collective liberation.

How well-resourced communitydriven solutions can improve family well-being

Community members impacted by the family policing system express visions of transformation, emphasizing the benefit of developing their own “community care networks.”35 One impacted parent shared how “if my ideal community care network was real, it would feel like my life was close to perfect, that there was nothing wrong in it,” envisioning a place where “families are not being broken up, strangers are not taking care of your children,” free of judgement where “your community care network will accept you.”36 Grassroots solutions can transform conditions to prioritize safety, belonging, and mutual care without systems interference. Another parent believes that the family policing system could become redundant with more community resources: “not only would parents have the support and the resources they need like housing, special care for their kids with special needs and for themselves…there wouldn’t really be much ACS [family policing system] involvement.”37

Grassroots groups and their communities know the way forward. They go beyond addressing immediate needs—they are paving the way for a brighter, healthier future. Augmenting investment in these organizations can forge the way for resource-rich, locally-led family supports that are aligned with community needs and preferences. Grassroots groups envision strong, thriving communities where families have access to more than just basic necessities, support one another, create joy, and embrace their collective strength.

Philanthropy must embrace more equitable approaches to funding non-profit organizations to address the significant resource disparities faced by grassroots groups, especially those led by BIPOC individuals. Liberatory and participatory philanthropic methods offer promising pathways to bridge these gaps and empower sustainable change. With additional funding and resources, grassroots groups can work hand in hand with communities to break cycles of trauma and create lasting networks of care, develop community leadership, and collectively achieve justice for children and families— especially in the face of right-wing policy threats.

These Mothers Are Our Neighbors

How Mother’s Outreach Network Pushes to Support, Rather Than Police Families

MELODY WEBB

Melody is the founder and Executive Director of Mothers Outreach Network and a Harvard Law School graduate. She has dedicated her career to public interest law, serving in roles such as Legislative Counsel in the US Senate and Counsel for Child Abuse and Neglect in the DC Superior Court. She is also a mother of three.

CATHY KREBS

Cathy Krebs is the Committee Director of the American Bar Association Litigation Section’s Children’s Rights Litigation Committee. Cathy serves as the secretary of the Board of Directors for Mother’s Outreach Network.

AKUA DANQUA

Akua Danqua is a mother of three children, ages 16, 14, and 5, and a founding member of Mother’s Outreach Network Mother Up Pilot Program Community Advisory Board.

YESMINE HOLMES

esmine is the mother of five boys under the age of 5. She is an Advocacy Fellow for Mother’s Outreach Network.

LINDA BROWN

Linda is a founding member of the Mother Up Community Advisory Board and a Moms Empower Advocacy Fellow. She is also the mother of an adult daughter with a disability.

MARIA JACKSON

Maria is a mom of four and an Advocacy Fellow for the Mothers Outreach Network. She is also a student studying science and criminal justice at Strayer University.

DITESHA MCEACHIN

Ditesha is a mom of three and a grandmother of one. She is an Advocacy Fellow for the Mother’s Outreach Network.

MORGAN HICKS

Morgan is a mother of twins and a member of the Mother’s Outreach Network Moms Empower Speaker’s Bureau.

Mother’s Outreach is dear to my heart. It gives me the chance to lift up other moms. To know I’m not alone. To be able to be together in community” – Linda

When asked what Mother’s Outreach Network (MON) meant to them, participants in the program talked a lot about community. As Akua said, “There is a power behind the affirmation of shared struggles.” Yesmine agreed, calling MON “a sisterhood for mothers” that allows participants the opportunity to reach out to each other for support. Linda said MON reminded her of how she grew up—being in community and knowing her neighbors.

And who are our neighbors? The story of the Good Samaritan poses this question. In Washington DC, Mother’s Outreach Network defines our neighbors as the mothers who are overwhelmingly Black and who much of society ignores. They are the moms who live in the city’s socioeconomically marginalized communities. They are the moms who are framed by negative tropes, such as moms who are not focused on their own children, or “welfare queens”, which impacts Black moms most heavily. And these women are the moms disproportionately involved with child welfare investigations, surveillance, and the removal of children from their families for poverty-related reasons (Gupta-Kagan, J. (2024). Distinguishing family poverty from child neglect. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1602. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.444908 9). The United States fails to incorporate these moms into our society, which inhibits the goals of inclusion that are the basis of both our democracy and most faith traditions. In contrast, MON strives to involve these moms in our community socially, economically, and politically.

And how should we treat our neighbors? MON bases our relationships and work around a framework of four core values. While we are not a faithbased organization, our core beliefs are rooted in religious tenets, as well as principles of participatory democracy. We strive to: (1) treat the moms who are the least among us as our neighbors; (2) to build joy with them through community; (3) to invest earnestly and deeply in mothers and their families; and (4) we encourage a faith in moms without evidence for granting it.

Treat them as our neighbors. When people face adversity and marginalization, we believe in the

value of encouraging and lifting them up. There is a moral mandate for MON’s work.

In Washington, DC where we are located, more than 80 percent of the children in the family policing and child welfare system are Black, when just over 50 percent of the city’s children are; and between 80 and 90 percent of the cases involve neglect, versus physical or sexual abuse (nationally the number hovers around 70 percent) (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. Page 49. (2025). Child maltreatment 2023. Available from here). Because the child welfare/family policing system disproportionately impacts poor and families of color, its tentacles can be inescapable. This is the basis for MON’s bedrock approach that we treat our participants with support, fueled by notions of justice, rather than condemnation. We work alongside these moms, some of whom live in the same neighborhood as our staff. Ditesha, one of the moms in the program, recognizes the difference that this approach makes when she describes how MON does not just provide a list of resources but instead does the work right alongside their participants, walking with them to secure assistance. Akua adds that MON is a program that is truly for mothers because it actually serves them, and that “being a part of an organization that consistently shows up for moms and the community feels good and hopeful.”

MON’s parent-centered works are channeled through community-building activities, as well as policy advocacy, legal representation, and education. Supporting the self-determination, leadership and well-being of these mothers centers our work and is a crucial part of our mission.

Invest with abundance. The result of treating our participants as our neighbors is that they feel that they belong to the program and the program belongs to them. MON’s mom leaders talk about how MON allows you to just be yourself. Yesmine talked about how much she appreciates that her children are always included and welcomed

within the MON community. Participants shared how this sense of community allows mothers to be vulnerable and reach out to get support when they need it. And the moms take a deep interest in the organization; they give, even as they receive key decision-making roles, pouring into the organization their time, their hopes, and their own vision for tackling problems in the community. They take on activities as leaders, including paid fellowships, that bring benefit to self and others.

Joy Through Community. As an antidote to the adversity that moms are facing, we strive to build joy. For these moms, escaping poverty through low-wage jobs is a distant possibility. For them, as scripture tells us, joy would come “in the morning”, but we believe that joy should not be delayed. Instead, we believe in assisting them to achieve joy with one another, by building relationships. Moms meet frequently in settings exclusively for mothers, as well as in settings with professional advocates. They provide input, help shape advanced policy analysis, and some also speak on panels. Joy may be achieved through peer-led wellness discussions and workshops facilitated by mom entrepreneurs from their community, as well as by mom activists from across the country, sharing their stories of triumph. We believe we must build a strong community of moms who, through interactions with one another, learn that their stories are shared, if not entirely, at least in part with moms in similar circumstances. We also explicitly create opportunities to meet around social events, for example, an annual policy summit, which includes a picnic. This builds a bond that increases confidence and a sense of solidarity.

Joy to us is knowing our participants do not feel alone, which they need to feel even when they are not physically together. This means communicating

with each other and sharing stories with each other. It means leading activities, including conversations around wellness. It means informal mentorship, with moms talking with one another outside of the program and sharing tips about caring for new babies, or nursing. MON’s mom leaders talk explicitly about the joy that the MON community brings them, a feeling of belonging rather than being ignored, along with the bond with other moms and the joy in being able to lift each other up.

At present, authoritarianism threatens to crush our spirits and our institutions. The idea of equanimity or even joy under circumstances of terror is almost unfathomable. But these moms have experienced judgment of their parenting, their demeanor, and their life choices—intense persecution—and they are still standing. From them, we know that not only is it possible for us to build community around joy, it is necessary as a form of resistance. As Audre Lorde explained, sharing joy forms a bridge. It permits the moms to bask in sunlight best enjoyed with others, even during intense suffering.

Our organizational goals are ambitious, and are being sought in an innately hostile policy climate. What makes advocacy even more challenging is that our moms’ plight is not viewed as sympathetic. Fighting these harmful narratives is essential to our work: warding off the weight of judgments by mainstream media and policymakers, and their systems. Building joy through community furthers this goal.

