The Shift: Voices of Prevention — A podcast by Prevent Child Abuse America

Framing Family Well-Being: From Blame to Belonging | Jessica Moyer

• Prevent Child Abuse America

Share episode

In this episode of The Shift: Voices of Prevention, we sit down with Jessica Moyer, Senior Principal Strategist at the FrameWorks Institute, to explore what it truly means to reframe how we support children and families.

Jessica takes us beyond the surface of policy and practice into the deeper cultural narratives that shape our systems—examining how reactive, individualistic approaches can be transformed into proactive, community-rooted solutions. She shares powerful insights on the role of language, equity, and storytelling in shaping a prevention-first future.

From embedding family voice in policy to building grassroots partnerships that shift mindsets, this episode is a call to lead with trust, curiosity, and collective care. Whether you’re a practitioner, policymaker, or advocate, you’ll walk away with renewed clarity and purpose.

Subscribe for more episodes

SPEAKER_02:

This is The Shift: Voices of Prevention, a podcast from Prevent Child Abuse America where we explore bold ideas, cultural change, and what it truly means to support children and families. Join us to change the narrative one conversation at a time. Today's show is brought to you by PCA America's 2025 National Conference. Hosted in Portland, Oregon, August 12th through August 14th, the transformative three-day conference features three keynote speakers and more than 70 workshops that dive into the key drivers of change. From innovative programs and practices to family-focused policies, cutting-edge research, and public awareness and engagement strategies, the conference is designed to push the field toward upstream prevention and creating a future where every child and family can thrive. To be in the room when change happens, visit preventchabuse.org. Hello and welcome to the Shift Voices of Prevention, a podcast by Prevent Child Abuse America. I'm your host, Nathan Fink, and for this 2025 conference preview, I'm excited to be joined by Jessica Moyer, Senior Principal Strategist at Frameworks Institute, to explore how cultural narratives shape and can lead to systems that are more equitable, supportive, and healing. Jess, thank you so much for joining the show.

SPEAKER_00:

Thanks for having me on, Nathan. I'm looking forward to the conversation.

SPEAKER_02:

I have to say, as a start, that the idea of shifting cultural narratives is quite an undertaking for a few reasons. So it might be best to start simply. When we talk about cultural frames through which we view the world, what exactly do we mean?

SPEAKER_00:

I love that setup actually, because you're right. What we're talking about is kind of an ambitious endeavor. And what we're seeking to change are things that are really entrenched, really embedded. I mean, culture doesn't move quickly. Maybe opinions do, attitudes do, but culture changes much more slowly. Takes a lot of effort, a lot of of time, a lot of um a lot of different factors kind of working together. We we so we maybe a good place to start is we think about um wanting to shift cultural mindsets. So mindsets are those deeply held kind of um latent, sort of default patterns in thinking. They're they're different from public opinions because we're not always even aware that we're holding them. They're sort of kind of lenses on the world that we share that influence how we see the world, how we process new information. And they are durable, like the the same ones have been around for a really long time. They're kind of ingrained in our culture. Um we have we hold a lot of different ones. We hold a lot of different mindsets at the same time, sometimes even conflicting mindsets. And, you know, we can be thinking through one, activating one in a particular moment, and then in the next moment activating a different one. So there's there are a lot of um options to work to work with there. And I think um part of the work of shifting culture, kind of creating social change is about understanding that cultural landscape, understanding what what are the different mindsets that we share and which ones are productive in a particular moment, which ones do we want to kind of cultivate and and activate and cue up and utilize, and which are the ones that are holding us back, which are the ones that are um maybe being activated by default, but not really helping us, which ones are unproductive, and how do we steer clear of those? And we do think of it in terms of kind of like we love a good explanatory metaphor at first. We we we think of it as kind of like tilling the soil for social change. So it's about laying the groundwork that will enable all kinds of decisions and and collective actions that will have an impact, but the change that we're seeking is slow and it happens over a long period of time.

SPEAKER_02:

Now it seems like we're gonna get into a conversation that has a lot of definitions, a lot of different things going on. So maybe let's restart with just a quick terminology set. So we have mindsets, we have stories that we talk about, we have narratives, and then we have this thing called frames or framing. Can you quickly go through each of those?

