Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Human Trafficking Prevention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs bill to require human-trafficking prevention education in North Dakota schools
Summary
Bismarck — The Senate Education Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 2330 on human‑trafficking prevention education, a bill that would require districts and institutions to provide age‑appropriate training and awareness for students and staff.
Get email alerts on the Human Trafficking Prevention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bismarck — The Senate Education Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 2330 on human‑trafficking prevention education, a bill that would require districts and institutions to provide age‑appropriate training and awareness for students and staff.
Supporters including survivors and nonprofit founders told the committee early awareness can save lives and urged wide implementation. Lisa Hanson, founder of Next Step NDA, told senators the organization was formed after witnessing local trafficking and pushed for school‑based prevention: “Education is power,” Hanson said, arguing schools reach children “who are most targeted.” Lowell Hochulter, founder of the Lifeguard Group, described school assemblies and said adolescents are at a “critical age” for prevention and that early education equips students “to recognize the signs” and seek help.
The bill’s text, as discussed in the hearing, would require annual instruction and sets a specific minimum: committee members queried a requirement that freshmen in higher education receive two hours of instruction “during freshman orientation activities.” Sponsor discussion indicated flexibility about where the two hours could be placed, but supporters pressed that the time must be delivered in some form. Witnesses said third‑party, age‑appropriate instructional programs are available nationally and could be contracted for use in K‑12 and campus settings.
Opponents and some education leaders urged changes or caution. Cody Schueller of the ACLU of North Dakota said the bill is “significantly incomplete” without mandated, age‑appropriate comprehensive sex education covering consent and medically accurate information; he recommended requiring comprehensive sex education as a prerequisite or amendment. Lisa Johnson, vice chancellor for academic and student affairs with the North Dakota University System, said campuses already provide training under Clery Act and Title IX programs and warned that adding two mandatory hours to some campus orientations would increase time burdens and require funding: “One institution alone, NDSU, reports their orientation currently serves about 23,500 new freshmen,” she said, noting orientation is already split across many sessions.
Amy Kopas, executive director of the North Dakota Council of Educational Leaders, offered neutral testimony and asked the committee to consider whether schools and higher education are the right placement for some content and whether parents and community organizations might play a larger role. Kopas also stressed the existing load of state and federal mandates on K‑12 schools and questioned whether $48,000 (an appropriation referenced for K‑12 efforts earlier in testimony) would be sufficient to train large numbers of teachers.
Supporters cited both victim‑service and awareness statistics during testimony: Hanson and others referenced the North Dakota Human Trafficking Task Force’s reported counts of victims served (the witness testimony cited an increase from 80 victims in 2022 to 325 in 2023) and national figures about age ranges for victims. Supporters asked the committee to move the bill forward so schools can begin standardized prevention education; opponents sought amendments requiring broader sex‑education foundations and clarified funding language.
The committee took no vote during the hearing. The chair closed testimony on SB 2330 and recessed the committee before taking up other agenda items.
Ending: The committee did not take final action during the hearing; sponsors and multiple stakeholders indicated a willingness to negotiate curriculum placement, funding, and links to comprehensive sex education if the committee advances the bill.
