DCF tells House Education committee it supports chronic absenteeism bill, urges shared definitions and limits on department authority

The Department of Children and Families told the House Education Committee on Feb. 17 that it supports the overall direction of a proposed chronic absenteeism bill while urging clearer shared definitions, clearer limits on DCF authority and more resources for local implementation.

For the record, Erica Radke, deputy commissioner of the Family Services Division at DCF, said the department favors treating chronic absenteeism as a systems issue rather than solely a child-welfare problem and is prepared to partner with the Agency of Education on a model policy. "We really do like the overall direction of the bill," Radke said, while stressing that DCF must remain inside statutory boundaries to avoid alienating families.

Radke and Mindy Boudreaux, director of the Family Services Division Adolescent Services Unit, outlined where existing statutes and DCF policy apply. Radke noted that statutory authorities referenced in testimony include chapter 49 (child abuse and neglect) and chapter 51 (assessments/CHINS), and that the statutory definition of educational neglect applies beginning at age 6 through completion of sixth grade. Boudreaux described DCF's internal truancy policy (policy 60), saying it applies from grade 7 through age 16 and that the department currently uses a 20-day threshold for truancy under that policy.

Boudreaux said the 20-day threshold can be counted differently across districts (academic year versus calendar year) and that some local variation — including how districts count excused versus unexcused absences — complicates consistent implementation. "That's part of the problem," she said, pointing to inconsistent local protocols and the need for a common definition.

Both witnesses described intake and assessment practices: reports arrive at a hotline but must meet statutory qualifications to be accepted for a CHINDS B assessment; accepted cases prompt home visits, child and family contact, and collateral fact-gathering. Radke said that accepted intakes for educational neglect statewide between 2018 and 2025 generally ranged between roughly 126 and 167 cases per year, with a dip around 2019 attributed to the pandemic.

Committee members and DCF staff also flagged operational concerns. Boudreaux said some districts will disenroll students after 10 consecutive days of absence, which can remove students from oversight and make it harder to intervene. She also noted a gap created by changes in the law on homeschooling enrollment, saying DCF lacks statutory authority to monitor approved homeschool plans once a child is disenrolled. DCF staff repeatedly emphasized limited staffing for truancy work and that not every county has a dedicated truancy officer or equivalent capacity.

On the development of a model policy, Boudreaux said the Agency of Education hired consultants after concluding the work was larger than expected; she expects many changes to be captured in policy rather than statute. Radke said DCF seeks clarity about its role and how that role is bounded by statute as stakeholders develop the model policy.

A committee member asked DCF to provide a written follow-up identifying schools or districts that are unenrolling students; DCF staff said they do not have a complete list on hand but will follow up in writing. The committee took a short recess and planned to resume discussion of the chronic absenteeism bill.

The article is based on testimony and exchanges at the House Education Committee hearing of Feb. 17, including statements from Erica Radke and Mindy Boudreaux of the Department of Children and Families.