SPEAKER_00:

Sure. Yeah, those are four good ones to parse out. So I sort of touched on mindsets. I think that that's a big one. Those are those patterns in shared thinking as a culture that sort of we think of them as how we think. Mindsets reflect how we think rather than what we think. They're not topical, they kind of are models of reasoning that we draw on to make sense of particular topics. So that's mindsets. We can think of narratives as patterns as well, but patterns in discourse, patterns in talking. Narratives and mindsets often kind of reflect one another, like how we're thinking, the patterns in thought and patterns in discourse. You can see a lot of similarities in those two things, but um, it's helpful to distinguish them too, particularly when we're talking about which ones are levers for social change. So that's narratives, and then narratives are made up of lots of different stories. So narratives are kind of patterns in stories. And when we tell stories, we are sometimes intentionally, but often unintentionally, kind of reinforcing particular narratives, or in other cases, contesting particular narratives by the kinds of stories that we tell and the ways that we tell those stories. Um, and then framing has to do with that the way that we tell stories, the way that we present information. Framing involves lots of different choices in how we communicate. And anytime we're communicating, we're framing. So framing involves things like what do we put into a particular message? What are the things that we don't say? What tone do we adopt? What values do we appeal to? How do we explain particular concepts? What examples do we draw on to make a particular point or to explain a particular concept? So framing is sort of lots of those little decisions, millions of them that we're making all the time, that have to do with the kind of packaging and presentation of information. And framing affects how we tell our stories, which affects which narratives we reinforce or or which ones we challenge. Um and that has a relationship with how we think collectively with our shared cultural mindsets.

SPEAKER_02:

So it's exactly. Now I love the idea that you embedded in framing choice, right? We are making a series of choices. This is an active thing that we're kind of undertaking. It's clear then, with regards to frames, that they're constructed by parts, but this is all part of our human experience. So is there a way to untangle how we as individuals both exist with frames, but then also use those to perpetuate larger cultural narratives?

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, I mean, I I love that you brought that up because I think a big part of the work that we do at frameworks is about being intentional in those choices, which means as individuals, making decisions. We we talk about framing as a set of choices, but a lot of times we're making those choices without realizing that we're making them, or making them without realizing what impact they'll have. And a big part of being strategic as a communicator, being intentional in how we frame is understanding both what the landscape is that we're navigating, but also what the what the frame effects will be, what the implications of those different choices will be. And then making the choices that have the, you know, the effects that we want them to have. So our messages and our communications are interpreted in the ways that we intend. And I think a big part of, I mean, the it's the reason that we do empirical research is to generate some data on. There's something that's kind of, I don't know if it's counterintuitive but unintuitive, certainly, about lots of the different framing choices that we make. There are lots of things that we frame in a particular way, emphasize in a particular way. Um, there are lots of sort of go-to tactics that we that feel right when we use them as communicators that just don't work in the way that they seem like they should or the way that we intend. So it's it is really helpful to be able to develop frames to kind of put together some hypotheses about what we think is likely to make sense in terms of how we talk about a particular issue and then test them, you know, put them through focus groups, take them out into the field, ask people to use them themselves to respond to them, and then see does it actually work to talk about a social issue in this way? If we make this comparison, does that resonate with people? Does it reinforce current thinking? Does it have the potential to open up a new way of thinking about that issue? Um, and then once we've got some data, we can make those framing choices intentionally and with purpose and with some confidence that we'll have the impact that we want to have.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah. Now, are there any examples of classic North American frames that we are kind of ride or die that seem to continue to crop up?

