Children With Child Protective Services Contact Miss Far More School Than Peers

As classrooms across the United States fill for another academic year, a new study reveals that one of the largest and least examined groups of chronically absent students may be hiding in plain sight. Children who have had contact with Child Protective Services, the agency tasked with investigating allegations of abuse and neglect, miss significantly more school than their peers, and the gap spans both excused and unexcused absences. The research, led by Arya Ansari, an associate professor of human development and family science at The Ohio State University, and published in the peer-reviewed journal Children and Youth Services Review, offers the most detailed picture yet of how involvement with the child welfare system shapes a child’s day-to-day educational experience.

The scale of the population involved is striking. In 2024 alone, nearly three million children in the United States were the subject of a CPS investigation, which can be triggered by suspicions of abuse, neglect, parental substance abuse, or domestic violence. Cumulatively, the researchers note, more than one third of American children will have some contact with CPS before their eighteenth birthday. For Black children, that figure rises above half. Despite these numbers, Ansari observed that the absenteeism literature has almost entirely overlooked this group, a gap he described as surprising given how extensively school absence has been studied in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

To close that gap, the team drew on the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study, a longitudinal project that has followed 3,334 adolescents across twenty large American cities from birth through age fifteen. The researchers compared families’ reports of school attendance for adolescents who had experienced CPS contact by age fifteen against those who had not, and they paired these attendance records with students’ own reports of how connected they felt to their schools. This dual focus mattered because school connectedness, the sense of being safe, valued, and relationally embedded in a school community, has emerged in prior work as one of the few malleable levers schools can pull to combat absence.

The findings were unambiguous. Students with CPS contact were more likely to be absent from school than their classmates, whether those absences were excused or unexcused, indicating that the disparity is not simply a matter of families failing to prioritize attendance. The differences extended beyond raw absence counts. These students were fourteen percentage points more likely to have teachers reach out to their families about attendance problems, a signal that educators perceive and flag the issue even when its structural roots lie outside the classroom. They also reported feeling measurably less connected to their schools than their peers, a psychological distance that the authors argue both reflects and reinforces the attendance gap.

Chronic absenteeism, defined as missing at least ten percent of instructional time, has long been a concern in American education. In the 2018-19 academic year, fifteen percent of K-12 students were chronically absent. The pandemic then drove national rates to twenty-eight percent in 2021-22, and although they have since declined, they still stood at twenty-four percent in 2024. Against that backdrop, identifying subgroups of students at especially elevated risk has become a central task for researchers and district leaders alike, and the new study suggests that CPS-involved youth belong near the top of that list.

Ansari is careful to frame CPS contact itself as a source of adversity rather than a neutral administrative event. An investigation, even one that does not confirm maltreatment, places a family under heightened surveillance and can strain the very routines, including regular school attendance, that support a child’s development. He describes two common parental responses to that surveillance. Some families disengage, pulling further away from institutions and keeping children home more often to avoid scrutiny. Others react by becoming more diligent, ensuring their children attend school every day. The net effect across the population, however, is a clear elevation in absence risk for CPS-involved youth.

The study also probes whether school connectedness can narrow the attendance gap, and the answer is nuanced. Greater connectedness did explain part of the difference in absences between students with and without CPS contact, confirming that relational factors matter. Yet on its own, school connectedness did not effectively close the gap, because the benefits of feeling connected accrue broadly rather than disproportionately. Interventions that build connectedness, such as fostering positive teacher-student relationships, cultivating inclusive school climates, and expanding access to extracurricular activities, help all children roughly equally. That is valuable, Ansari argues, but it means connectedness programs cannot be expected to single-handedly compensate for the adversity CPS-involved children carry with them through the school door.

Instead, he positions school connectedness as one piece of a larger toolkit that must also address the material conditions shaping attendance. Housing and income instability, food insecurity, and mental and physical health disparities all weigh heavily on the families in the study’s sample. Ansari points to concrete examples: families cutting meals so that children arrive at school hungry and disengaged, or students without bus service who must walk routes their parents consider unsafe because of traffic or crime. These barriers, he notes, are largely driven by poverty, and no school-based relational intervention can fully counteract them. For children dealing with potential abuse or neglect at home, school can serve as a resource and a getaway, a pathway toward higher education and greater opportunity, but it cannot, in his words, counteract all the historical and ongoing forces operating at the same time.

The practical implications cut in two directions. For schools, the message is that attendance strategies should not treat CPS-involved students as simply unmotivated or their families as indifferent, since the absences often track adversity and surveillance dynamics beyond the school’s control. For child welfare systems, the findings suggest that educational continuity deserves explicit attention during and after investigations, given how consequential regular attendance is for grades, test scores, future educational plans, career opportunities, and economic mobility. Ansari also emphasizes the social-relational dimension of schooling, arguing that relationships among students, teachers, and peers are essential to any strategy for tackling absenteeism, and that educators should keep this in mind as they design engagement efforts. The study was co-authored by Kierra M.P. Sattler of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and together the authors call for attendance research and policy to finally account for the millions of children whose lives intersect with the child welfare system.

Subject of Research: The relationship between child protective services contact and school absenteeism and school connectedness among United States adolescents.

Article Title: Kids involved with child protective services miss much more school than their peers

Article References: Kids involved with child protective services miss much more school than their peers. (n.d.). Original publication

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: child protective services, chronic absenteeism, school connectedness, child welfare, educational inequality, school attendance, adolescent development, child maltreatment, poverty and education, student engagement, Ohio State University, Children and Youth Services Review