Reimagining Responses to Child and Family Safety and Well-Being

Background: Child welfare systems are charged with ensuring the safety, permanency, and well-being of children, yet many fail to meet federal benchmarks. In light of these persistent gaps, interest in community-centered alternatives to traditional child protection interventions is increasing. This study builds on that momentum by exploring how human service professionals conceptualize and envision alternatives to mandated reporting. Rather than focusing solely on referral to child protective services, this project centers on the idea of “community supporting,” a participant-driven reframing that emphasizes relational, strengths-based, and healing-oriented responses to child and family safety and well-being.

Methods: This qualitative, arts-based study engaged human service professionals in a focus group where data was collected via visual and narrative methods. Participants created 42 collages and contributed 24 written narrative responses. In addition, participants wrote responses on poster boards with open ended prompts such as “Mandated reporting is...” and “Mandated supporting is...”. Data were uploaded to Dedoose and analyzed using polytextual thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021) to generate key insights regarding how community-based responses to child maltreatment are imagined and experienced. Rigor and trustworthiness were enhanced by maintaining an audit trail, engaging in peer debriefing, and exploring results with participants.

Results: Three central themes were generated through the analysis, including: 1. Community support includes responsive, proactive, and accessible healing environments. Participants described community support as being rooted in people and places that promote well-being. Supportive relationships were seen as the backbone of strong communities, with trusted connections enabling early intervention and care. Community infrastructure—such as accessible services, nature-based spaces, recreational programs, and culturally relevant supports—was highlighted as essential for healing. 2. Community support reflects accountable, transparent, and strengths-based systems. Participants emphasized that systems grounded in mutual accountability and transparency foster trust and engagement. Rather than functioning as punitive or investigative entities, supportive systems were envisioned as affirming, culturally responsive, and driven by the strengths of children, families, and communities. 3. Community support leads to positive outcomes with service recipients. Participants noted that when systems are relationship-centered and collaborative, they lead to improved outcomes for children and families. The symbiotic nature of relationships between child welfare services recipients and providers was underscored. When anchoring practice and policy in support, providers feel empowered and aligned with their values, while families feel seen, supported, and less stigmatized. Collectively, participants saw possibilities for these dynamics to strengthen community-based responses to families’ basic and social support needs.

Implications: Findings from this study highlight the potential of community support approaches to transform child welfare response systems. In shifting from mandated reporting towards community support, participants reimagined interventions that prioritize healing, trust, and relational accountability. This reframing has implications for policy, professional training, and service delivery models. Importantly, arts-based methods proved to be a powerful tool in surfacing values, visions, and emotional truths often underrepresented in traditional research. Future work should explore how these insights can inform systems change and elevate community-led approaches in child welfare reform.