Preventing Foster Care Entry: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a Pre-Petition Legal Advocacy Program

Introduction: Efforts to reduce foster care entries in the United States have increasingly emphasized early prevention and intervention strategies aimed at reducing unnecessary child welfare system involvement. Parental legal advocacy programs have emerged as a promising approach for intervening at the pre-petition stage of a case, with the potential to prevent removals and limit families’ ongoing involvement with the child welfare system (Jaggers et al., 2021). This study presents findings from a two‑year evaluation of one such initiative that examined how the program was implemented, its accessibility and significance to participating parents/caregivers, and the outcomes achieved. The evaluation further sought to identify systemic/procedural barriers that limited program reach and effectiveness.

Methods: This evaluation used a mixed-methods design drawing on three data sources: administrative case data (n=51), interviews with program clients (n=13), and community stakeholders (n=19). Parents/caregivers were predominantly female (73%), an average of 38.5 years old, and identified mainly as White/European (39%) followed by Black/African American (34%). Neglectful supervision (66%) was the most common allegation. Stakeholders were primarily White/European (67%) and female professionals representing program staff, Child Protective Services (CPS), court personnel/judges, and community partners.

Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews with parents/caregivers (n=13) who received legal services through the program and community stakeholders (n=19). Interviews explored program implementation, strengths, barriers, perceived effectiveness, and recommendations for improvement. Qualitative data were analyzed by two members of the research team using conventional content analysis.

Results: Administrative case data for the 51 legal cases closed during the evaluation period showed that CPS removal was avoided in nearly all cases (98%). Additionally, program attorneys rated 86% of cases as “successful,” while 14% were deemed “unsuccessful” for reasons often beyond program control.

Qualitative findings highlighted both the promise of the program and substantial challenges that limited its effectiveness. While parents/caregivers praised the program’s social worker and attorneys for their expertise and responsiveness, many structural barriers impeded service delivery. Persistent staffing shortages, particularly the reliance on part-time attorneys and the absence of a paralegal or full-time director, restricted the program’s capacity and contributed to case backlogs, inconsistent communication, and case delays. Heavy dependence on CPS as the primary referral source limited broader community awareness. Stakeholders also noted the need for increased marketing, clearer eligibility criteria, and formalized policies/procedures. The most pressing concern was the program’s lack of sustainable funding, which threatened its long-term viability despite strong stakeholder support and positive client experiences.

Discussion and Implications: This evaluation provides a deeper understanding of how a pre‑petition legal advocacy program operates in practice and the extent to which these programs might support families involved with the child welfare system. Although the findings cannot be generalized, the perspectives of parents/caregivers and community stakeholders provide further insight into the program’s benefits and implementation challenges. The results contribute to the growing evidence supporting early legal advocacy as a family‑preservation strategy and highlight critical structural needs for social workers to consider, including adequate funding needs, staffing, and clearer procedures. Implications future research, policy, and practice will be discussed.