The Power of Connection: Understanding Family Engagement In Voluntary Prevention Services

Background/Purpose Despite growing national investment in upstream child welfare prevention, family participation in voluntary prevention services remains persistently low. In large jurisdictions like Los Angeles County, many families are referred to Child Protective Services (CPS) but never engage in available supports. Mistrust of the child welfare system, stigma, fear of child removal, and systemic barriers compound this challenge. While existing research documents engagement rates and program-level outcomes, few studies center family voices to understand how relational and material factors shape participation decisions. This study addresses that gap by exploring how families experience voluntary prevention and navigation services and identifying the factors that support or impede their engagement.

Methods An exploratory qualitative design was employed using semi-structured interviews with 20 families receiving Prevention and Aftercare (P&A) services in Los Angeles County. Families were recruited through annual technical reviews conducted by DCFS, with ten lead P&A agencies each recruiting two participants. Interviews were conducted via Zoom, lasted 30–45 minutes, and focused on four areas: motivation, barriers and facilitators, relational dynamics, and stigma. Participants received a $50 gift card for their time. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis guided by Boyatzis's (1998) framework, with coding conducted in NVivo 11.

Results Five themes emerged from the analysis: (1) the central role of relational connection, (2) the importance of concrete supports, (3) motivations for participation, (4) facilitators of engagement, and (5) barriers to engagement. Families consistently identified their relationship with the agency staff as foundational to ongoing participation, describing workers who demonstrated empathy, flexibility, and genuine care as essential to their willingness to stay engaged. Concrete supports, including food, housing assistance, transportation, and medical resources, functioned both as practical resources and as early signals of worker reliability and attunement. Motivations for engagement reflected cumulative stress, including mental health concerns, economic hardship, and child well-being. Barriers included superficial relationships, referral-only practices, and stigma.

Conclusions/Implications Relational connection is not a supplementary feature of effective prevention services, it is the mechanism through which families feel safe enough to engage. Programs must prioritize training in empathy, cultural humility, and trauma-informed practice, while ensuring caseloads allow time for meaningful relationship-building. Policymakers should integrate relational quality indicators into accountability frameworks and fund concrete supports as essential service components. Future research should examine how relational measures predict outcomes and how organizational conditions sustain connection-centered practice over time.