Think Tank 2025 ​- Report

Discover the latest insights and innovative strategies in the fight against intimate partner and interpersonal violence with the Think Tank 2025 report. Hosted by leading organizations such as the National Partnership to End Interpersonal Violence Across the Lifespan (NPEIV), the Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma (IVAT), and the Coalition for Inclusion, Resilience, Change, and Lasting Equity (CIRCLE), and sponsored by Ruby’s Place and Action Ohio, this influential gathering brought together experts from diverse fields committed to ending violence across all stages of life.
This report offers a comprehensive overview of the discussions, findings, and recommendations from the 2025 Think Tank held in San Diego. It emphasizes the importance of collaboration, research integration, and policy advocacy in advancing the National Plan to prevent and intervene in interpersonal violence. Whether you are a practitioner, policymaker, researcher, or advocate, this report provides valuable insights into current challenges and promising strategies to create safer, healthier communities.
​
Read on to explore how collective efforts across disciplines are shaping the future of violence prevention and what steps are needed to make meaningful impact. Together, we can move closer to a violence-free society.
2025_think_tank_executive_summary.pdf
File Size: 502 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

Executive Summary
​​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
​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.

Open 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).

Back to Reports

Picture
The Coalition for Inclusion, Resilience, Change, and Lasting Equity
Contact: ​[email protected]
Copyright 2025 The Circle. 
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy