August 13, 2025 • 30 mins
In this episode of The Shift: Voices of Prevention, internationally renowned psychiatrist and neuroscientist Dr. Bruce Perry—co-author of the groundbreaking bestseller What Happened to You?—explores how shifting our focus from crisis response to early intervention can change the trajectory of countless lives.
With clarity and conviction, Dr. Perry unpacks the science of prevention, the power of human connection, and why investing in the creation of supportive environments for children and families isn’t just smart economics —it’s the foundation for generational change.
"If we can change the odds for children before harm occurs, we’re not just preventing problems—we’re creating potential." — Dr. Bruce Perry
Tune in for a thought-provoking conversation that blends science, compassion, and actionable hope.
Subscribe for more episodes
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_02 (00:09):
This is The Shift Voices of Prevention, a podcast
from Prevent Child AbuseAmerica, where we explore bold
ideas, cultural change, and whatit truly means to support
children and families.
Join us to change the narrativeone conversation at a time.
Hello, and welcome to the ShiftVoices of Prevention, recording
live from PCA America's 2025National Conference in Portland,
(00:32):
Oregon.
I'm Nathan Fink, and I'm LukeWaldo.
And today on the podcast, we'reexcited to be joined by Dr.
Bruce Perry, renownedpsychiatrist and senior fellow
of the Child Trauma Academy inHouston, Texas, as well as
adjunct professor of psychiatryand behavioral sciences at the
Feinberg School of Medicine inChicago.
He is also the co-vice chair ofthe PCA America Board of
(00:53):
Directors, where he plays avital role in advancing the
organization's mission.
Dr.
Perry's groundbreaking work onchildhood trauma and brain
development continues to shapehow we understand and support
children's emotional andpsychological well-being.
Dr.
Perry, welcome to the show.
SPEAKER_00 (01:08):
Thank you very much.
SPEAKER_02 (01:09):
Happy to be here.
So your research has shaped howwe understand the brain,
adversity, and healing, as wellas communities.
At its heart, it also gives us aroadmap for prevention, which of
course this conference is allabout.
So a broad question to set thefloor for our listeners.
What does the science tell usabout the importance of
prevention efforts as early aspossible?
SPEAKER_00 (01:29):
Aaron Ross Powell Well, you know, I think most
folks have a generalappreciation that in almost any
area it's a lot easier toprevent a problem than it is to
solve a problem.
And I think that this iscertainly true about growing up.
You know, if early on in lifeyou are given opportunities for
(01:52):
learning and for developingsocial skills, as you get older,
all of that will serve you wellin school and with friends and
in clubs.
And then there's this kind ofcompounding impact that having a
friend lets you have morefriends.
And then having more friendsgives you more opportunities to
(02:12):
learn about all manner of socialengagement.
So the getting a good start isessentially a little bit like
being at the top of a bigmountain with a little snowball.
That, you know, if if you kindof are standing at the very top
and you start and you roll itdown the hill, you're gonna get
(02:34):
a nice big thing.
If you stand halfway up the hilland you go, oh, you know, we
want to make a big impact, butyou're only halfway up the hill,
you've already sort of walkedall the way down before you
start making your littlesnowball to roll it down the
hill, you're gonna have lessimpact.
And that's really um a generalphenomenon in any biological
(02:55):
system, human beings,organizations.
Um so prevention, preventing uhthe process that you're
interested in from going astrayis uh a lot more effective than
trying to deal with the effectsof something going astray.
SPEAKER_02 (03:17):
Aaron Ross Powell I love the metaphor of the the
hill, right?
And I think that is really aptbecause it seems like as a
society, as our policy kind ofwe formulate it, we have this
vista that it only allows forthe top.
SPEAKER_00 (03:32):
Right.
SPEAKER_02 (03:33):
Right?
And so that's the thing that Ikeep wrestling with because I'm
like, obviously.
What you're saying is so obviousto the baseline systems, and yet
it is so hard for us to actuallyembrace.
So do we just have thispredilection towards summits?
SPEAKER_00 (03:49):
Well, the f that's a that's a good question.
Um I think part of the issue isthat people tend to view the
world and and problems fromtheir frame of reference, from
where they're standing.
And so by and large, really, youknow, 40, 50, 60 years ago, uh,
(04:12):
the majority of people that weref solving problems around
education, child welfare, mentalhealth were looking at it
through the lenses of an adult.
And you know, there was some lipservice given to children, but
children were kind of viewed asthese uh relatively passive
little creatures.
(04:33):
Uh they were viewed asresilient, so you can say things
around them, and when they'rebabies, they can't talk, so they
don't understand, which is notreally true.
So we had a fundamentalmisunderstanding about um these
things that we now know aboutthe incredible malleability and
power of early childhood.
(04:53):
And, you know, there's there'stwo things that have really
happened in the preventionworld.
One is that as this knowledgehas become more available, there
have been changes in policy.
However, systems take many,many, many years to change.
And so the development of all ofwhat we know about the
(05:17):
importance of early childhoodand brain development, you know,
we knew this 30, 40 years ago.
And we tried, there was a bigpublic engagement campaign to
teach people and policymakersabout this, and there was really
a little bit of uptake.
And but over the years, it'sthat uptake has changed and
changed and changed and gottenbetter.
But I think part of ourchallenge is that the rate of
(05:38):
change in systems is much slowerthan the rate of change in
people.
So you can find a policymaker,teach them about this, and then
go, oh, this is reallyimportant.
And they'll go, I want to act onthis.
And then they'll come up againstthis big bureaucratic mess of
policy and practice, and that'swhy it takes a longer time.
So I think that's one of thethings that we're running into
(05:59):
in this field right now.
SPEAKER_01 (06:01):
So working off of that, you often emphasize
relational connection as centralto healing and resilience and
development, for that matter,which becomes even more resonant
when we consider, for example,the Surgeon General's recent
report coming out of thepandemic on the epidemic of
loneliness and social isolation,the uh boom of our technologies
(06:24):
that are in many ways replacingkind of social connection uh
with actual humans in our lives,right?
And the destructive impacts theyhave on individuals and
communities.
And yet many of our systems, asyou've just mentioned, which are
composed of people, right, um,whether that's schools,
hospitals, or governmentagencies like child welfare,
(06:46):
they can feel transactionalbecause of the fact that they're
made up of humans who are, ofcourse, relying more and more on
technology and are being raisedagain in homes that are
shrinking, as you mentioned inyour presentation today.