Faith without evidence. We are often asked whether the mothers to whom we provide unconditional money use it to fund a substance use disorder. Studies actually demonstrate that people in impoverished circumstances use extra cash to pay for basic needs (Bartik, A. W., Rhodes, E., Broockman, D. E., Krause, P. K., Miller, S., & Vivalt, E. (2024). The impact of unconditional cash transfers on consumption and household balance sheets: Experimental evidence from two US states. National Bureau of Economic Research). And for each mom in our program, we choose to believe they are worthy of investment without any proof that it is warranted.

In fact, it is the moms and their family members who have reason to distrust people who offer them programs: nonprofit organizations and government entities. The openly racialized welfare programs that opened up to Black mothers in the 1960s brought intrusive Child Protection System social workers into their families, causing family policing to skyrocket, resulting in children torn away from parents. And this is to their disadvantage—whether from lack of inclusion in policy making or losing out on refundable credits. It is vital then that we mobilize moms, to address those demobilizing government practices.

It is we who must build trust in our advocacy programs and in government programs, including those that provide tax credit benefits. To encourage moms to file for tax credits to which they are entitled, we must earn their confidence. Our programming is grounded in principles of inclusion, so we engage the moms to lead tables at community fairs, and to share legal programs and know your rights information with other parents. As representatives of our organization, they can bear witness to our mission. Maria notes that she appreciates that MON gives her opportunities to meet people and to speak, especially for those who may not be able to speak for themselves. We must be more inclusive and incorporate into our social programs and policymaking moms and all individuals impacted by poverty.

The above values inform our vision, which is implemented through several programs:

Community Engagement. Chief among our community efforts are outreach, recruitment and leadership training, and activities for mothers. Our Moms Empower group operationalizes this effort by gathering moms twice a month to share resources and build capacity and relationships. These prepare them as advocates to push the organization’s mission. It prepares them for self-determination.

MON mom leaders talk about how much they appreciated that MON brings in different people to meet with them to teach them about different topics and to support them. Ditesha noted how much she had learned through MON.

Linda talked about how much joy she receives in there always being something new to learn; the opportunity that MON provides to self-reflect and improve brings her joy.

Additionally, MON’s research-based programming drives our effectiveness. We use participatory research methods that lets moms set the agenda for the organization. We use advisory boards that consist of mothers with experience in the issues on which we advocate. For mothers who have been alleged to neglect their children (neglect comprises 80% of the cases open at the DC Child and Family Services Agency), we have launched a cash payment pilot program—Mother Up Guaranteed Income Family Preservation Pilot—that we hope will evolve into a publicly-funded citywide program. Our pilot provides $500

monthly payments for three years to participants. This cash is provided with no conditions and is not tied to a government system. Our hypothesis is that the social, psychological, and other problems that the current system classifies under the legal term “neglect” stem frequently from an economic source: poverty.

When asked how they utilize these monthly cash payments, the moms in the program talked about how the money helped them with bills and household supplies; one mom also noted that she can save some money in case of an emergency. Moms talked about how they were able to use the funds for fun family outings, the chance to be together and have fun as a family. One mom talked about how she used the funds to pay a babysitter so she could take a much-needed break from being a single mom and to do something fun for herself, like go out to dinner.

Morgan noted that the funds will allow her kids to participate in extracurricular activities and all the moms agreed. One participant was able to buy a uniform so that her son could play football. Other children were also able to choose activities that they love, like swimming and dancing. One mom was able to afford the entry fees so that both of her kids could participate in a karate tournament where both received trophies that they proudly display in their home.

Legal Program and Know Your Rights. Our Legal Representation and Know Your Rights programs assist parents in defending against investigations and appeal wrongful placement on the Child Protection Register.

The information provided to moms by MON really levels the playing field for them, Akua notes. Once informed of their rights, moms are empowered and can use this information within their community to advocate on behalf of others. MON also provides representation to parents during CPS investigations and to contest wrongful placement on the Child Protection Register.

Policy Advocacy. MON’s Policy Advocacy includes disruptive policies with audacious goals to reimagine systems that harm vulnerable parents and families. MON was born from the idea that we don’t know the people nor the stories of the people we vilify, and if we did, we would not stand for hardship and stingy policies. Therefore, MON set about with an agenda to empower moms to tell their stories so they become embedded in policy-making. This grounds new policies in values of humility and empathy that promote democratic participation, including Black community agency and dignity. While negative stereotypes abound, MON pushes

against these negative narratives to build an economic system that works for moms. We give them the respect of professionals, and we invest in them and in their communities through stipended training programming, honoraria for speaking engagements, and paid fellowships for longerterm training and leadership activities.