SPEAKER_00:

Yes. Um, I mean, probably a good one to mention because it is so easily activated, it's really dominant. It kind of comes into play in terms of shaping our thinking, no matter what issue or topic we're talking about. But it's the mindset of individualism. Uh it's a it's a mindset that just sort of assumes that whatever outcomes we're experiencing can be traced back to the decisions and the behaviors and the actions or inactions of individual people. So it's it's a mindset that kind of obscures the role of context and structural, those structural factors that actually shape outcomes and also shape the decisions that individuals make. Because even the behaviors of individual people are an interaction between those folks and the surround their surroundings and the sort of the incentive structure that they're exposed to, the things that make it easier to make one decision over another decision. But when we're thinking through this mindset of individualism, it's really hard to see the importance of that context and those contextual factors. And it means, I mean, we're here because we're we're talking about children and well-being and how to ensure that children and families can thrive. That mindset comes into play when we're talking about children because it's so easy for us to, as a culture, to sort of by default assume that the outcomes of a particular child are directly attributable to what the particular individuals in that child's life did or didn't do, most notably the parents, right? What what did the parents do that they shouldn't have done, or what didn't they do that they should have done to lead to better outcomes? And it perpetuates cycles of blame. And also that mindset is hazardous because it kind of pushes out of the discussion. It's off our radar how we can make better decisions collectively, what kind of policies we need to have in place to create supports for families and for parents and direct caregivers. That individualism mindset makes all of that, those important contextual factors and policy decisions harder to see.

SPEAKER_02:

Now, this is a topic that you're going to be presenting on at the 2025 Prevent Child Abuse America Conference. And so I'm so glad you brought this up. What has the narrative been that we've told ourselves about caring for children?

SPEAKER_00:

Great question. There's one big idea that has kind of sucked up all of the oxygen. There are lots of mindsets. I'll say that first. There are lots of mindsets that can get activated when we're talking about children and families. And I can mention some of the other ones too that are at play and kind of in the mix. But the big one, the one that is sort of at the forefront of our thinking as a culture, is the idea that care matters most. We sometimes talk about this as the centrality of care mindset, but it's the idea that that's what kids need. You know, above and beyond all else, children need to be loved and cared for by the adults who are responsible for them. So it's really closely related to that individualism mindset that I talked about. That's kind of more general and can be applied to lots of different things, but it comes into play here in terms of the focus on care, but also this sort of the particular conception of care. So this mindset involves care in a s, in the specific sense of referring to interpersonal relationships, the care that an individual adult provides to an individual child. And obviously that is super important. I don't want to diminish that at all. I don't think anyone would argue that that's essential. And that probably is the most important thing in any child's life. The sort of challenge here, in terms of how we think about kind of um our as a culture and in terms of public discourse around caring for children, what children need to thrive, is if we're so focused on that interpersonal relationship between a child and the adult who's responsible for them. I mean, parents are the ones that come to mind most sort of immediately, but the the direct caregivers in that child's life. So also, you know, other family members or a child care provider, a teacher, if we're only thinking about what children need through the lens of those individual adults, we're missing all that kind of context that I talked about earlier. We're missing, we're we're sort of unable to see how children also need things like access to healthy, affordable food, to stable, healthy housing, to um, you know, clean water, clean environments, to green parks, um places to run around and be active, all kinds of things, right? All kinds of decisions that we make as a society impact the lives of children in significant ways. Um, but that sort of care matters most mindset obscures all of those other factors, kind of pushes them out of view.

SPEAKER_02:

It feels like what you're saying is we've developed this myopic view that actually has everything to do with this pinpoint on the individual. And then we're kind of circling this little periscope to individual problems or even individual crises, right? Like this care matters most idea. I get it. My I have two young sons who are in child care and there's a child care crisis. So we're trying to find good, affordable care. And so we kind of wheel our periscope over there and zoom in on it as if it were the individual factor that's gonna solve it without saying, no, this is actually a constellation of interconnected points. So we have to back our purview up. But, and there is a question here, as you're backing away from a singularity, individualistic like point, are there any fears that you're gonna be losing that particular focus, which we know is good, as we back away? Because you're not saying that's not important. You're saying that is important in context with.

