Reframing Family Connection as a Public Safety Infrastructure
By: Ann C. Tepoorten, Citizen Researcher |Volunteer Legislative Analyst | Advocate for Public Safety & Community Well-Being
-Justice; the constant and perpetual will to render each his due.
Abstract
Public safety in the United States is commonly framed as a function of policing, legislation, and institutional systems, yet decades of criminological, sociological, and developmental research point to a more fundamental truth: public safety begins in the home. No level of ordinances, legislation, or enforcement will create a safe society unless family structures are built in harmony with societies moral strong holds. Robust, stable, and connected family structures—whether nuclear, extended, or multigenerational—form the earliest and most powerful protective factors against delinquency, mental-health challenges, and future criminal justice involvement. Conversely, the absence of family cohesion is one of the strongest predictors of poor childhood outcomes. National data consistently show that a large majority of incarcerated adults were raised in single-parent households, and a striking proportion spent time in foster care during childhood. Further, well-established research shows that children residing with a non-biological parental figure—particularly a stepfather—face markedly higher risks of abuse compared to children raised by two biological parents. These patterns reflect not merely individual circumstances, but systemic weaknesses in how American society supports family connection, stability, and the social infrastructure that once anchored generations.
This article argues that family connection must be recognized as a core component of public-safety strategy, not a secondary social benefit. Children in the United States are increasingly isolated, overstimulated, and digitally tethered, yet emotionally disconnected. They are surrounded by devices, extracurricular activities, and consumer goods, but lack the relational security, intergenerational presence, and predictable routines that support healthy development. Modern families, in the pursuit of material success and convenience, have unintentionally traded connection for consumption—leaving children with fewer supportive adults and fewer behavioral anchors. The consequences are visible in rising youth mental-health crises, deteriorating behavior in schools, and escalating juvenile justice involvement. What we have done in response to rising concerns is demand more from teachers, law enforcement and more mental health resources. We as a society have shrugged our narcissistic shoulders in apathy and have declared, “Well, what do they expect me to do?”
The findings presented here suggest that meaningful and sustainable improvements in public safety will not emerge from additional legislation or expanded punitive structures alone. Instead, they require a cultural and policy pivot: a moral reinvestment in families as the first, most effective, and most enduring public-safety institution. Strengthening family networks—through community support, intergenerational living, culturally grounded practices, and policies that prioritize time, stability, and connection over materialism—offers one of the nation’s clearest pathways toward healthier children and safer communities. Public safety begins at home, and its restoration depends on rebuilding the family infrastructures that once held communities strong.
For decades, policymakers have focused heavily on policing, courts, and correctional systems as the primary mechanisms of public safety. Yet an expanding body of research in criminology, sociology, and child development has repeatedly demonstrated that the family—not the criminal justice system—is the true front line of public safety. Children who grow up in stable, nurturing, and well-connected family environments show significantly lower rates of delinquency, substance use, violent behavior, and long-term justice involvement than those raised in environments marked by instability, absence, or weak attachment (Sampson & Laub, 1993; Hirschi, 1969).
My own experience reflects this. I grew up surrounded by a network of parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and community friends whose consistent presence and oversight created an everyday culture of safety and belonging. Love was expressed in practical gestures: a reminder to take a jacket, a ride offered without hesitation, leftovers packed into a container before you even asked. Discipline, when needed, came not from the police or teachers but from the adults who loved me most. This structure—predictable, loving, and intergenerational—shaped behavior far more effectively than any external authority ever could.
The erosion of such structures is not simply a cultural shift; it is a public-safety crisis. As family fragmentation increases, so too do youth mental-health struggles, behavioral instability, and criminal justice involvement. The evidence is overwhelming: public safety is inseparable from the safety, structure, and emotional security a child experiences at home.
Family Structure and Delinquency
Family structure has long been identified as one of the strongest predictors of juvenile delinquency. Children raised in single-parent households are statistically more likely to engage in antisocial behavior, struggle academically, and become involved in the justice system (Harper & McLanahan, 2004). Approximately 70% of inmates incarcerated in U.S. prisons report growing up in a single-parent home (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2016).
Family instability—divorce, multiple partners, frequent moves—correlates strongly with youth behavior problems. Sampson and Laub (1993) found that weakened parental supervision and disrupted attachment are among the most powerful predictors of juvenile offending, even after controlling for socioeconomic status.
The Role of Foster Care and State Intervention
Children raised outside of their biological families face significantly higher risks of future criminal justice involvement. Approximately 80% of inmates report spending time in foster care or experiencing significant family disruption (National Institute of Justice, 2017). Foster youth are also disproportionately represented in juvenile justice systems, with rates of delinquency 2–3 times higher than their peers (Ryan & Testa, 2005).