Considering your experience,right, how would you advise a
(07:07):
school district or a healthsystem or a child welfare
agency, and what are some keyactions you'd recommend to embed
relational health practices intheir everyday practices and in
their broader kind of policiesand procedures?
SPEAKER_00 (07:23):
Well, you know, fortunately, uh I we actually do
as an organization, our the thecommunity I work with, we are
given many opportunities to dojust that.
We work in mental healthsettings, child welfare,
educational settings, even incorporate environments.
And, you know, the one of thefirst things that we try to do
is is help the leaders in thosesystems better understand the
(07:50):
power of connectedness.
You know, that really you want,you know, let's take a
corporation, right?
You want to make money.
The the truth is you'll makemore money if you treat the
people in your system better.
And in educators, you want kidsto graduate and do well
academically.
You'll do better if you createrelationally sensitive and
supportive uh policies andpractices.
(08:13):
And I think when we talk, whenwe teach about this, people
generally are open, but they'realso under tremendous pressure
for performance.
And so when you're underpressure for performance, it's
very hard to change what you do.
So we start by just recommendingvery simple introductory things.
(08:35):
What we do, the our group thatworks in the corporate
environments, for example, is wesay, listen, have a two-minute
conversation.
Um, make look at all the peoplethat report to you, figure out a
schedule when you can have atwo-minute in-person
conversation with, you know, tenof them a week, right?
And if you have more than 10report direct reports, you
(08:58):
should re-evaluate your system.
Um, you know, you need to thinkabout stuff like you're wasting
time in meetings, um, you're nothaving sort of fully present
moments with somebody.
And when when you give them thistiny little recommendation, it's
amazing how the the outliterally we see economic
(09:18):
outcomes in corporations relatedto productivity, related to
employee satisfaction, relatedto less turnover, related to
better communication in thesystem.
And it it's the great thingabout doing something, creating
a practice that takes advantageof our normal biological desire,
(09:43):
it goes like wildfire.
It's it's it it begins to becomemore than a two-minute
conversation.
It becomes, wow, I had a reallynice talk with my boss.
And he sees me, he knows what Ido, he asked me about my kids.
And he came back the next weekand said, How's so-and-so doing?
Did he make the team?
And that that glue, thatrelational glue, is what makes
(10:06):
groups of human beings functioneffectively.
And this is true whether or notit's education or mental health
or you know, selling widgets orwhatever it is you want to sell.
And so that's what we do very wea little bit of education,
because it nobody likes to betold what to do without
understanding why.
So if we give them a little bitof the why, and and it helps
(10:26):
when we talk about the brain,because the brain's interesting,
and for many people it feels andand this is probably not fair,
but it feels more like sciencethan when you talk about social
science or psychology, um, whicha lot of people have weird
biases about.
(10:46):
We're saying the same thing, butif you use kind of brain
examples, people go, oh, thebrain.
So that's what we do, a littlebit of psychoeducation, and then
a few practical uhrecommendations about how to act
on that.
SPEAKER_02 (10:59):
Luke, you had mentioned systems are made of
people, right?
And so as you were sayingearlier on when I asked that
question about the summit aboutchanging these kind of mental
models of how we, you know, areapproaching this, we run
oftentimes into ourselves,right?
So it's hard to escape that.
So as you embed some of theserecommendations from the top, a
(11:22):
lot of the work that I had donepreviously is in the meetings
then with the people in themiddle and at the bottom, right?
So do you have any thoughts ongetting from system then into
the everyday to the person who'sactually picking up the phone
and part then of a user'sexperience of the system itself?
SPEAKER_00 (11:42):
Right.
Well, this is why when we do ourwork, we typically our work we
will we will want to do work atevery level of the way they're
organized.
And we have found, by and large,that if you have both a
bottom-up um process wherethere's collaborative uh
(12:04):
engagement and you you ask thepeople on the front lines what
part of this makes sense to you?
How would you act on this?
What should we do?
It's a collaborative process.
Um and then at the top, youengage them so they understand
the rationale of what you'redoing.
And a lot of times you'resuccessful at the top if you
(12:26):
just neutralize the inhibitorytendency to say no to anything
new, which is kind of whathappens.
So um all of that is onlypossible if in this process they
trust us.
So we work on the very thing, weit's a parallel process, right?
(12:51):
We know that a frontline uhsteel worker is like gonna see
me as some shrink, and they'relike, why the hell should I
listen to this guy?
And we see, you know, yousomebody that's forced to come
to a meeting with these mentalhealth people, you go when I
would listen to this bullshit.
Um we know the people at the topare like, uh, another another
stupid coaching thing I gottalisten to.
(13:12):
Um you have to form realrelationships, and then you have
to do work together.
You have to be in the work withthem.
And so once people see thecredibility of, you know, form a
relationship, see that there'ssome credibility to what you're
saying, then it can really takeoff.
So this is how, you know, how weended up working with the FBI.
(13:33):
You know, we work with people inthe military.
In the beginning, it's like, whois this guy?
But we typically get into thesesettings because someone from
the FBI says, I've worked withthis guy, he's solid.
And so it's one of those anyfriend of mine is a friend of
yours, you know.
So, but but if I had come intothose situations cold, it just
(13:56):
wouldn't have worked.
SPEAKER_02 (13:57):
Yeah, it wouldn't have.
No, and I think that's theinstinct.
And part of me, when I as I'mlistening to this, it makes me
want to flip it then, becauseall of a sudden I'm very aware
of the times we're in.
So then taking that, and we'vegot a super leadership.
We got a super top, right?
So now we're on the bottom, butthen pivoting all the way up.
What do we do now to span thegap if we have government
(14:19):
systems that don't seem to beresponsive to even that economic
engine that's driving thesociety?
Do you have any thoughts onthat?
SPEAKER_00 (14:29):
Well, let me just say this
influencing policymakers forover 40 years, and miserably at
that.
Um I'm not kidding, really.
I mean, I it's interesting.
I've been given manyopportunities, right?
You know, talk to presidents,talked to senators, talked to
national governors associations,and the interesting thing is the
(14:53):
uptake of what I have to say orwhat other people that are with
me have to say is tremendouslyvariable.
And if there isn't some personalanchor to the topic, it just is
like more noise for them.
So, for example, 30 years ago,when I was working with Rob
(15:15):
Reiner and we were involved inthis public engagement campaign
about early childhood braindevelopment, we there were some
senators that were like all overthis, both sides of the aisle.
They were grandfathers and theyhad seen some of this stuff
happen.
And then there were some peoplethat younger who had not were
not yet, you know, they didn'thave like young kids and they
(15:38):
were not, they just they kind ofwere respectful, but they're
like, whatever.
Right.
And so it's incredibly dependentupon relationships.
And if a person in a position ofinfluence doesn't have some
contextual connection to whatyou're trying to communicate, it
just doesn't, it doesn't stick.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02 (15:56):
Yeah, there's to me, I mean that it I'm annoyingly
optimistic.
It means to me that there'shumans in there, though.
And those humans then have thatexperience that that is part of
the obligation of the work thatwe're doing is to remember that.
Humans live here, regardless ofwhat it is we're talking about.
SPEAKER_00 (16:16):
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
Some of the most interesting andpositive progressive policy
around foster care and childwelfare was supported and passed
by one of the mostarch-conservative uh uh
senators, along with um HillaryClinton.
And they worked together tocreate, you know, the law and
(16:37):
wrote the law and and andpromoted policies that made
positive changes in the field.
And it really had to do with umthe ability to come together uh
with a shared understanding ofwhat's good for kids.
And it really was not, you know,uh on almost any other area of
policy, you know, you'd peoplewould look at either one of
(16:59):
them, you know, depending uponwhich side of the aisle you're
on and go, oh, that person.
But they were able to cometogether on that.
And I think that that is ahopeful thing.
Although I have to say, that hasbeen much harder to see in the
last 15 years.
There's so much morepolarization, I think.
SPEAKER_01 (17:15):
Right, right.
So I want to stay on thisconversation for just a moment
longer, uh, because I I think alot about the challenges in the
prevention field.
Um I I previously worked in thedomestic violence world and but
was doing generational kind ofprevention work, right?
Working with children who'd beenexposed to domestic violence,
(17:35):
for example.
And that work at that time wasmuch more difficult to get
funded than, say, uh domesticviolence shelter work, right?
Because again, policymakers andso on would could see the
impacts today on theirinvestment uh through that
investment in in a shelterversus what's going to happen to
(17:56):
this four-year-old that you'redoing education with when
they're 20 years old and in arelationship will it have had
the impact?
SPEAKER_00 (18:03):
Right.
SPEAKER_01 (18:04):
You, on the other hand, have done a lot of work in
this space of research on thethe longitudinal impacts of
prevention.
Can you talk a little bit abouthow that has evolved,
recognizing that we're in a verypolarized time politically, but
had you seen progress in thatregard in in response to the
(18:26):
growth in understanding of theimpacts of prevention work on
future generations?
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00 (18:31):
You know, I I just I I wish I could get tell you
great stories.
SPEAKER_01 (18:36):
That's fair.
SPEAKER_00 (18:37):
Here's the dilemma.
And and I I'm actually workingon a book, and I have been for a
few years, about sort of theneurobiological elements of
group functioning that result insystems being extremely
difficult to change, much harderto change than individuals.
(18:58):
So, like if I have anopportunity to sit with somebody
and talk with them, form arelationship, I can actually get
them to the point where thatperson feels safe enough,
respected enough, that they'reopen to the idea, they'll
consider it, they'll think itthrough, they might literally
change their mind.
Systems are bigger than that,and they they have mechanisms to
(19:20):
inhibit change.
You know, all see-and again,this is part of the natural
reality of any physiologicalsystem in equilibrium.
There are systems, there aremechanisms that want to put you
back in equilibrium.
So the status quo of a group isvery hard to change, and there
(19:43):
are lots of mechanisms that keepmaintain the status quo.
So this is one of the thingsthat I, you know, in the
beginning I was very optimistic.
I'm like, hey, we'll just tellyou what, you know, the research
shows what's good for kids.
That's it.
They'll go, bing, we'll do that.
Let's change that.
They're like, no, we won't.
Um, and like, oh, okay.
But this is the, you know, theone of my favorite examples
(20:06):
around that is around ineducation.
Um American educationalresearchers have shown all kinds
of things about what would bereally good to improve outcomes,
but American educational systemswill not act on that
(20:27):
information.
One of my favorite stories is auh researcher, or actually an
educator from Finland came overto the United States, went to
Stanford School of EducationEducation to get advanced
training, because Finland was atthe bottom of the Western
countries in all these academicmetrics.
So he goes there and like fiveyears later they change
(20:47):
everything, and and all of asudden they're at the top.
Somebody from Stanford is forthis like alumni magazine is
interviewing me, interviewingthe guy at the ice.
He says, Well, how did you dothat?
He said, Well, I just came tothe United States and I saw all
the research done by Americanresearchers about what was good,
and we implemented it.
So now they have shorter days,they professionalize education,
(21:10):
they get paid more, educatorsget paid more, they don't test
as much, they spend a lot oftime outdoors, all the stuff
that, you know, we did theresearch to show that that's
effective for cognitiveacquisition of information, but
we will not act on it.
We still use taking recess awayas a punishment.
We still use the whole class ispunished if one kid does a bad
thing.
(21:30):
We still use contingency-basedum, you know, reward systems
that we know don't work verywell.
So it's that's part of thedilemma is that all of these
systems that we have that we'vecreated with good intentions now
are kind of they have a life oftheir own and they have a power
of their own.
(21:50):
And you can bring in a newsuperintendent, you can bring in
a new principal, and they canwork and work and work and work,
but fighting the status quo isexhausting and it will eat you
up and it will spit you out.
So change is incremental.
It can happen, but it takestime.
SPEAKER_02 (22:06):
Yeah.
So the mechanism that youmentioned to remain in
equilibrium, have you been ableto break that mechanism apart to
see its component pieces?
And if so, what are you finding?
SPEAKER_00 (22:18):
Aaron Powell Well, there's a couple things.
You know, and again, you willnot be surprised that it it
boils down to people, right?
So here's kind of what happensis that if you envision this
pyramidal powered, you know,typical organizational chart,
right?
At the top is just a couplepeople and then in the middle
and then the bottom.
