Executive Report for think tank 2025
Introduction
The 2025 Think Tank was hosted by NPEIV, IVAT, and The CIRCLE and was sponsored by Ruby’s Place and Action Ohio. The aim of the Think Tank was to unite professionals across disciplines to end interpersonal violence by fostering collaboration, advancing the National Plan to End Interpersonal Violence, integrating research with practice and policy, and setting new priorities. It served as a forum to share updates, strengthen networks, and build a unified voice for policy and advocacy. The theme for this year’s Think Tank was the Current State of Intimate Partner and Interpersonal Violence in the USA: Prevention and Intervention Strategies Across the Lifespan. This executive summary provides a report of the 2025 Think Tank held on August 17, 2025, in San Diego, California. Dr. Viola Vaughan-Eden, President Emerita of NPEIV and Professor at Norfolk State University, opened the convening alongside Sandi Capuano Morrison, Chief Executive Officer of IVAT. They framed the event as a collaborative, multigenerational effort to safeguard decades of progress and chart new strategies rooted in equity, research, and community wisdom. Many of the 41 attendees remained to celebrate the 30th IVAT San Diego International Summit on Violence, Abuse and Trauma Across the Lifespan.
Panel Discussion
Rita Smith, BS (International Expert on Violence Against Women)
Lynn Rosenthal, MPA (Battered Women’s Justice Project)
Amalfi Parker Elder, Esq. (Battered Women’s Justice Project)
Rev. Darrell Armstrong, DDiv, MDiv, Eds-MFT (Association of Professionals Solving the Abuse of
Children)
Viola Vaughan-Eden, PhD, MJ, LCSW (NPEIV, Norfolk State University, The UP Institute)
Sandi Capuano Morrison, MA (Institute on Violence, Abuse, and Trauma)
Key Themes
Isolation vs. Collective Action; Speaking Out Against Normalized Violence; Systemic Inequities; Faith
& Values; Legal Strategies; Misinformation and Project 2025; Public Education and Language.
Focus Groups
Child Focus Group: Moral injury, funding fragility, silencing of advocates; called for youth
empowerment, diversified funding, and survivor-safe spaces. Adult Focus Group: Human costs of
shrinking civic space and protections; emphasized resilience strategies and reframed public
messaging. Community Focus Group: Federal funding collapse and cultural shifts; emphasized
grassroots resilience, cultural change, and relational organizing.
Action Items
Build nonpartisan alliances; Divide advocacy by expertise; Make legal advocacy and storytelling
central strategies; Develop language kits and resource lists; Diversify funding; Leverage arts,
technology, and cultural leaders.
Conclusion
Think Tank 2025 underscored the urgent need for coordinated equity-driven strategies to end
interpersonal violence in the face of authoritarian pressures, funding instability, and cultural
division. Through the town hall-like panel and three (3) subsequent focus groups, participants
reaffirmed the missions of NPEIV and IVAT: to integrate research, practice, and advocacy across the
lifespan to ensure safety, equity, and justice for all and to promote violence-free living. A more
detailed summary of the event proceedings follows.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 2025 THINK TANK
Opening Panel Summary
The panel began by framing the current crisis through noncooperation strategies, reminding
participants of the spectrum from individual acts of resistance to collective noncooperation to mass
refusal and protest. Attendees were invited to think about which “pillars” of society they are part of
(business, labor, faith, education, civil service, military/police), and how to influence those networks.
The ICE Block app, One Million Rising, Indivisible, Maria Ressa’s How to Stand Up to a Dictator were
referenced as tools/resources. Quotes such as Alice Walker’s, “The most common way people give
up their power is by thinking they don’t have any” were used to set tone.
Key points from panelists and discussions:
● Isolation as enemy and collective action as antidote: Isolation is a tool of both abusers and
authoritarian systems. Just as perpetrators isolate victims, regimes seek to isolate
communities. Building collective power through faith coalitions, cross-denominational work,
and alliances across silos is essential. True collaboration requires not just talking but sharing
resources and coordinating efforts.