The Stepparent Risk Factor
Evolutionary psychologists Daly and Wilson (1985, 1996) identified what is often called the Cinderella effect: children living with a step-parent—especially a stepfather—are at dramatically increased risk of physical or sexual abuse. Meta-analyses demonstrate that the risk of severe physical harm is significantly higher in step-parent households compared to two-biological-parent homes (Daly & Wilson, 1996; Temrin et al., 2000). While the magnitude varies by study, the trend is consistent and robust: biological investment matters, and non-biological caregivers are statistically more likely to perpetrate abuse.
Multigenerational and Extended Family Support
Cultures that maintain strong intergenerational ties—such as Hispanic, Asian, and many Indigenous communities—show protective effects against youth delinquency (Zitzow, 1990; Guttmannova et al., 2017). Three-generation households reduce the transmission of violence, improve child supervision, and enhance emotional resilience (Kong et al., 2021). Family cohesion, cultural identity, and increased adult monitoring combine to create stability that formal institutions struggle to replicate.
Attachment, Routine, and Mental Health
Attachment theory and decades of developmental research highlight that children need consistent emotional availability, predictable routines, and secure attachment figures to thrive (Bowlby, 1988; Ainsworth, 1979). When these needs go unmet, risk factors cascade: anxiety, depression, behavioral outbursts, substance misuse, school failure, and eventually criminal justice involvement.
Children in the United States today are increasingly deprived of the very resources that protect them. Research shows rising loneliness, social isolation, and screen addiction among American youth (Twenge et al., 2019). Material abundance has not compensated for emotional and relational scarcity.
Family Connection as Public-Safety Infrastructure
The evidence points to a simple but profound conclusion: families are the original—and most effective—public-safety institution. Strong family networks regulate behavior, transmit cultural norms, supervise children, support emotional health, and provide economic buffering during crises.
When families break down, societal systems must attempt to replicate what healthy households naturally provide—usually unsuccessfully. Schools, social services, law enforcement, and juvenile courts have become de facto substitutes for family systems, but they cannot replace the ongoing influence of consistent, loving, and connected caregivers.
The Limits of Policy-Driven Approaches
Despite billions spent annually on policing, incarceration, school security, and mental health systems, the outcomes for youth continue to worsen. These investments treat the symptoms of family breakdown, not the cause. Without strengthening families, the nation will continue to see:
- worsening child mental health
- increased behavioral problems
- higher rates of youth crime
- continued strain on public systems
A Cultural and Policy Pivot
America does not need more restrictions, more policies, or more surveillance. It needs a reinvestment in the relationships that keep children safe long before systems intervene. This includes:
- Encouraging and supporting multigenerational households
- Expanding flexible work
- Providing incentives for kinship care rather than stranger foster care or day care.
- Increasing access to parent education and community supports
- Establishing a spiritual connection from which to derive ethical accountability
- Creating community-based hubs for extended family engagement
Children need fewer devices and more adults. They need less classroom time and more play time. They need fewer practices and more “let’s get lost in the woods.” They need unconditional belonging, predictable routines, and emotionally available caregivers.
Public safety begins at home. Without repairing the foundational family structures that provide children with stability, supervision, and love, America will continue to face entrenched challenges in mental health, education, and crime. Local, state and federal budgets will continue to be strained as we seek more dependence on the government fixing our problems. The research is clear: a society that strengthens families strengthens public safety. The path to safer communities is not more punitive institutions—it is rebuilding the family infrastructures that make those institutions less necessary.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1979). Infant–mother attachment. American Psychologist, 34(10), 932–937.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1985). Child abuse and other risks of not living with both parents. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6(4), 197–210.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1996). Violence against stepchildren. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5(3), 77–81.
Guttmannova, K., et al. (2017). Assessment of risk and protection in Native American youth. Child Development, 88(4), 1112–1126.
Harper, C., & McLanahan, S. (2004). Father absence and youth incarceration. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14(3), 369–397.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.
Kong, J., et al. (2021). The moderating role of three-generation households in the intergenerational transmission of violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(21–22), NP11805–NP11827.
National Institute of Justice. (2017). Foster care and juvenile justice involvement: A systematic review.
Ryan, J. P., & Testa, M. F. (2005). Child maltreatment and juvenile delinquency: Investigating the role of placement and placement instability. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(3), 227–249.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press.
Temrin, H., Buchmayer, S., & Enquist, M. (2000). Step-parental care and child abuse: An evolutionary perspective. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 267(1457), 1347–1352.
Twenge, J. M., et al. (2019). Age, period, and cohort trends in mood disorder indicators. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(2), 119–133.
U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2016). Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities.
Zitzow, D. (1990). Ojibway adolescent time spent with parents/elders and delinquency. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 4(3), 23–39.
Hot Takes No One Asked For 
Leave a comment