(22:38):
The people at the top, once youget to the top, you have a
certain view of the world.
And usually your view of theworld is something that centers
you, that involves the systemaccumulating resources and power
and taking it up to you.
(22:59):
And so it's the very rare personwho is open-minded enough to
actually see that we need tochange something that will take
power away from me.
SPEAKER_02 (23:11):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (23:12):
And so what happens is the major shifts we see are
when those people at the top arereplaced either because they
retire or they're kicked out orthey die.
And then people who are youngerand who have been exposed to
other ideas that they haven'tbeen able to quite act on get up
(23:35):
to the top, and now they say,you know what, let's do this.
And so what happens is there'sthis 30-year process of what
they learned when they were inschool, it was just coming out,
and they percolate up throughthe system and they get to be a
leader.
We're gonna do something thatwas new 30 years ago.
(23:55):
And it just happens.
And so there's this weird30-year cycle that's kind of
dependent upon the life cycle ofthe leadership.
SPEAKER_02 (24:03):
Yeah.
That's it's fascinating becauseI all of a sudden I was thinking
of, say, that individual in myhead, of what is their then
relationship to identity andcareer.
Or say down the line, thepressure is fear.
SPEAKER_00 (24:16):
Fear.
Fear is fear.
Both of those.
You know, but both of whathappens is kind of your brain
kind of organizes around whatyou thought would work.
And then when this is the waythat our brain works, right?
Once you sort of think you'vefigured it out, any piece of
evidence that suggestsotherwise, you kind of don't pay
as much attention to.
And then along comes one pieceof evidence that you go, oh,
(24:37):
see?
And you you glom onto that onepiece of evidence.
So you you need an overwhelmingamount of counter evidence to
your beliefs for you to finallygo, I guess I was wrong.
Unless you're just a veryemotionally secure person, and
you go, you know what?
I have a lot to learn.
There's a lot of stuff outthere.
Now, every once in a while youfind a leader like that, that
(24:59):
which is great.
And then the interestinglyenough, that leader tends to be
the kind of person that takes asystem and then makes it so
innovative and unique thateverybody else wants to be like
Mike, right?
And that's kind of what happens.
But like if you're in childwelfare, we see this.
(25:21):
You know, we see somebody comesalong and go, wow, they're
really, they're they're gonnakind of say, no, we're not gonna
remove kids anymore, we're gonnatry something different.
And you know, there's this doeshappen, but it really requires
uh courage because you have tostep out and you have to get
ready to get whacked, and youhave to get ready to get, you
(25:42):
know, sometimes, you know, thethe this has been written about
in many ways, but uh, you know,even in the Middle Ages, people,
you know, some philosopherstalked about the introduction of
new ideas, and then said there'sthere's a three-stage thing.
The new idea initially, theinnovation is ignored, and then
(26:02):
when you can no longer ignoreit, it's attacked.
And then when you when theattacks don't work, then it's
co-opted.
And and then the system takesover the idea, and um usually it
takes over the idea in part,right?
So it creates, let's say, forexample, in a modern era, it it
creates a DEI office.
You know, it it will hire uh,you know, someone of color uh
(26:27):
who uh and they will be kind ofinvited to meetings, but they
won't be given power.
You know, and this this is thekind of systemic co-opting of
innovation and new ideas thatsystems put in place.
SPEAKER_01 (26:41):
Probably ending with the question that you could have
spent 45 minutes talking about.
Um but I think it's important,right?
So so let's flip this onentirely on its head and let's
let's let's assume that that 40years of, as you put it, failure
to convince policymakers andsystems to implement this
research, right, that we knowabout relational health, right,
(27:04):
early childhood development andand prevention and the impacts
on on not only children, but theadults that they will become if
we were to invest right in allof that research that you shared
this morning and that you'vedone over your career, uh what
would be the impacts?
(27:25):
What would what would oursociety look like?
What would our next generationlook like?
SPEAKER_00 (27:30):
So there are first of all, that this will happen.
I mean, you know, the thewonderful thing about truth is
it's like gravity.
You can deny it as much as youwant, but ultimately it's going
to come through.
And this is one of the great,this is why I try to give the
the message today about this isa transgenerational process, and
don't lose hope.
(27:50):
It may feel like you're whatyou're the energy you're putting
in isn't having impact, but itis.
It just may not be fullymanifest.
But here's what we know.
We know that if you take umearly individuals early in life
and you give them safe, stablerelational experiences, that
they have a much higherprobability of really taking
(28:13):
advantage of the existingeducational models we use now.
So they'll do better in school.
They'll have a higherprobability of succeeding in
school, graduating, becomingemployable and paying taxes,
which will be good for societyon a lot of levels.
We also know that if you do thesame thing, high quality
investment in uh early childhoodfor kids that come from
(28:37):
struggling backgrounds wherethere's lots of challenges,
these kids actually have a muchlower probability of entering
the mental health system, andthey have a much lower
probability of entering thejuvenile justice system.
So there'll be less morbiditythat goes with those systems
trying to struggle with theiranxiety, their depression, their
(28:58):
alcoholism, their suicidality,uh, you know, their antisocial
behaviors, and all of that.
And then the third sort of broaddomain we know is that one of
the key consequences of earlydevelopmental adversity is that
your cortex, you know, this mostremarkable human part of your
(29:18):
brain, all of our thinking, allof our language, all of our
values are stored in our cortex.
And that's where creativitycomes from.
And that's where invention comesfrom.
So you're going to see, if youtake care of young kids, you're
going to see a much higherpercentage of cortical
activation in all of these kids,more creativity, more invention,
(29:40):
more sculpting, more poetry,more music.
It'll be awesome.
There could be a quantum leap inthe creativity, the
productivity, and the humanityof generation that benefits from
consistent, predictable,relationally mediated safety and
opportunity.
Opportunities for this healthydevelopment.
(30:02):
It really, it really uh is couldbe just like mind-blowing.
SPEAKER_02 (30:07):
Well, Dr.
Perry, thank you so much forsharing your insights and your
vision.
Your work reminds us thatprevention isn't just possible,
but it's powerful when we putthe science, relationships, and
compassion into practice.
Thank you for being on the show.
SPEAKER_00 (30:21):
My pleasure.
SPEAKER_01 (30:22):
Yes, thank you so much for being here.