Many of the moms involved in the program talk about how much they love the opportunity to advocate and make needed changes. Akua noted that some organizations discourage advocacy, but that MON encourages it, allows her to practice her skills, and provides structured opportunities and empowerment to advocate. Yesmine talked about the joy of advocating, of seeing good legislation passing and of making change. Akua talked about how MON encourages her and strengthens her resolve to fight.

For many, our progress as a society is measured by the ease with which we can individually attain economic security. For marginalized moms, stability is so out of reach that the yardstick must be different. Linda explains that “Mother’s Outreach Network meets this moment,” by providing needed support when she feels under attack. “The support is there.” Mother’s Outreach Network holds that we can only advance as a nation through our commitment of heart, soul, mind, strength, and sincere devotion, to the inclusion of all moms and individuals in the pursuit of economic opportunity, security, and mobility.

It’s Time to Rethink Mandatory Reporting as the Key to Preventing Child Abuse

VALERIE FROST

Valerie Frost is a dynamic public speaker, trainer, and advocate with firsthand experience navigating the child welfare system as a parent. She envisions a world where gaps in well-being are seen as opportunities for support, not risks. Above all, her proudest accomplishment is being a mother to three children, her greatest inspiration.

A mandated reporter is anyone who is legally required to report suspected child abuse or neglect. Kentucky, the state where I reside, is just one of at least 15 U.S. states where all citizens are mandated reporters by law. This means both community members and trained professionals must report suspected child abuse or neglect.

The question I have to ask is: Are we truly preventing child abuse, or creating a system that harms families without addressing the real problem?

The numbers speak for themselves. Across the country, millions of calls are made to child abuse and neglect hotlines each year. As just one example, in Kentucky, around 120,000 calls are made annually. But here’s the problem: only about 6-7% of the reports here are substantiated.

Let’s break that down: for every 100 reports in Kentucky, 93-94 do not result in confirmed abuse or neglect. Yet, those families still face intrusive investigations that can cause trauma, sow distrust, and isolate parents who are simply trying to navigate the chaos of daily life.

As a parent myself, I’m doing my best to raise my kids, balancing school runs, doctor appointments, grocery shopping, and day-to-day demands. I want my kids to be safe. But I also worry that with any common parenting mishap or imperfect moment, a well-intentioned observer will report me to Child Protective Services (CPS).

I know because I’ve lived it—small, everyday struggles that were used as evidence against me: a scraped knee, a mismatched sock, a moment of stress.

It’s time to rethink how we support families. Mandatory reporting laws, while designed to protect children, often create more harm than good.

My colleagues at the University of Kentucky Colleges of Social Work and Public Health are currently sharing findings from 12 focus groups about attitudes toward mandatory reporting from 69 participants in child- and family-serving professional roles in behavioral health, education, social services, the courts, and local public health as well as parent peer support specialists. One of the family support staff participants illustrated the potential harm mentioned above well:

Parents and families know their stories best. And oftentimes, they are the ones who can tell you exactly what’s going on. Help-seeking is really stigmatized, and so I know that people wait and wait and wait to get the support that they need [because] they are afraid of [getting] their kids taken away. I have a mom right now who’s not gonna call SNAP [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] unless somebody else is in the room, because her four-monthold might cry in the background, and she’s terrified that her kids are gonna get taken away again.

Another family peer participant in the focus group shared their experience:

I am of low socioeconomic status, and I have six kids. I’ve been in the system. I lost my children to [CPS] for 11 years. It took me 11 years to get custody back. You do feel like you’re walking around with a target on your back. You feel like everything you’re doing is being watched.

For this parent, the system wasn’t a source of support; it was a constant reminder of isolation and judgment. A focus group participant with lived experience described how even small, seemingly insignificant reports led to huge disruptions in their family:

I was barely keeping things together... The initial report said that I had too thick of a blanket over my daughter. It was [my] ex’s family that kept calling CPS on me. I’ve learned to accept what changes I needed to make in my life, but at the same time, if resources could’ve just been given to me at the time, would we have ended up in the system as hard as we did? [It] took years to piece my family back together.

These personal stories reveal a heartbreaking truth: the current mandatory reporting system often disregards the well-being of parents in favor of surveillance.

In a world that focuses on creating more opportunities to do good, here’s what we would do:

• Shift the focus from suspicion to support. When you see a stressed parent, don’t assume the worst. Offer help.

