We’ve been investigating the role of framing in supporting child wellbeing, along with our partners at Lutheran Services in America (LSA) and the Results Innovation Lab. From shifting attitudes away from harmful stereotypes to building understanding about the structural causes of child hunger, poverty, and family separation, the framing choices we make have an important role to play in ensuring that all children grow up in safe, stable, and permanent family homes. 

Here are four recommendations for communicators working to galvanize public support for the collective action and policy change needed to address these challenges:

Recommendation #1: Lead with a vision of what’s possible, rather than an assessment of what’s wrong.

As social change advocates, we spend a lot of time thinking about what needs to change and why. But emphasizing the size and urgency of problems doesn’t motivate action. In fact, it has the opposite effect. To more effectively galvanize public interest and concern, begin your communications with a clear vision for the future—one that we can all aspire to and work toward together.

For example, instead of emphasizing “eliminating poverty” or “reducing homelessness,” highlight how we can “promote prosperity” or “ensure safe, quality housing for everyone.” Putting forward a positive vision of what’s possible helps our audiences see how change can happen. 

Recommendation #2: Name the structural causes of the problem, rather than focusing on symptoms.

Social issues such as hunger, poverty, and homelessness are extremely complex in nature, and their causes are often misunderstood. People tend to blame individuals for experiencing these issues, while structural causes—like stagnant wages, inadequate health care, and a lack of available housing—remain largely off the public radar. As communicators, we have the opportunity to build understanding about the policy choices that have shaped our current social systems. When we point to structural causes, we not only make it easier to identify appropriate preventive measures and solutions, but we also stop harmful stereotypes in their tracks. 

For example, talking about disparities among communities can lead people to make assumptions about why some groups experience issues like entry into the foster care system more than others. When we only explain the disparities, we leave room for harmful stereotypes to fill the gaps. But when we explain the role of biased policies—like those that ignore the value of multigenerational households—or other structural factors, we make it easier to understand the real underlying problem and reduce blame.

Recommendation #3: Draw on plain language and familiar concepts to illustrate the interconnectedness of wellbeing.

Experts are clear that child health, family health, and community health are all intimately related. Multiple technical terms and shorthand phrases have been developed for talking about these intricately complex relationships in concise ways. While jargon may streamline communications, particularly among people who share similar interpretations already, it quickly breaks down with broader public audiences who don’t have the same familiarity. 

Simple descriptions and clear explanations are much more effective tools for bridging understanding. The use of plain language is especially important when talking about policies and programs designed to strengthen wellbeing. People have a tendency to view these kinds of supports through the lens of competition, assuming that whenever one group is helped, another is harmed. But when we use plain language to describe such programs, we help people realize that it’s not a zero-sum game and instead recognize that our wellbeing is interconnected. 

For example, instead of talking about “wraparound services,” we can be explicit about what we mean: “A range of essential services that create a solid foundation for health—things like food and housing assistance, substance abuse counseling, and job seeking support.” Instead of saying “whole-family approach,” we can explain that we mean an approach that considers the interrelated needs of all family members, not just isolated individuals.

Recommendation #4: Highlight needed large-scale solutions (and the different roles we can each play in advancing them).

Once people understand the structural causes of a social problem as well as its far-reaching implications, they may wonder, “What can I do about it myself?” This is often a well-intentioned question, but it unhelpfully focuses attention at the individual level, pushing needed systemic solutions out of view. We can expand our collective imagination about the possibilities for social change by offering concrete examples of needed policies and other community-level actions, and then naming different ways that various community members can contribute to them.

For inspiration, here are a couple of examples: 

• “School-based mental health initiatives—which engage teachers, counselors, and caregivers—boost academic outcomes for students and strengthen entire communities.” 
• “Job training programs that bring together insights from industry, education, and policy, support family stability and help ensure children can thrive.”

Visit lutheranservices.org for more specific examples. 

Taken together, the four framing recommendations above can help leaders and advocates in child welfare productively shift the public conversation on family health, stability, and permanency. By adopting a shared framing strategy—and adapting it as needed for various audiences, regions, contexts, and topics at hand—we can amplify one another’s voices and elevate calls for change. Together we can weaken harmful assumptions and negative stereotypes that lead to misplaced blame for social problems, and instead cultivate a greater sense of hope and collective responsibility.

Related Resources

Frameworks Institute. (2024). Connections and Communities: Reframing How We Talk About Opportunity Youth. Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute. https://www.frameworksinstitute.org/resources/connections-and-communities-reframing-how-we-talk-about-opportunity-youth/

FrameWorks Institute. (2023). Collective Caregiving: A Frame for Talking About What Kids and Families Need to Thrive. Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute. https://www.frameworksinstitute.org/resources/collective-caregiving-a-frame-for-talking-about-what-kids-and-families-need-to-thrive/

Hendricks, R., L’Hôte, E., Volmert, A., & O’Neil, M. (2018). Reframing Hunger in America: A FrameWorks Message Brief. Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute. https://www.frameworksinstitute.org/resources/reframing-hunger-in-america/

Moyer, J., Lyew, D., John, J.E., Hestres, L.E., Vierra, K., Volmert, A. (2023). Where we thrive: Communicating about resident-centered neighborhood revitalization. Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute. https://www.frameworksinstitute.org/resources/where-we-thrive-communicating-about-resident-centered-neighborhood-revitalization/

Sweetland, J. (2021). Reframing childhood adversity. Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute. https://www.frameworksinstitute.org/resources/reframing-childhood-adversity-promoting-upstream-approaches/

Changing the Public Conversation on Family Health, Stability, and Permanency