And to everyone listening hereat the conference and beyond,
let's take what we've learnedtoday and keep building the
future our children deserve.
SPEAKER_02 (30:32):
And you can invite upstream solutions into your
feed by subscribing to The ShiftVoices of Prevention today.
Join us to create an ecosystemwhere children and families live
purposeful and happy lives withhope for the future.
This is The Shift Voices of Prevention, a podcast
from Prevent Child AbuseAmerica, where we explore bold
ideas, cultural change, and whatit truly means to support
children and families.
Join us to change the narrativeone conversation at a time.
Hello, and welcome to the ShiftVoices of Prevention, recording
live from PCA America's 2025National Conference in Portland,
(00:32):
Oregon.
I'm Nathan Fink, and I'm LukeWaldo.
And today on the podcast, we'reexcited to be joined by Dr.
Bruce Perry, renownedpsychiatrist and senior fellow
of the Child Trauma Academy inHouston, Texas, as well as
adjunct professor of psychiatryand behavioral sciences at the
Feinberg School of Medicine inChicago.
He is also the co-vice chair ofthe PCA America Board of
(00:53):
Directors, where he plays avital role in advancing the
organization's mission.
Dr.
Perry's groundbreaking work onchildhood trauma and brain
development continues to shapehow we understand and support
children's emotional andpsychological well-being.
Dr.
Perry, welcome to the show.
SPEAKER_00 (01:08):
Thank you very much.
SPEAKER_02 (01:09):
Happy to be here.
So your research has shaped howwe understand the brain,
adversity, and healing, as wellas communities.
At its heart, it also gives us aroadmap for prevention, which of
course this conference is allabout.
So a broad question to set thefloor for our listeners.
What does the science tell usabout the importance of
prevention efforts as early aspossible?
SPEAKER_00 (01:29):
Aaron Ross Powell Well, you know, I think most
folks have a generalappreciation that in almost any
area it's a lot easier toprevent a problem than it is to
solve a problem.
And I think that this iscertainly true about growing up.
You know, if early on in lifeyou are given opportunities for
(01:52):
learning and for developingsocial skills, as you get older,
all of that will serve you wellin school and with friends and
in clubs.
And then there's this kind ofcompounding impact that having a
friend lets you have morefriends.
And then having more friendsgives you more opportunities to
(02:12):
learn about all manner of socialengagement.
So the getting a good start isessentially a little bit like
being at the top of a bigmountain with a little snowball.
That, you know, if if you kindof are standing at the very top
and you start and you roll itdown the hill, you're gonna get
(02:34):
a nice big thing.
If you stand halfway up the hilland you go, oh, you know, we
want to make a big impact, butyou're only halfway up the hill,
you've already sort of walkedall the way down before you
start making your littlesnowball to roll it down the
hill, you're gonna have lessimpact.
And that's really um a generalphenomenon in any biological
(02:55):
system, human beings,organizations.
Um so prevention, preventing uhthe process that you're
interested in from going astrayis uh a lot more effective than
trying to deal with the effectsof something going astray.
SPEAKER_02 (03:17):
Aaron Ross Powell I love the metaphor of the the
hill, right?
And I think that is really aptbecause it seems like as a
society, as our policy kind ofwe formulate it, we have this
vista that it only allows forthe top.
SPEAKER_00 (03:32):
Right.
SPEAKER_02 (03:33):
Right?
And so that's the thing that Ikeep wrestling with because I'm
like, obviously.
What you're saying is so obviousto the baseline systems, and yet
it is so hard for us to actuallyembrace.
So do we just have thispredilection towards summits?
SPEAKER_00 (03:49):
Well, the f that's a that's a good question.
Um I think part of the issue isthat people tend to view the
world and and problems fromtheir frame of reference, from
where they're standing.
And so by and large, really, youknow, 40, 50, 60 years ago, uh,
(04:12):
the majority of people that weref solving problems around
education, child welfare, mentalhealth were looking at it
through the lenses of an adult.
And you know, there was some lipservice given to children, but
children were kind of viewed asthese uh relatively passive
little creatures.
(04:33):
Uh they were viewed asresilient, so you can say things
around them, and when they'rebabies, they can't talk, so they
don't understand, which is notreally true.
So we had a fundamentalmisunderstanding about um these
things that we now know aboutthe incredible malleability and
power of early childhood.
(04:53):
And, you know, there's there'stwo things that have really
happened in the preventionworld.
One is that as this knowledgehas become more available, there
have been changes in policy.
However, systems take many,many, many years to change.
And so the development of all ofwhat we know about the
(05:17):
importance of early childhoodand brain development, you know,
we knew this 30, 40 years ago.
And we tried, there was a bigpublic engagement campaign to
teach people and policymakersabout this, and there was really
a little bit of uptake.
And but over the years, it'sthat uptake has changed and
changed and changed and gottenbetter.
But I think part of ourchallenge is that the rate of
(05:38):
change in systems is much slowerthan the rate of change in
people.
So you can find a policymaker,teach them about this, and then
go, oh, this is reallyimportant.
And they'll go, I want to act onthis.
And then they'll come up againstthis big bureaucratic mess of
policy and practice, and that'swhy it takes a longer time.
So I think that's one of thethings that we're running into
(05:59):
in this field right now.
SPEAKER_01 (06:01):
So working off of that, you often emphasize
relational connection as centralto healing and resilience and
development, for that matter,which becomes even more resonant
when we consider, for example,the Surgeon General's recent
report coming out of thepandemic on the epidemic of
loneliness and social isolation,the uh boom of our technologies
(06:24):
that are in many ways replacingkind of social connection uh
with actual humans in our lives,right?
And the destructive impacts theyhave on individuals and
communities.
And yet many of our systems, asyou've just mentioned, which are
composed of people, right, um,whether that's schools,
hospitals, or governmentagencies like child welfare,
(06:46):
they can feel transactionalbecause of the fact that they're
made up of humans who are, ofcourse, relying more and more on
technology and are being raisedagain in homes that are
shrinking, as you mentioned inyour presentation today.
Considering your experience,right, how would you advise a
(07:07):
school district or a healthsystem or a child welfare
agency, and what are some keyactions you'd recommend to embed
relational health practices intheir everyday practices and in
their broader kind of policiesand procedures?
