Centering Constituent Voice In Prevention Planning: Evaluating Community and Stakeholder Engagement In State Family First Plans

Background/Purpose: Within the context of FFPSA Title IV-E prevention planning, community and stakeholder engagement are central to child welfare reform. Engaging communities affected by system involvement can improve the relevance, acceptability, and equity of prevention services. Accordingly, Title IV-E prevention plans require states to (a) describe community engagement efforts used to identify service gaps and inform program selection, and (b) outline how they will coordinate with stakeholders, including public/private agencies and community-based organizations, to deliver prevention services. Yet, it remains unclear how states operationalize stakeholder and community engagement within prevention planning. This study examines 42 state prevention plans to assess how stakeholder and community voices are incorporated by identifying: (1) who states engaged with, (2) the methods of engagement, and (3) how frequently engagement occurs.

Methods: As of February 2025, 42 state prevention plans had been approved by the Administration for Children and Families and were included in the analysis. We conducted a content analysis using a structured coding framework capturing: (a) stakeholders engaged, (b) engagement strategies, and (c) frequency of engagement. Codes were developed inductively from the data and refined iteratively. A consensus coding approach was used to ensure reliability and consistency across coders.

Results: Across the 42 plans, providers and community-based organizations were the most frequently referenced stakeholders, appearing in 40 plans (95%). These were followed by child welfare and public agencies (n=38; 91%), cross-sector interagency partners (n=36; 86%), and individuals with lived experience (n=35; 83%). In contrast, tribal nations were referenced in fewer than half of plans (n=19; 45%), and advocacy/coalition partners were mentioned in 16 plans (38%).

Regarding engagement strategies, most states reported using workgroups and planning committees (n=34; 81%), often convened to develop and implement FFPSA plan components (e.g., defining candidacy criteria) and guide strategic planning, set priorities, and identify system needs. Direct community input and listening activities were described in 29 plans (69%), typically used to understand service needs, barriers, and to request input on culturally appropriate services. Twenty-eight plans (67%) referenced continuous quality improvement (CQI) processes as a mechanism for engagement, such as meetings to review data, monitor progress, and guide ongoing decision-making.

In terms of frequency, ongoing or continuous engagement was the most common cadence of engagement for formal structures such as workgroups, advisory bodies, and CQI processes. In contrast, direct community input/listening activities and surveys/written feedback mechanisms were more often described as one-time or episodic events.

Conclusion/Implications:

While stakeholder consultation and community engagement are widely incorporated into state prevention planning, they are uneven in both representation and depth. Engagement efforts tend to prioritize institutional stakeholders (e.g., providers, agencies), while other voices, such as tribal nations and advocacy groups, are less consistently included. Although individuals with lived experience are frequently engaged, their involvement is often structured as one-time input rather than a sustained partnership. These patterns raise concerns about whether community engagement meaningfully shifts decision-making power or primarily serves consultative functions. Future research should examine how different forms and frequencies of engagement influence implementation quality and service outcomes.