SPEAKER_00:

Yes, yeah, yeah. You totally get it. And you described it really well. And I think that is exactly what we need to do. Is it's not a instead of this, let's focus on that. It absolutely is we want to expand the lens. So it's yes, absolutely, you know, parents, direct care providers, teachers are essential and they exist within a broader context. And and part of um shifting the narrative here is about connecting some of those dots in the constellation, like you described. I love that expression. Like it is really about, I mean, the well-being of children is inextricably tied to the well-being of those other adults in their lives, which is inextricably tied to all the connections that they have and all the environments that they, you know, occupy and live in and and all of the it really is about being more informed collectively about the interconnectedness of all of all of those factors. It's not at all about diminishing anyone's role. In fact, it's really about um cultivating a sense that we're all caregivers. We we all play a role in um ensuring that we make the kinds of decisions as a society that support well-being for children and families, which and the same kinds of policies that you know support children's well-being support all of our well-being. We all are better off when we have green spaces and parks, when we have, you know, legislation that cuts down on gun violence, when we have robust public transportation systems. None of those things are kind of challenging the importance or the autonomy of direct caregivers. In fact, those things make the lives of caregivers much easier. It's about supporting caregiving and recognizing the networks, uh, the sort of web that care actually looks like.

SPEAKER_02:

Yep, I love that idea because really it's about the spaces between, because you do have these pinpoints of, you know, the social determinants of health and things like that that we need to work on, obviously, food security for families. We need to work on that care that you're talking about, health outcomes. But getting between those is really where the stuff of community is made of. Now, since we kind of approach this issue through that individualism lens, are there examples then of how that has actually created kind of one-off systems that are really not as helpful as we think they are?

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, I mean, I think there are tons of examples of that because there absolutely is a relationship between those mindsets, how we think about social issues, how we view the world, and the kinds of decisions that we make together. Um, I mean, I think a lot of what we see now in terms of calls for like dismantling the Department of Education, that's about uh, and and you know, there are other, I was mentioning there are lots of other mindsets here. One that's kind of related is the this idea that the role of government should be limited as much as possible. Government kind of gets in the way. That's a latent mindset that can easily be queued up, and and that's obviously at work there too. But it's connected to individuals and it's connected to the idea that individual responsibility is what matters most, and we should let people make decisions for themselves that are best for them. So that I think that you know, calls for dismantling the Department of Education are is sort of a policy uh example of how this mindset informs the decisions that we make that shape society. Um, and uh and even you know, cutting back Medicaid, I think we can think about lots of um lots of ways that policies reflect the individualism mindset and also that cultural attitudes reflect it because there's a lot of when we talk about, for example, disparities in children's outcomes, there's a lot of blame put on the individual parents of those children and also the communities. When we're talking about disparities between groups, that that conversation can easily kind of slide into a blame on particular communities or particular groups for not making good enough decisions that lead to better outcomes for their children. Obviously, those are toxic and kind of harmful ways of approaching the issue that that go up against what we know will make a difference, will make a positive difference. The kinds of programs and services and policies that will address disparities and improve outcomes across the board, those are harder when we're kind of activating this individualism mindset.

SPEAKER_02:

Your session toward a new narrative, right, of what it means to care for children indicates that there's something that we could or even should be telling ourselves about the care for children.