● Speaking out against normalized violence: There was regret that the movement did not push
back more forcefully when violence and abuse were normalized in political discourse. Silence
allowed abuse of power to grow. Now is the moment to use research and knowledge to
publicly expose the harms. Advocates and leaders need to stop holding conversations only in
“safe” or “silent” circles and speak out in public.
● Systemic inequities are not new: Marginalized communities have always faced
disproportionate harm and have long histories of resistance. What seems “new” to
mainstream America is simply more visible now. Progress requires recognizing and centering
marginalized survivors and tapping into the expertise of those who have resisted all along.
Equity is not a fringe concern; it is central to creating radical change.
● Complacency and the myth of arrival: Some warned that after symbolic milestones (e.g.,
Obama’s election), there was a sense of “arrival” that allowed many to disengage, while
large groups of people remained marginalized. This false sense of progress left people
behind and contributed to backlash.
● Authoritarian tactics: Examples raised included scapegoating marginalized groups, spreading
disinformation (akin to Russian propaganda), suppressing arts and history, aggrandizing
executive power, and federalizing police/military. Panelists warned that democracy is
actively under threat, not just potentially at risk.
● Legal strategies: Lawsuits were presented as critical tools to slow authoritarian overreach.
For example, using VAWA statutes to expose contradictions in executive orders, and
ensuring funding goes to racial/ethnic minority communities through statutory language.
● Faith and values: Faith communities were recognized as divided but potentially powerful.
Some religious groups refuse to engage, while others could redefine problems through a
moral/values lens. Panelists emphasized building collective voices across religions,
amplifying prophetic voices, and reframing issues as cultural and moral rather than partisan.
● Science as advocacy: Scientific communities were called upon to defend women and
children’s truths against narratives that label them as liars. Science is not without values—its
value lies in advancing human dignity. Scientists should step up public voices, redefining
terms and refusing to let oppressive narratives shape definitions of womanhood, childhood,
or truth.
● Misinformation and Project 2025: Project 2025 was described as a coordinated strategy that
filled agencies with ideologues, dismantled checks and balances, and advanced broad-based
attacks simultaneously. With 40% of the population supporting authoritarian policies,
participants discussed dividing the work by expertise, since no one group can counter every
front.
● Public education and language: Advocates called for developing simple, jargon-free language
that everyday people can use to talk about violence, democracy, and community. Leaders
should provide ready-to-use scripts, “who to call” lists, and talking points for use in
congregations, communities, and workplaces. The five calls app was recommended as a tool
for contacting legislators.
Action items from the panel discussion:
● Build nonpartisan alliances across all pillars of society to resist authoritarian drift and
advance pro-democracy movements.
● Divide advocacy by expertise (legal, grassroots organizing, survivor engagement, faith work,
policy advocacy).
● Make legal advocacy a central strategy while pairing with accessible public education and
storytelling campaigns.
● Create language kits and resource lists to empower everyday people to act.
● Center marginalized communities and draw from movement histories and cultural work (art,
storytelling, survivor narratives) to strengthen resilience and courage.
Child Focus Group Summary
This group provided a picture of how today’s political and funding climate directly impact
the most vulnerable – children at risk of abuse and neglect – and those working to protect them. The
discussion began with participants reflecting on how the silencing of advocates mirrors the silencing
of children themselves, creating a cycle of invisibility and despair. Organizations that once served as
safe havens, such as Children’s Advocacy Centers and pediatric hospitals, are being censored or
defunded when they refuse to comply with restrictions on diversity, equity, and inclusion. This left
participants grappling with moral injury as professionals forced to comply with harmful policies to
keep doors open. The group wrestled with questions of survival: how to sustain advocacy under
censorship, how to build hope among new professionals and students who already feel
overwhelmed, and how to reimagine funding models outside fragile federal streams. Participants
named small wins – class action lawsuits, survivor voices in classrooms, creative uses of social media
– as evidence that the fight continues and emphasized the importance of returning to community
roots and empowering younger generations to lead.
