Engrossed House Bill 2044 revises Washington’s truancy law to emphasize early intervention and community-based responses before juvenile court involvement. It removes the option for a school district to file a truancy petition before a child has five unexcused absences in a month and requires districts to seek an attendance agreement with the parent (or the child if eight or older) or refer the child to a community engagement board. A truancy petition to juvenile court is required only if no attendance agreement is reached within 20 days of an initial meeting or if the parent or child fails to comply with an attendance agreement by its deadline; in some circumstances a district may file after the child’s 15th unexcused absence. The bill prescribes steps and timelines for school action: notice after one unexcused absence, a requested conference after three absences, and data-informed interventions between the second and fifth unexcused absence (including use of the WARNS tool for secondary students and convening IEP or 504 teams or special education evaluations as appropriate). Community engagement boards, created by memorandum of understanding between a juvenile court and a district and composed of trained local members, must meet with families and enter attendance agreements within 20 days of referral (with a special meeting structure for sixand seven-year-olds). Receiving districts must count prior unexcused absences when a student transfers and sending districts must provide attendance and intervention records. The bill also modifies court procedures and reporting: a community engagement board or truancy prevention counselor may provide supervision and must return cases to juvenile court if agreements fail, courts must follow specified notice and hearing procedures and may not issue a bench warrant for failure to appear at an initial truancy hearing, and courts may order school attendance placements, evaluations, and noncustodial interventions. Parents may be fined up to $25 per day for certain violations (with half remitted to the school district), courts may use contempt or alternative sanctions for continued truancy, and OSPI plus the administrator for the courts must produce annual, deidentified, disaggregated reports on truancy actions. The bill amends multiple sections of chapter 28A.225 RCW, adds reporting and applicability provisions to charter and state-tribal compact schools, and authorizes OSPI rulemaking. The extracted text is incomplete in places. Definitions and full statutory text for “attendance agreement” and “community engagement board” are referenced but not fully provided here, several cross-referenced subsections and some reported items are cut off, and the contents of other listed RCW amendments and newly added sections are not included in the provided material.

If enacted, the bill shifts early truancy responses away from immediate court petitions and toward a stepwise approach that requires schools to notify parents after one unexcused absence, hold conferences after three, use data-informed interventions between the second and fifth absence, and either enter an attendance agreement or refer the family to a local community engagement board after the fifth absence. School districts will have more front-line responsibilities — more notices, conferences, intervention planning, record-sharing when students transfer, and filing formal petitions only if an attendance agreement isn’t reached within 20 days or if agreements fail by their deadline (or after the 15th unexcused absence). Community engagement boards will be newly active, trained community groups that must meet with families and recommend services, and OSPI and the courts will collect and report detailed, disaggregated data about these actions and outcomes. The most affected parties are school districts (increased staff time, coordination, training, and reporting duties), community engagement boards (new meeting, training, and intervention responsibilities), juvenile courts and the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (new reporting and coordination tasks), parents and students (more mandated meetings and agreements, and possible fines or court sanctions if agreements fail), and special education teams (required involvement when disabilities are suspected). Likely consequences include higher up-front administrative and training costs for districts and community boards, potential reductions in immediate juvenile court filings but continued court involvement if agreements don’t work, and added statewide reporting burdens. Important details about what exactly constitutes an attendance agreement, the full makeup and timelines for community engagement boards, and a few cross-referenced sections are not included in the facts provided, so some operational impacts remain uncertain.