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, let's definitely talk about what we can do, what what works here. And I think the good news is there are lots of things that are effective that that can work, that can help, that can move the conversation in a positive direction. Um, and it does go back to what I I sound like a broken record a little bit, but we've got we have access to lots of different mindsets. Some are more dominant than others. The ones that are most dominant tend to be the ones that sort of reflect and reinforce the status quo. But the less dominant mindsets that we also have available to us that we all are influenced by and hold, those alternative mindsets can be activated to uh encourage us to think critically about the way things are and to to want them to be different, to think about how we might change them and make them different and better. Um, so like in addition to having this individualism mindset, we also have access to the mindset that contexts matter, that our surroundings shape who we are and who we become and and what we experience. So we can activate that mindset. And actually, we can even draw on the this sort of concentrated focus on the necessity of care, that that kind of care matters most mindset. We actually, in our testing, um, we tested a lot of different sort of framing strategies to see how to work with this care matters most mindset, how to break it open and help people see kind of beyond those interpersonal direct caregivers. We we we tested what it would be like to frame in terms of kind of yes, care is important and these other things are also important. What we found to be most effective in the end was to sort of redefine care itself, to define care much more broadly, to define care as something that is a collective endeavor. And actually the good news is that that really is effective. That has a lot of potential, and it's something that has positive frame effects across the political spectrum, across lots of different demographic groups, across regions. There's it kind of makes sense to folks that we we can easily kind of take up a caregiver disposition. We can kind of think about, yeah, I want what's best for kids, for all kids. We can be prompted to think beyond sort of quote unquote our own kids. So as communicators, as folks who wanna, who are working to productively shift culture and shift the policy landscape and move things forward, we can be intentional about our framing and um really kind of lean into the those collective aspects of care. So we can, for example, we can talk about particular policies or particular programs as forms of caregiving and kind of pull on that lexicon of care. We can talk about um, you know, raise up, provide for, nourish, you know, use the different types of words that kind of um get at the that idea of care and how we care for kids. We can use all of those different kinds of words and phrases to talk about those collective actions, the policy level, structure level decisions that we know are needed and would be helpful. And then and kind of vice versa, talk about when we're talking about caring for kids, being sure to pull in some of those policy examples and kind of there's this um tendency to want to give people something that kind of brings the issue home for them, puts it in their living room, so to speak. The more effective strategy here is actually to prompt folks to get outside of their living room, to see themselves as part of the broader community, including parents and direct caregivers. We can, that's another strategy. We can tell stories that put parents in context because parents are responsible for their kids, but parents are lots of other things too. Parents have jobs, parents walk down the street, parents have hobbies, parents want to live in a society that is healthy and thriving for their kids and for the themselves and for you know, it's easy to kind of divide up society between and think about discrete groups, parents and non-parents or children versus adults, but the more we can kind of draw connections between all those different folks and help us see our shared interests, our shared kind of fates. Um that's a really effective strategy for for building a collective sense of responsibility to care for kids and also collective efficacy, like a sense that we we can make a difference here. We can all be caregivers, we can all be effective caregivers and make a positive difference in the lives of all children. We all kind of want to feel like we have that potential.

SPEAKER_02:

And I get it. I absolutely get the the impulse to try to re-explain the path we're on to the self. Because as we're kind of going down our paths, we've been told this story about our own individualism forever, so much so that we're willing to put single labels on ourselves, right? Like I'm a dad right now, that's what I'm doing. I'm a this right now, that's what I'm doing. And the stories that I think we tell ourselves self-perpetuate the direction we're headed. So it's hard to stop. It's hard to think about that the fact that our cultural narratives might not actually be working for us. It's hard to face a different direction and say, you know what, we might have to either back up or go lateral a bit to repave something that works for all of us. So I understand that. And of course, you're gonna be in Oregon at the PCA 2025 conference. Um, I'm curious because I know that people out there are gonna be approaching not only their own frames, but the conversations that they would like to have with others about broadening frames that work for all children and families across the country. Do you have any advice for them when approaching this particular endeavor?

SPEAKER_00:

I guess I would say there are three things to keep in mind and to sort of um to bring into communications, which there are lots of different ways to do it, but three sort of guiding principles that anyone can use and that are broadly applicable. So the first one is just to think about and talk about care as something that is collective. It's shared, it's a shared endeavor. The second one is to think and talk about care as something that is inclusive, meaning we need to talk about all children, children in every community from every demographic group, which is really different from appealing to folks to think about what's in the best interest of the children that they are responsible for. So taking an inclusive approach to all of our children, all of society's children. And then um the third one is that care is expansive because, and you you kind of touched on this a little bit earlier, but it's so easy to think about sort of children's issues and and to kind of marginalize what matters for children or what decisions we think about impacting children. But if we think about caring for children in a way that's expansive, it means everything's on the table. We need to kind of take that lens to every decision that we make together. How will this impact children? And kind of think through that question. Because all the decisions we make about society have some impact on children in some way, and in the same way they impact all of us. They're social issues and that they touch all of our lives. So expanding that concept of care to something that's collective, inclusive, and expansive, I think is something that everybody can do.

SPEAKER_02:

Well, Jessica, I could do this for hours, if not days on end. But thank you, thank you, thank you for coming on the show today. I appreciate the conversation.

SPEAKER_00:

Thanks so much, Nathan.

SPEAKER_02:

And you can invite upstream solutions into your feed by subscribing to the Shift Voices of Prevention today. Join us to create an ecosystem where children and families live purposeful and happy lives with hope for the future.