SPEAKER_00 (07:23):
Well, you know, fortunately, uh I we actually do
as an organization, our the thecommunity I work with, we are
given many opportunities to dojust that.
We work in mental healthsettings, child welfare,
educational settings, even incorporate environments.
And, you know, the one of thefirst things that we try to do
is is help the leaders in thosesystems better understand the
(07:50):
power of connectedness.
You know, that really you want,you know, let's take a
corporation, right?
You want to make money.
The the truth is you'll makemore money if you treat the
people in your system better.
And in educators, you want kidsto graduate and do well
academically.
You'll do better if you createrelationally sensitive and
supportive uh policies andpractices.
(08:13):
And I think when we talk, whenwe teach about this, people
generally are open, but they'realso under tremendous pressure
for performance.
And so when you're underpressure for performance, it's
very hard to change what you do.
So we start by just recommendingvery simple introductory things.
(08:35):
What we do, the our group thatworks in the corporate
environments, for example, is wesay, listen, have a two-minute
conversation.
Um, make look at all the peoplethat report to you, figure out a
schedule when you can have atwo-minute in-person
conversation with, you know, tenof them a week, right?
And if you have more than 10report direct reports, you
(08:58):
should re-evaluate your system.
Um, you know, you need to thinkabout stuff like you're wasting
time in meetings, um, you're nothaving sort of fully present
moments with somebody.
And when when you give them thistiny little recommendation, it's
amazing how the the outliterally we see economic
(09:18):
outcomes in corporations relatedto productivity, related to
employee satisfaction, relatedto less turnover, related to
better communication in thesystem.
And it it's the great thingabout doing something, creating
a practice that takes advantageof our normal biological desire,
(09:43):
it goes like wildfire.
It's it's it it begins to becomemore than a two-minute
conversation.
It becomes, wow, I had a reallynice talk with my boss.
And he sees me, he knows what Ido, he asked me about my kids.
And he came back the next weekand said, How's so-and-so doing?
Did he make the team?
And that that glue, thatrelational glue, is what makes
(10:06):
groups of human beings functioneffectively.
And this is true whether or notit's education or mental health
or you know, selling widgets orwhatever it is you want to sell.
And so that's what we do very wea little bit of education,
because it nobody likes to betold what to do without
understanding why.
So if we give them a little bitof the why, and and it helps
(10:26):
when we talk about the brain,because the brain's interesting,
and for many people it feels andand this is probably not fair,
but it feels more like sciencethan when you talk about social
science or psychology, um, whicha lot of people have weird
biases about.
(10:46):
We're saying the same thing, butif you use kind of brain
examples, people go, oh, thebrain.
So that's what we do, a littlebit of psychoeducation, and then
a few practical uhrecommendations about how to act
on that.
SPEAKER_02 (10:59):
Luke, you had mentioned systems are made of
people, right?
And so as you were sayingearlier on when I asked that
question about the summit aboutchanging these kind of mental
models of how we, you know, areapproaching this, we run
oftentimes into ourselves,right?
So it's hard to escape that.
So as you embed some of theserecommendations from the top, a
(11:22):
lot of the work that I had donepreviously is in the meetings
then with the people in themiddle and at the bottom, right?
So do you have any thoughts ongetting from system then into
the everyday to the person who'sactually picking up the phone
and part then of a user'sexperience of the system itself?
SPEAKER_00 (11:42):
Right.
Well, this is why when we do ourwork, we typically our work we
will we will want to do work atevery level of the way they're
organized.
And we have found, by and large,that if you have both a
bottom-up um process wherethere's collaborative uh
(12:04):
engagement and you you ask thepeople on the front lines what
part of this makes sense to you?
How would you act on this?
What should we do?
It's a collaborative process.
Um and then at the top, youengage them so they understand
the rationale of what you'redoing.
And a lot of times you'resuccessful at the top if you
(12:26):
just neutralize the inhibitorytendency to say no to anything
new, which is kind of whathappens.
So um all of that is onlypossible if in this process they
trust us.
So we work on the very thing, weit's a parallel process, right?
(12:51):
We know that a frontline uhsteel worker is like gonna see
me as some shrink, and they'relike, why the hell should I
listen to this guy?
And we see, you know, yousomebody that's forced to come
to a meeting with these mentalhealth people, you go when I
would listen to this bullshit.
Um we know the people at the topare like, uh, another another
stupid coaching thing I gottalisten to.
(13:12):
Um you have to form realrelationships, and then you have
to do work together.
You have to be in the work withthem.
And so once people see thecredibility of, you know, form a
relationship, see that there'ssome credibility to what you're
saying, then it can really takeoff.
So this is how, you know, how weended up working with the FBI.
(13:33):
You know, we work with people inthe military.
In the beginning, it's like, whois this guy?
But we typically get into thesesettings because someone from
the FBI says, I've worked withthis guy, he's solid.
And so it's one of those anyfriend of mine is a friend of
yours, you know.
So, but but if I had come intothose situations cold, it just
(13:56):
wouldn't have worked.
SPEAKER_02 (13:57):
Yeah, it wouldn't have.
No, and I think that's theinstinct.
And part of me, when I as I'mlistening to this, it makes me
want to flip it then, becauseall of a sudden I'm very aware
of the times we're in.
So then taking that, and we'vegot a super leadership.
We got a super top, right?
So now we're on the bottom, butthen pivoting all the way up.
What do we do now to span thegap if we have government
(14:19):
systems that don't seem to beresponsive to even that economic
engine that's driving thesociety?
Do you have any thoughts onthat?
SPEAKER_00 (14:29):
Well, let me just say this
influencing policymakers forover 40 years, and miserably at
that.
Um I'm not kidding, really.
I mean, I it's interesting.
I've been given manyopportunities, right?
You know, talk to presidents,talked to senators, talked to
national governors associations,and the interesting thing is the
(14:53):
uptake of what I have to say orwhat other people that are with
me have to say is tremendouslyvariable.
And if there isn't some personalanchor to the topic, it just is
like more noise for them.
So, for example, 30 years ago,when I was working with Rob
(15:15):
Reiner and we were involved inthis public engagement campaign
about early childhood braindevelopment, we there were some
senators that were like all overthis, both sides of the aisle.
They were grandfathers and theyhad seen some of this stuff
happen.
And then there were some peoplethat younger who had not were
not yet, you know, they didn'thave like young kids and they
(15:38):
were not, they just they kind ofwere respectful, but they're
like, whatever.
Right.
And so it's incredibly dependentupon relationships.
And if a person in a position ofinfluence doesn't have some
contextual connection to whatyou're trying to communicate, it
just doesn't, it doesn't stick.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02 (15:56):
Yeah, there's to me, I mean that it I'm annoyingly
optimistic.
It means to me that there'shumans in there, though.
And those humans then have thatexperience that that is part of
the obligation of the work thatwe're doing is to remember that.
Humans live here, regardless ofwhat it is we're talking about.
SPEAKER_00 (16:16):
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
Some of the most interesting andpositive progressive policy
around foster care and childwelfare was supported and passed
by one of the mostarch-conservative uh uh
senators, along with um HillaryClinton.
And they worked together tocreate, you know, the law and
(16:37):
wrote the law and and andpromoted policies that made
positive changes in the field.
And it really had to do with umthe ability to come together uh
with a shared understanding ofwhat's good for kids.
And it really was not, you know,uh on almost any other area of
policy, you know, you'd peoplewould look at either one of
(16:59):
them, you know, depending uponwhich side of the aisle you're
on and go, oh, that person.
But they were able to cometogether on that.
And I think that that is ahopeful thing.
Although I have to say, that hasbeen much harder to see in the
last 15 years.
There's so much morepolarization, I think.
SPEAKER_01 (17:15):
Right, right.
So I want to stay on thisconversation for just a moment
longer, uh, because I I think alot about the challenges in the
prevention field.
Um I I previously worked in thedomestic violence world and but
was doing generational kind ofprevention work, right?
Working with children who'd beenexposed to domestic violence,
(17:35):
for example.
And that work at that time wasmuch more difficult to get
funded than, say, uh domesticviolence shelter work, right?
Because again, policymakers andso on would could see the
impacts today on theirinvestment uh through that
investment in in a shelterversus what's going to happen to
(17:56):
this four-year-old that you'redoing education with when
they're 20 years old and in arelationship will it have had
the impact?
SPEAKER_00 (18:03):
Right.
SPEAKER_01 (18:04):
You, on the other hand, have done a lot of work in
this space of research on thethe longitudinal impacts of
prevention.
Can you talk a little bit abouthow that has evolved,
recognizing that we're in a verypolarized time politically, but
had you seen progress in thatregard in in response to the
(18:26):
growth in understanding of theimpacts of prevention work on
future generations?
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00 (18:31):
You know, I I just I I wish I could get tell you
great stories.
SPEAKER_01 (18:36):
That's fair.
SPEAKER_00 (18:37):
Here's the dilemma.
And and I I'm actually workingon a book, and I have been for a
few years, about sort of theneurobiological elements of
group functioning that result insystems being extremely
difficult to change, much harderto change than individuals.
(18:58):
So, like if I have anopportunity to sit with somebody
and talk with them, form arelationship, I can actually get
them to the point where thatperson feels safe enough,
respected enough, that they'reopen to the idea, they'll
consider it, they'll think itthrough, they might literally
change their mind.
Systems are bigger than that,and they they have mechanisms to
(19:20):
inhibit change.
You know, all see-and again,this is part of the natural
reality of any physiologicalsystem in equilibrium.
There are systems, there aremechanisms that want to put you
back in equilibrium.
So the status quo of a group isvery hard to change, and there
(19:43):
are lots of mechanisms that keepmaintain the status quo.
So this is one of the thingsthat I, you know, in the
beginning I was very optimistic.
I'm like, hey, we'll just tellyou what, you know, the research
shows what's good for kids.
That's it.
They'll go, bing, we'll do that.
Let's change that.
They're like, no, we won't.
Um, and like, oh, okay.
But this is the, you know, theone of my favorite examples
(20:06):
around that is around ineducation.
Um American educationalresearchers have shown all kinds
of things about what would bereally good to improve outcomes,
but American educational systemswill not act on that
(20:27):
information.
One of my favorite stories is auh researcher, or actually an
educator from Finland came overto the United States, went to
Stanford School of EducationEducation to get advanced
training, because Finland was atthe bottom of the Western
countries in all these academicmetrics.
So he goes there and like fiveyears later they change
(20:47):
everything, and and all of asudden they're at the top.
Somebody from Stanford is forthis like alumni magazine is
interviewing me, interviewingthe guy at the ice.
He says, Well, how did you dothat?
He said, Well, I just came tothe United States and I saw all
the research done by Americanresearchers about what was good,
and we implemented it.
So now they have shorter days,they professionalize education,
(21:10):
they get paid more, educatorsget paid more, they don't test
as much, they spend a lot oftime outdoors, all the stuff
that, you know, we did theresearch to show that that's
effective for cognitiveacquisition of information, but
we will not act on it.
We still use taking recess awayas a punishment.
We still use the whole class ispunished if one kid does a bad
thing.
(21:30):
We still use contingency-basedum, you know, reward systems
that we know don't work verywell.
So it's that's part of thedilemma is that all of these
systems that we have that we'vecreated with good intentions now
are kind of they have a life oftheir own and they have a power
of their own.
(21:50):
And you can bring in a newsuperintendent, you can bring in
a new principal, and they canwork and work and work and work,
but fighting the status quo isexhausting and it will eat you
up and it will spit you out.
So change is incremental.
It can happen, but it takestime.
SPEAKER_02 (22:06):
Yeah.
So the mechanism that youmentioned to remain in
equilibrium, have you been ableto break that mechanism apart to
see its component pieces?
And if so, what are you finding?
SPEAKER_00 (22:18):
Aaron Powell Well, there's a couple things.
You know, and again, you willnot be surprised that it it
boils down to people, right?
So here's kind of what happensis that if you envision this
pyramidal powered, you know,typical organizational chart,
right?
At the top is just a couplepeople and then in the middle
and then the bottom.
(22:38):
The people at the top, once youget to the top, you have a
certain view of the world.
And usually your view of theworld is something that centers
you, that involves the systemaccumulating resources and power
and taking it up to you.
(22:59):
And so it's the very rare personwho is open-minded enough to
actually see that we need tochange something that will take
power away from me.
SPEAKER_02 (23:11):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (23:12):
And so what happens is the major shifts we see are
when those people at the top arereplaced either because they
retire or they're kicked out orthey die.