Impact of current climate:
● Silencing of children and advocates: Federal restrictions on what can be discussed (e.g., bans
on DEI language) extend silencing beyond children to their advocates, creating “moral
injury.” Child maltreatment, already underreported, is becoming even harder to detect and
address. Important institutional supports (such as Children’s Advocacy Centers) are losing
funding if they refuse to remain silent.
● Funding fragility: Four major funding streams—government, private, philanthropic,
religious—are all rolling back. This creates financial, emotional, and spiritual harm to
organizations and their staff. Example: institutions with billions in endowments (e.g.,
universities) are retreating from supporting marginalized students, signaling a withdrawal of
protection.
● Hopelessness among students and new professionals: Educators noted how difficult it is to
train and empower new professionals in such an environment. Graduates enter the field
already overwhelmed and discouraged, creating long-term challenges for succession and
sustainability.
Successes and bright spots:
● Keeping doors open despite adversity.
● Filing class action lawsuits to fight against restrictions.
● “Small wins” through survivor-led classrooms and safe spaces for difficult conversations.
● State or local stopgap funding (e.g., California’s leadership pushing back).
● Technology and social media as tools for fact-sharing and mobilization.
Strategies proposed:
● Diversifying funding: Seek flexible foundation support, grassroots fundraising, and
international replacements for US grants. Consider hybrid or for-profit models to escape
funder censorship.
● Empowering youth: Create materials and campaigns designed for younger generations
(short, engaging, action-oriented), and equip them with hope and courage.
● Community resilience: Build survivor-safe spaces, community circles, and mutual aid to
counter isolation.
● Flooding information channels: Push factual, accessible content into mainstream platforms
to counter disinformation.
● Cultural engagement: Work with Hollywood, athletes, and other cultural figures to
mainstream conversations on child abuse and neglect prevention.
Action items:
● Draft documents and campaigns aimed at younger audiences with clear calls-to-action.
● Build diversified funding streams outside federal restrictions.
● Prioritize resilience, survivor community spaces, student engagement, and empowerment.
● Leverage cultural industries for mass influence.
Adult Focus Group Summary
This group identified the sharp human cost of shrinking civic space and the rolling back of
hard-won protections. The emphasis was not only on institutional challenges but on the personal toll
of navigating contradictory demands: being required to remove “transgender” from military training
curricula, scrubbing websites of LGBTQ markers while raising openly queer children, or watching
survivor consultants lose entire livelihoods when contracts disappeared. Educators described how
losing access to federal reports undermines their ability to teach the next generation of advocates,
while survivors noted that “gift cards” payments in place of contracts insult their expertise and
devalue their labor. A common emotional thread was fear, exhaustion, and the feeling of being
frozen – yet also a recognition that conversations like this one serve as “reactivation,” giving
participants courage and solidarity. The group called for reframing language for broader audiences,
diversifying funding, using survivor accompaniment in decision-making spaces, and drawing on
historic survival strategies from marginalized groups to guide today’s work.
Impact reported:
● Military/DoD: Trainings had to be revised multiple times to comply with executive orders,
with LGBTQ terms stripped out. Websites lost “Safe Space” markers. Staff had to comply to
keep jobs, even when personally opposed.
● Academia: Federal data (such as TIP reports, GBV datasets) were scrubbed, depriving
educators and advocates of critical information. Grants were canceled or withdrawn. Some
turned to internal university funds or personal websites to make information accessible.
● Survivor consultants: Survivors working under federal contracts lost livelihoods when
programs (e.g., survivor engagement technical assistance) were defunded. “Gift card”
compensation offered in some cases was insulting and inadequate.
● Broader field: Loss of contracts, cancellations of travel for professionals, and low
registrations due to fear/funding restrictions weakened convenings like Summits. Even
organizations without direct federal funding felt indirect harm.
Cultural/emotional toll:
● Widespread fear, avoidance, and “freezing” – common trauma response.
● Isolation and sense of risk assessment in daily work.
● Conflicts between required job practices and personal values.
● Exhaustion and loss of hope among staff and communities.
Adaptations and resilience:
● Scholars creating open-source, accessible tools (toolkits, videos, non-academic guides).
● Survivors building support networks, albeit under duress.
● Advocates reframing language for broader audiences, stripping jargon and speaking to
“independents.”
● Drawing on historical survival strategies of marginalized groups for inspiration and courage.
Action items:
● Diversify to include foundation micro-grants, community fundraising, and grassroots
coalitions. Negotiate smaller funding packages to at least begin projects.
● Encourage academics and practitioners to create publicly available resources that can be
used by non-academic advocates.
● Reframe narratives in accessible, jargon-free ways for general communities.
● Identify allies in each state and sector; build lists of who to contact and what issues they can
influence.
● Attend task forces and meetings in numbers, bringing survivor voices along to change
dynamics.
● Use art, storytelling, and movement history to inspire action, with older generations raising
resources and younger creatives producing content.
Community Focus Group Summary
This group zoomed out to examine how entire ecosystems of services and advocacy are
being reshaped under pressure. Participants spoke candidly about the collapse of federal funding
and how competition for the remaining scraps is eroding collaboration. They also emphasized that
crisis can spark innovation: by remembering that much of this work began before federal funding
streams existed, and by embracing grassroots resilience, mutual aid, and small-scale community
organizing. There was a debate about how to balance tradition and innovation – some argued going
“back to basics” with potlucks, storytelling, and direct human connection, while others insisted that
sophisticated, new tools and evaluation frameworks must also be part of the solution. Across the
conversation was a strong theme of culture: a recognition that meaningful change requires shifting
societal values away from entertainment and consumerism toward investment in human services,
equity, and shared wellbeing. The group underscored that while policy and funding frameworks
matter, true resilience lies in relationships, community trust, and staying grounded in values.
Impact of current climate:
● Federal restrictions and banned words have shut off large amounts of funding, devastating
culturally specific and grassroots programs.
● Competition for limited resources is damaging collaboration among organizations.
● Communities are reverting to resilience strategies used before widespread federal funding
(e.g., mutual aid, volunteer-driven services).
Themes discussed:
● The loss of government support could be a chance to reimagine funding models, focusing on
community resilience and values-driven approaches. Staying “small and mighty” may be
more sustainable.
● Clear frameworks (like Positive Culture Framework) can mitigate fear by providing step-by-
step approaches to navigate executive orders and policy changes. Leadership that
communicates risk and provides autonomy builds resilience.
● Scarcity underscores the need to invest in programs that actually work, not just a variety of
services. Evaluation and evidence must drive decision-making.
● Technology and AI can be used to disseminate information widely, but concerns remain
about regulation, safety, and environmental impact. Advocates must understand and
educate communities about responsible use.
● A shift in cultural values is necessary: away from consumerism and entertainment, toward
investment in human services and community care. Storytelling and direct engagement with
donors can shift hearts and resources.
● Participants emphasized that humanity and connection must remain central. Low-cost
relationship-building—meeting in homes, potlucks, working lunches—remains one of the
most powerful strategies.
Action items:
● Convene publicly funded agencies to demonstrate impact and build broader coalitions.
● Engage donors/philanthropists directly, using compelling survivor stories and clear requests.
● Partner with universities and students for capacity-building.
● Systematize “warm handoffs” and turn them into durable, ongoing relationships.
● Build culture-shifting campaigns to redirect values toward community care.
● Adopt unifying frameworks for advocacy (e.g., PCF) to provide structure.
● Normalize grassroots gatherings as valid organizing spaces (homes, churches, schools).
www.npeiv.org | www.ivatcenters.org | www.circle4future.org