Black Families Define Protective Community Resources That Support Their Well-being

Protective community resources (PCRs) are elements within a community that can have a positive and significant influence on children’s growth and development. PCRs include various people (e.g., educators and peers), places (e.g., playgrounds and libraries), and things (e.g., social services and extracurricular activities). Previously, we introduced a bibliographic tool to examine 172 studies on PCRs. A systematic review of these studies and a related brief identified several limitations that include:

• An overreliance on quantitative survey designs
• A lack of studies centering the voices of children, youth, and families
• A lack of research on how racially and ethnically diverse groups of children, youth, and families access and experience PCRs

To address these limitations, we collaborated with the National Black Child Development Institute (NBCDI)—an organization that has promoted the healthy development and well-being of Black children and families for over 50 years[1]—to conduct a community mapping study on PCRs with Black families with children from birth to age 17.

The study sought to answer three key questions:

1. How do Black families with children define PCRs?
2. What benefits do they receive from these resources?
3. What PCRs do they identify as being desirable but largely inaccessible?

---

Findings

Participant-identified PCRs

Participants identified PCRs through map drawings and focus group discussions. Based on the definition of PCRs shared with participants at the beginning of the study, we categorized these PCRs as people, places, or things.

People

Almost half of the participants (45%) identified family network members—including neighbors, friends, and extended family members and fictive kin—as sources of protection and well-being for their families. Nearly one in five participants (18%) identified health and human services professionals such as social workers, case managers, mental health counselors, and behavioral therapists. Multiple participants named one or more educational professionals from early care providers to university faculty (11%), as well as informal and formal advisors (9%), who served as coaches, pastors, and mentors in their communities.

Places

Places (i.e., various facilities and locations) was the largest category of PCRs. Of note, participants in the West and Northeast regions of the United States named more specific PCRs in this category than those in the Midwest and South.[5] Across regions, most participants (84%) named recreational areas and green spaces (e.g., parks, pools, and community centers) as protective resources for their families. More than three quarters of the participants (77%) identified schools and other educational and cultural facilities such as libraries and cultural centers. Forty-three percent of participants named religious institutions, and the same percentage described food and grocery outlets (including grocery stores, food pantries, and community gardens) as places promoting their families’ well-being. Two in five participants (41%) identified the houses of their families and friends as places of comfort, joy, and protection. One in four named community-based and public and social service organizations, and slightly more (27%) identified large and small businesses as protective resources. Finally, over 10 percent of respondents described health and wellness centers (14%) and jobs and workplaces (11%) as places advancing family protection and well-being in their communities.

Things

Most things that participants identified as protective fell into three areas. Two in five participants (41%) identified advisement and extracurricular activities (e.g., arts, sports, mentoring, and coaching) as protective community resources. Another 34 percent named cultural and community connections such as love, respect, compassion, and belonging. Finally, 30 percent of participants named essential services and assistance—including high-quality, affordable housing and public transportation and infrastructure—as community resources protecting the well-being of their families.

Perceptions of the benefits of PCRs and any risks associated with limited access

Participants described the distinct, yet mutually reinforcing, benefits of the protective people, places, and things in their communities. These benefits centered around health, safety, and positive child and youth development. Participants also described the risks to child and family well-being when PCRs were limited or inaccessible.

People

Participants associated family networks with several benefits; these included providing child supervision, promoting social connections, and serving as role models and mentors. Health and human services professionals, such as case workers and social service providers, were described as important for linking families to essential services and helping parents navigate difficult life decisions and circumstances, such as determining when to return to work after childbirth and how to identify high-quality, affordable child care. The benefits associated with supportive educational professionals included academic support, guidance, and caring discipline for children and youth. In particular, women educators were valued as “other mothers,” investing in children often until (or even through) emerging adulthood. Additionally, natural mentors and advisors, like coaches, were described as safe adults with whom children and youth could communicate, and whom parents and caregivers relied on to assist in their children’s development.

As previously noted, within this category of PCRs, participants most consistently described family networks as providing essential benefits for themselves and their children. In contrast, when family networks were described as “small” or “limited,” participants reported feelings of isolation, mental stress, and an inability to take full advantage of educational and professional opportunities.

Places

As previously noted, places was the largest PCR category identified by participants. A commonly mentioned benefit of many locations was their safety, which participants viewed as fundamental to their families’ well-being. From recreational and green spaces like parks to educational and cultural facilities such as libraries, parents and caregivers emphasized their value as safe places for children to learn, live, and grow—and for families to experience joyous life moments and events. Participants also described the homes of family members and religious organizations such as churches as spaces for multigenerational guidance, support, and belonging. Community-based organizations, public and social service agencies, and food and grocery outlets helped families meet their basic needs such as food, shelter, and clothing.