• Create a culture of open communication. Let’s make it easier for parents to share their struggles and reach out for support without the fear of judgment or investigation.

• Provide resources, not investigations. Families need access to mental health care, affordable child care, and other support systems—not more surveillance or fear of intervention.

• Prioritize prevention over punitive measures. Instead of rushing to report, let’s build

relationships with families, check in on them, and offer real help before jumping to conclusions.

When I think about true community support, I remember the small acts of kindness that made a world of difference for me:

• One example comes from my trips to the local post office. The post office has a spinning rack of greeting cards that can be distracting for my small children, who don’t always stand still. One worker was short with them and asked me to correct their behavior, which only made the errand more stressful. But another worker, a mom herself, started coming out to read books to my kids while I took care of postage labels at the counter. It was a small act, but it made those trips so much easier.

• Another example happened when I became a first-time homeowner and had to take on lawn care. After buying a used lawnmower online, it broke down after just one use. I went back to sell it for parts to recoup some of the loss, and someone who worked for a local behavioral health agency offered to repair it for free. It’s been running smoothly for three years since.

• And one more example: I had to miss a parentchild lunch at school due to work, and one of their classmate’s grandparent stepped in. They sat with my kids and their grandchildren, making sure my children didn’t feel left out.

These simple, kind actions weren’t about judgment or surveillance; they were about providing support and understanding.

I believe doing good is possible, and I’ve experienced it firsthand. Small steps like these can rebuild communities and make a big difference in the lives of families.

When we discuss child abuse prevention, let’s look beyond the cases that make the headlines. Let’s focus on strengthening our communities and remembering that sometimes what looks like a misstep is simply life, not neglect.

What truly keeps children safe is love and support. When we offer families compassion and the resources they need to succeed, they will thrive.

A BETTER WAY

HERO

Note from Editors:

The following is a presentation delivered by Shaumbay Fuller at a congressional briefing on May 6, 2025, hosted by the National Family Support Network (NFSN). We were moved by the authenticity of her message and wanted to share it in the journal.

SHAUMBAY FULLER

Shaumbay Fuller is a peer recovery specialist intern at George Mason University and a valued member of the Connections Family Resource Center team. She is a kin caregiver to her special needs granddaughter and a person in long-term recovery, with her sobriety beginning on June 23, 2023. After stepping into the role of primary caregiver due to her daughter’s struggles with substance use, she faced the overwhelming challenges of parenting a child with complex needs while navigating her own recovery journey.

Through the support of Connections FRC, she found community, stability, and a renewed sense of purpose. With access to traumainformed resources, peer support, and compassionate guidance, she not only began to rebuild her life but also discovered her calling to serve others walking similar paths. Today, she leads support groups, facilitates prevention workshops, and advocates for families impacted by substance use and disability.

Her lived experience fuels her mission to break cycles of trauma and addiction, and her work focuses on creating safe, empowering spaces for healing and growth. She is committed to lifting up the voices of vulnerable families and ensuring that programs like Connections FRC remain available to those who need them most.

Good afternoon, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Shaumbay Fuller, and I’m a peer recovery specialist intern at George Mason University, a proud member of the Connections Family Resource Center team, and—most importantly—a kin caregiver to my special needs granddaughter. I’m also a person in long-term recovery, with my sobriety date being June 23, 2023.

I’m here today not as a professional or policy expert, but as someone whose life has been directly transformed by the support of Connections FRC (Family Resource Center). And I’m here with a message: this program saves lives, it restores families, and it builds communities from the ground up.

Before I found Connections, my life was in chaos. I had just graduated from the Women’s Oxford House and was bartending at night. I was navigating early recovery myself, having made the hardest but most life-affirming decision to get clean. I was alone, overwhelmed, with no roadmap on how to raise a special needs child, and no real support system to speak of. Without family and a support network, every day felt like survival.

Then someone referred me to Connections FRC. And from the moment I picked up the phone and met two strangers at Starbucks, I felt something I hadn’t felt in a long time: hope.

The team didn’t judge me. They didn’t ask me for credentials or question my past. They simply saw me—the real me—and offered support. They connected me with parenting resources, helped me access services for my granddaughter and, most of all, they believed in me. For my one year of sobriety the team took me and my child out to dinner. People I had never met before came out to support me. I’ll never forget looking around the table at these faces, friendly faces that came out to celebrate with me. At that moment I wasn’t surrounded by old friends and family. Now it was new friends and a chosen family that motivated me, inspired me, supported me and, more importantly, believed in me. That belief helped me start believing in myself.

Through Connections, I was able to join support groups tailored to caregivers like me: parents raising children impacted by trauma, addiction, and developmental challenges. I found a safe space to share, cry, learn, and grow. I learned how to advocate for my granddaughter’s needs, how to navigate the complex systems of care, and how to care for myself in the process.

And when I expressed a desire to give back, to turn my pain into purpose, Connections stood beside me. They supported me as I pursued training to become a peer recovery specialist. Today, I’m proud to say I am now completing my internship at George Mason University, helping others find the same hope and support I was once so desperate for.

I can say with absolute certainty that I would not be where I am today without Connections FRC. My granddaughter wouldn’t have the early interventions she needs. I might not have stayed sober. I might not even be standing in front of you at all.

This isn’t just my story. Connections helps hundreds of families—parents in recovery, grandparents raising grandkids, immigrants facing language barriers, people healing from domestic violence, families living in poverty. The work we do is trauma-informed, and community-centered.

Being a mobile unit makes us unique. So many families face barriers: no childcare, a two-parent home sharing one vehicle, or parents with no vehicle at all. We meet people where they are at, and we go into the community. We provide support, resources, referrals, and so much more.

I know difficult decisions must be made. But I ask you: what is the cost of not supporting a place like Connections? What happens when struggling families have nowhere to turn? When recovery is derailed, when children fall through the cracks, when hope disappears?

Connections FRC is not a luxury. It is a necessity. It is preventative care. It is family preservation. It is community empowerment. And it is working.

I stand before you today, not as a statistic or a sob story, but as proof. Proof that with the right support, people can heal, families can thrive, and cycles can be broken.

Please, don’t let this light go out. Continue to support Connections Family Resource Center, so that others like me can continue to find strength, healing, and a second chance.

Thank you so much for your time, and for listening not just with your ears, but with your hearts.

Where Does Compassion Fit In?

JUDGE S. TRENT FAVRE Hancock

County Court Judge

Writing this article was not easy. I went through several iterations before I settled on this version. My initial instinct was to create a structured checklist of things I did right and wrong on the bench, hoping to offer insights you could take or leave. However, that legalistic approach ultimately did not settle well with me.

Next, I considered writing a letter to my younger self. I started with “Dear Younger Me,” intending to reflect on my experiences and share the lessons I wish I had known back then. During that thought-

provoking process, I reminded myself that I am a work in progress, and it is likely that, years from now, I will look back on my current practice and wonder if I could have done better. That version did not work out either, but it did give me time to contemplate my earlier time on the bench. It became a kind of honest reckoning.

From those attempts, I came up with this. Parents need the chance to parent safely, and we owe them (in most instances) a duty to try to make that happen. So, as I think about the balance we must strike between the rights of the parents and the best interests of children, I must ask where exactly compassion fits into the judicial role. This job requires us to do much more than call balls and strikes or apply the law to the facts. My goal is to get us all to rethink how we view parents and how our treatment of parents in every encounter in the child welfare system could affect the outcome. How much compassion is enough?

Compassion is a deep sympathy and concern for parents’ suffering, which should be accompanied by a desire to remove that suffering. Our compassion motivates us to care for others and bring them healing. When we compassionately lead, we use our judicial power and the system’s resources to intervene. Unfortunately, we can be stingy with our compassion, sometimes shortchanging the families before us. We can hold back our best from the people who need us most.

Two instances come to mind when I think about our “compassion work” with parents. The idea of not counting parents out made me remember an experience I had in the first several months on the bench that changed my perspective. Perhaps you have had a midnight wrestle, when you woke up in the middle of the night, unsure if you made the right decision. Those moral dilemmas can keep you awake, forcing you to reevaluate who you are and aspire to be. I once encountered one mother

whom I doubted could turn her life around. I rushed to judgment, counting her out too soon. I lacked compassion for her and her circumstances. Later that night, I struggled with my conscience. I found myself tossing and turning, realizing I had failed to give that mother the chance she deserved. Fortunately, I had the opportunity to reevaluate my decision in that case. From that moment on, I vowed to be cautious about summarily dismissing any parent. That situation and this opportunity to check in have caused me to think about how much compassion families need. Every parent deserves a chance—for their own sake and the sake of their children. We can do better.

