This is a question we are frequently asked. Examples of uptake of specific reframing strategies developed through FrameWorks research are numerous. Advocates on a range of progressive policy positions -- from Universal PreK to juvenile detention alternatives to marine sanctuaries -- have used FrameWorks research and recommendations to inform legislation, push for adoption of evidence-based approaches, and protect critical programs from budget pressures.  

The clearest example of uptake of our research and the resulting impact on public discourse is the metaphor Toxic Stress. Since we developed this reframe in partnership with the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (an outgrowth of the MacArthur Research Network on Early Experience and Brain Development) in 2005, the term has been diffused widely and has contributed to reframing the conversation on early adversity.

The phrase "toxic stress" as related to children appears in over 3,000 journal articles listed in Google Scholar. The term has been introduced into legislation at the state and federal level, served as an organizing principle for a major position paper of the American Academy of Pediatrics, been built into public awareness campaign materials, appeared in major media outlets and featured prominently in TED talks -- all evidence that a reframed, productive understanding of the effects of adversity are moving into public discourse, building public will for more effective policies and programs aligned with the science.  

And now, this just in:  

California Assembly Concurrent Resolution 155 to reduce toxic stress passes with a 34-0 vote!  

What is the recipe for success? Strong Science plus evidence-based reframes plus smart advocates.  

Sign up to stay up to date with FrameWorks.