Additionally, participants described various benefits associated with local businesses and jobs, highlighting their role in enhancing community vitality by providing goods, services, and spaces for social interaction. They also noted that these businesses contribute to economic security for families and offer potential work experiences for youth. Several families—particularly those with children experiencing health conditions like asthma, autism, or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder—identified health and wellness facilities (including hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies) as essential protective resources. These facilities provided families with accessible medical care, therapeutic services, and early interventions.

Families without access to these places reported unmanaged health conditions and limited emotional and behavioral support. They also reported fewer opportunities for artistic development and positive racial identity formation. Finally, they described the inaccessibility of these spaces as a factor diminishing their opportunities to experience family togetherness and joy.

Things

Participants described the benefits of the protective things in their communities primarily in terms of keeping their children active and out of danger, and helping them realize their goals and potential. For example, when recounting the benefits of advisement and extracurricular activities, participants described the sense of accomplishment their children experienced in sports, arts, and entrepreneurial activities, as well as the mental health and social rewards. Participants also emphasized that cultural and community connections offered significant mental and emotional benefits. They noted that, while these connections are more challenging to establish and maintain today than in the past, they remain just as crucial for the well-being of children and families. Finally, when discussing the importance of essential services and assistance, they noted the sense of security their families experienced in having suitable clothing, reliable transportation, and healthy food.

Participants further shared that a lack of access to protective things limited their children’s opportunities to develop life skills and talents. For example, participants described how a lack of cultural and community connections diminished their families’ resilience and overall quality of life. Additionally, these parents and caregivers reported that, without essential services like affordable housing, they felt as if they were failing their children. In this context, they emphasized the importance of culturally responsive and respectful interactions with service providers that did not make them feel ‘demeaned’ or ‘stereotyped.’

---

Discussion and Conclusion

Key findings from our community mapping study on PCRs conducted with 44 Black parents and caregivers highlight how policymakers and practitioners can promote the well-being of Black children and families. Supporting family and social networks, investing in neighborhood amenities, promoting community business development, and providing social services to meet families’ basic needs are strategies that can help ensure that Black children and families have the resources they need to thrive.

Several local and state initiatives are underway that hold promise for creating the protective communities that participants desire for their children and families. Such initiatives showcase the importance of community engagement in creating more protective communities for Black children and families, and underscore the necessity of multi-sector collaboration in reversing historical disinvestment in Black communities.

• Minnesota’s Whole Family Systems Initiative is a collaboration among state agencies, local organizations, families, and communities to support comprehensive, multi-generational approaches to family well-being. With a focus on racial equity, the initiative seeks to preserve and strengthen families while expanding their social capital (i.e., the interpersonal relationships that foster mutual benefit).
• Through Rebuild, an initiative largely funded through a beverage tax, Philadelphia has invested over $400 million in its parks, recreation centers, and libraries—prioritizing communities that have suffered years of deferred maintenance and lack of investment. The initiative also includes a workforce development component to increase the percentage of underrepresented groups engaged in reconstructing and revitalizing the city’s amenities.
• In a community-led effort to address the lack of healthy food options in Fairfield, Alabama, Urban Hope Community Church and a veteran of the supermarket industry, James Harris, used start-up funding from nonprofit ministries to establish Carver Jones Market, the first grocery store to offer fresh produce and meats in the predominantly Black city in over a decade.
• Community land trusts are a way to promote land stewardship for the benefit of local communities. The Africatown Community Land Trust in Seattle, Washington—a collaboration of real estate professionals, business executives, entrepreneurs, other professionals, and community members—has helped promote business development and economic revitalization in the city’s historically Black Central District.

To ensure the success, sustainability, and expansion of such initiatives, it is essential to rigorously examine factors that facilitate or hinder their implementation. Studies are also needed to document initiatives’ short and long-term effects on the well-being of Black children and families. Thus, focused research to inform policy and practice can play a crucial role in building protective communities that foster Black children and families’ progress, hope, and joy.

---

---

Footnotes

[1] See “Decade: 1970-1979” in Sanders et al., 2024, A 100-Year Review of Research on Black Families, Volume II: 1970-2019.

[2] The study was designed to include five participants at each site. However, some sites recruited more than five participants, and we made accommodations to include them. In Nashville, there were seven participants and in Seattle and Tampa there were six participants.

[3] Approximately 7 percent of participants preferred not to share their annual household incomes.

[4] While participants differed in several ways—including by age, income, and geographic location—they were similar in other respects. Most resided in urban and suburban neighborhoods, identified as cisgender men and women, and were born in the United States. This highlights the need for more intentional efforts to examine PCRs for Black children and families, particularly those in rural areas and within LGBTQ+ and immigrant communities.

[5] The average number of named PCRs in the “Places” category was 20.5 in the West, 13.5 in the Northeast, 7.5 in the Midwest, and 6.5 in the South.