I also remembered a sentimental moment I had when my daughter was little. She crawled onto my lap, caressed my face, and said, “Daddy, I think I have your nose.” That moment has stuck with me for a long time, and it is a story I often share in helping others become more trauma-informed. My training in trauma, primarily through Trust Based Relational Intervention (TBRI), has taught me that our innate desire to connect is so powerful that our brains begin scanning the faces of our family for connections from the moment we are born. Our brains are wired for facial recognition. Recognizing our likenesses in our parents and other family members reinforces our familial bonds and sense of belonging. The trauma of removal disrupts that connectivity. It means a removed child’s brain continues to scan for a connection it cannot make. Instead, their brain is continuously reminded, “That is not my nose” or “Those are not my eyes.” When children cannot maintain these connections, it will hinder their healing. My wish is that all removed children will be able to look once again into their parents’ eyes and feel that bond. My experiences with my children are a source of my compassion for others.

I am very passionate about the idea that parents deserve the opportunity to parent safely. The progress we have made in Hancock County has been a journey. When I took the bench on January 1, 2018, Hancock County faced a child welfare crisis. With over 400 children in custody in a county of fewer than 50,000 people, the need for change was clear to local, state, and federal leaders. A new court was created to address the challenges we faced.

Having grown up here and devoted much of my professional life to service, I sought the judicial nomination. Although I did not have extensive experience in child welfare law, I believed I could bring about systemic change due to my strong work ethic and, more importantly, my love for the people in my community. I wanted to make the world a

better place for our children. Moreover, I felt my reputation as a local figure and my commitment to doing what is right would provide some leverage. Trust was a crucial factor. Looking back, I am very grateful for the community’s trust in me that I could leverage for the benefit of children and families.

Initially, I encountered an overwhelmed system that lacked compassion and was, quite frankly, not at all friendly to parents. There are too many stories to share here, but the bottom line is that the system was broken and could not be trusted. If your system generally believes it is “saving children from their parents,” then I encourage you to reassess your values. Parents felt helpless and disenfranchised. As the system unnecessarily removed too many children from their parents, it soon became overwhelmed. I easily concluded that the byproduct of this overwhelmed system was injustice. A broken system led to many broken hearts and trauma. One by one, families were destroyed. At some point, it simply became easier to take children away from their parents than to maintain a system fueled by compassion. The evidence of a healthy system— which emphasizes prevention and reunification— was missing.

Things needed to change. However, simply caring about the problem wasn’t enough; it was time to act. With many other stakeholders in the community sharing the same concerns, we were able to collaborate on multiple levels to set things right. By using judicial power to bring people together, we tackled the issues at hand. What unfolded was nothing short of a miracle.

By January 2019, the number of children in custody had decreased to 173. While we focused on moving children toward permanency, we had limited time to dedicate to innovative initiatives. However, we appreciated having some much-needed breathing room. By January 2020, the number of children in custody had dropped to 105, and by January 2021, it further decreased to 64. Around this time, we began collaborating to formalize our process for In-Home cases. As we built capacity, compassionate hearts emerged. As you examine your system, you cannot solely focus on procedure. While adhering to and respecting procedural fairness is important, your system will not operate at a premium until hearts are changed and compassion is embedded.

Our review of the process led us to innovate in prevention. Our In-Home case process which maintains the family unit is still a work in progress but compassion is at its core. An In-Home case occurs when Child Protective Services starts an investigation but determines that the children do

not need to be removed from their home. The main challenge is to find ways to stabilize the family and either eliminate or mitigate risk factors, allowing the children to remain safely with their parents. Unfortunately, Mississippi law does not provide much guidance on how the courts should handle InHome cases, so it was essential to bring stakeholders together to develop a process. After considerable efforts from CPS, CASA, court staff, and others, we settled on the process. This process has continued to evolve, particularly with the addition of invaluable resources like our Family Treatment Court, but the goal has remained the same: maintain children in the home.

In 2020, I obtained an OJJDP grant to implement treatment services for parents with substance use disorders. Our community lacked resources to provide timely substance abuse assessments, and we had very few viable treatment options available. In many cases, we were exhausting important case timelines while waiting for assessments, which often took 60 to 90 days. This task was assigned to an overwhelmed and somewhat burned-out Child Protective Services (CPS) staff. As a result, connecting parents to treatment services was often difficult or even impossible. The Family Treatment Court began in July 2021, and its impact was immediate. Through a partnership with Tulane School of Addiction Medicine, we established a comprehensive program for treatment services for parents with substance use disorders. Our Family Treatment Court operates like a clinic, with a Tulane physician (a medical doctor and psychiatrist), serving as its medical director. Medical fellows in Addiction Medicine rotate through our program. Every Wednesday, we have a doctor on-site to conduct assessments, treatment, and follow-up care. Now, parents can undergo complete assessments by a licensed clinical social worker and a medical doctor to determine their diagnoses and appropriate treatment. We offer medically assisted treatment along with other therapeutic modalities. This unique program also allows us to address parents’ other mental health diagnoses. Recently, we expanded our services to include a partnership with a local hospital to connect parents to primary care services. Our parents receive ongoing care from doctors, along with individualized and group therapy, peer support services, and regular drug screenings. Thanks to this program, we can rapidly connect parents to the services they need. With some safety planning, we have often been able to keep families together while parents focus on their sobriety. We know that this approach significantly reduces trauma for both the children and the parents. And healing begins in the home.

We often get feedback from our Family Treatment Court participants. For National Treatment Court Month, we asked our participants to write a short message about what the program means to them. We got comments like, “[T]he Staff really cares about the people in the program,” “I appreciate the love and support they give to me and my family,” and “I love how comfortable I feel, like I belong, like family.” These comments and others are what matter when measuring your system’s level of compassion. The return on your compassion investment will be the participants’ trust in you and the process. From that, you can give each participant a sense of belonging. I might even tell a participant, “I’m so happy you belong to me.”

That reminds me of another story. Several years ago, we encountered a family with more challenges than I can recall. This couple had never been given a chance and they came here to start over (or escape their past). Because of the embrace they received from our Family Treatment Court staff, we were able to quickly get them on the road to recovery. I remember being so moved when I saw them in a treatment court hearing and they told me they got married. I was so proud of them and I let them know it. But a real connection was created with the father when I told him one day in court he looked just like my nephew. He looked puzzled. But, I insisted. “You remind me so much of my nephew.” In essence, I told him, “You belong to me.” I wanted him to feel that way. I found a way to connect. That connection has made us inseparable since. He now provides peer support services in our program.

As we think about embracing a more compassionate approach, we need to reconsider the way we engage with parents. Language matters. I challenge you to be bold in utilizing words that demonstrate compassion. Parents need to know you care. So, tell them! How you speak life into parents, whether they are compliant with their treatment plans or not, will make the difference for many. My faith journey has profoundly influenced the dialogue I have with parents. Speaking words of love, grace, and mercy encourage parents to stay motivated. I understand the shame parents may feel when they have returned to use. In those situations, I might begin by saying, “There is nothing you can do that can make me love you less.” After I let that sink in, I will follow with, “And there is nothing you can do to make me love you more.” I think those words resonate with them. If we make recovery strictly performance based, then we are missing the chance to deeply connect with parents.

I have one last thought. Effecting change in the child welfare system requires collaboration and training. I

mention this because your stakeholders hold the keys to implementing systemic change. I am so thankful for all the compassionate stakeholders in Hancock County. You can build a compassionate system by harnessing the gifts, talents, and resources of your stakeholders to create opportunities for parents to parent safely. Each month, Partners at the Table (“P.A.T. group”) convenes in the courtroom. These monthly lunch meetings with the stakeholders create a space to (1) educate the stakeholders; (2) identify and solve systemic problems; (3) give voice to the stakeholders; and (4) create buy-in. Everyone in the system should be working from the same playbook, so meeting monthly keeps us on mission. This collaborative space will most likely also be a spring of compassion. Dedicating time and resources to multi-disciplinary training throughout the year will also give you opportunities to steer our system’s views of parents. Each year, we host a oneday training on the science of addiction. To build a system with compassion for parents with substance use disorders, you must challenge stakeholders to obtain a deeper understanding of addiction. You must also work diligently to destigmatize substance abuse. Through strategic collaboration and training, you can instill your compassionate judicial philosophy. The work will be transformational!

I appreciate this opportunity to reflect on my time on the bench and particularly about compassion. I’m not done yet and neither are you. There is still so much more to learn and I know, deep down in my soul, that I can love deeper and have a more compassionate heart.

OPEN CALL FOR ART

The Family Justice Journal is honored to feature original artwork, poems, and other visual expressions that speak to the experiences of systems impacted individuals, community/public art projects, and artwork promoting social justice in every issue of the journal, including the front cover.

Compensation is offered for every piece accepted with artists retaining all rights to their work and attributions made.

To learn more or submit a piece for potential inclusion, please write to info@thefamilyjusticegroup.org