And then people who are youngerand who have been exposed to
other ideas that they haven'tbeen able to quite act on get up
(23:35):
to the top, and now they say,you know what, let's do this.
And so what happens is there'sthis 30-year process of what
they learned when they were inschool, it was just coming out,
and they percolate up throughthe system and they get to be a
leader.
We're gonna do something thatwas new 30 years ago.
(23:55):
And it just happens.
And so there's this weird30-year cycle that's kind of
dependent upon the life cycle ofthe leadership.
SPEAKER_02 (24:03):
Yeah.
That's it's fascinating becauseI all of a sudden I was thinking
of, say, that individual in myhead, of what is their then
relationship to identity andcareer.
Or say down the line, thepressure is fear.
SPEAKER_00 (24:16):
Fear.
Fear is fear.
Both of those.
You know, but both of whathappens is kind of your brain
kind of organizes around whatyou thought would work.
And then when this is the waythat our brain works, right?
Once you sort of think you'vefigured it out, any piece of
evidence that suggestsotherwise, you kind of don't pay
as much attention to.
And then along comes one pieceof evidence that you go, oh,
(24:37):
see?
And you you glom onto that onepiece of evidence.
So you you need an overwhelmingamount of counter evidence to
your beliefs for you to finallygo, I guess I was wrong.
Unless you're just a veryemotionally secure person, and
you go, you know what?
I have a lot to learn.
There's a lot of stuff outthere.
Now, every once in a while youfind a leader like that, that
(24:59):
which is great.
And then the interestinglyenough, that leader tends to be
the kind of person that takes asystem and then makes it so
innovative and unique thateverybody else wants to be like
Mike, right?
And that's kind of what happens.
But like if you're in childwelfare, we see this.
(25:21):
You know, we see somebody comesalong and go, wow, they're
really, they're they're gonnakind of say, no, we're not gonna
remove kids anymore, we're gonnatry something different.
And you know, there's this doeshappen, but it really requires
uh courage because you have tostep out and you have to get
ready to get whacked, and youhave to get ready to get, you
(25:42):
know, sometimes, you know, thethe this has been written about
in many ways, but uh, you know,even in the Middle Ages, people,
you know, some philosopherstalked about the introduction of
new ideas, and then said there'sthere's a three-stage thing.
The new idea initially, theinnovation is ignored, and then
(26:02):
when you can no longer ignoreit, it's attacked.
And then when you when theattacks don't work, then it's
co-opted.
And and then the system takesover the idea, and um usually it
takes over the idea in part,right?
So it creates, let's say, forexample, in a modern era, it it
creates a DEI office.
You know, it it will hire uh,you know, someone of color uh
(26:27):
who uh and they will be kind ofinvited to meetings, but they
won't be given power.
You know, and this this is thekind of systemic co-opting of
innovation and new ideas thatsystems put in place.
SPEAKER_01 (26:41):
Probably ending with the question that you could have
spent 45 minutes talking about.
Um but I think it's important,right?
So so let's flip this onentirely on its head and let's
let's let's assume that that 40years of, as you put it, failure
to convince policymakers andsystems to implement this
research, right, that we knowabout relational health, right,
(27:04):
early childhood development andand prevention and the impacts
on on not only children, but theadults that they will become if
we were to invest right in allof that research that you shared
this morning and that you'vedone over your career, uh what
would be the impacts?
(27:25):
What would what would oursociety look like?
What would our next generationlook like?
SPEAKER_00 (27:30):
So there are first of all, that this will happen.
I mean, you know, the thewonderful thing about truth is
it's like gravity.
You can deny it as much as youwant, but ultimately it's going
to come through.
And this is one of the great,this is why I try to give the
the message today about this isa transgenerational process, and
don't lose hope.
(27:50):
It may feel like you're whatyou're the energy you're putting
in isn't having impact, but itis.
It just may not be fullymanifest.
But here's what we know.
We know that if you take umearly individuals early in life
and you give them safe, stablerelational experiences, that
they have a much higherprobability of really taking
(28:13):
advantage of the existingeducational models we use now.
So they'll do better in school.
They'll have a higherprobability of succeeding in
school, graduating, becomingemployable and paying taxes,
which will be good for societyon a lot of levels.
We also know that if you do thesame thing, high quality
investment in uh early childhoodfor kids that come from
(28:37):
struggling backgrounds wherethere's lots of challenges,
these kids actually have a muchlower probability of entering
the mental health system, andthey have a much lower
probability of entering thejuvenile justice system.
So there'll be less morbiditythat goes with those systems
trying to struggle with theiranxiety, their depression, their
(28:58):
alcoholism, their suicidality,uh, you know, their antisocial
behaviors, and all of that.
And then the third sort of broaddomain we know is that one of
the key consequences of earlydevelopmental adversity is that
your cortex, you know, this mostremarkable human part of your
(29:18):
brain, all of our thinking, allof our language, all of our
values are stored in our cortex.
And that's where creativitycomes from.
And that's where invention comesfrom.
So you're going to see, if youtake care of young kids, you're
going to see a much higherpercentage of cortical
activation in all of these kids,more creativity, more invention,
(29:40):
more sculpting, more poetry,more music.
It'll be awesome.
There could be a quantum leap inthe creativity, the
productivity, and the humanityof generation that benefits from
consistent, predictable,relationally mediated safety and
opportunity.
Opportunities for this healthydevelopment.
(30:02):
It really, it really uh is couldbe just like mind-blowing.
SPEAKER_02 (30:07):
Well, Dr.
Perry, thank you so much forsharing your insights and your
vision.
Your work reminds us thatprevention isn't just possible,
but it's powerful when we putthe science, relationships, and
compassion into practice.
Thank you for being on the show.
SPEAKER_00 (30:21):
My pleasure.
SPEAKER_01 (30:22):
Yes, thank you so much for being here.
And to everyone listening hereat the conference and beyond,
let's take what we've learnedtoday and keep building the
future our children deserve.
SPEAKER_02 (30:32):
And you can invite upstream solutions into your
feed by subscribing to The ShiftVoices of Prevention today.
Join us to create an ecosystemwhere children and families live
purposeful and happy lives withhope for the future.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal: Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a brand new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack. And make sure to check out Seasons 1-4 of Betrayal, along with Betrayal Weekly Season 1.