Kansas committee hears law-enforcement concerns about police protective custody, DCF access and data gaps

Madam Chair of the committee convened the hearing to discuss police protective custody and survey results from law-enforcement officers. Ed Klump, a presenter to the committee, told lawmakers that police protective custody has been a focus in debate around House Bill 2132 and that the practice appears more frequently in Kansas than other states, though he said he has not seen data explaining why the rates are higher. "This thing doesn't sound like it's working right," Klump told the committee.

Klump described police protective custody as the act of taking a person into custody "for their own protection generally, without a court order and without . . . a criminal charge to charge them with." He urged the committee to consider the operational realities officers face, including that many incidents happen outside regular business hours and that DCF (the Kansas Department for Children and Families) typically operates Monday through Friday, daytime hours. "When there is a question needing government services after hours, the number seems to be 911," he said.

The presentation included five themes Klump said help explain practice on the ground: most custody actions occur outside business hours when other services are not available; the statutory language and terminology are not uniform (he noted the phrase "police protective custody" does not appear verbatim in statute); many police protective-custody episodes are short and end with reunification; officers sometimes are asked to take children into custody on cases DCF has already been investigating rather than obtaining an ex parte order; and there is limited statewide data about timing, reasons and outcomes for custody actions.

Klump said statutes guiding officers include provisions requiring officers to return a child to a parent when possible and specifying duties when return is not possible, and he attached statute citations to his testimony for the committee's review. He also urged further discussion about whether DCF should obtain ex parte orders in some cases rather than referring the operational task to police, noting judges and courts are available for after-hours emergency orders.

Committee members and other legislators pressed for clarification on how proposed statutory language would change practice. Representative Riley raised concerns about substituting the term "serious harm" into statutory language, asking where to draw the line between harm that is "serious" and harm that is not. Klump said many officers who responded to his outreach worried that adding "serious" could prevent officers from acting in non-extreme but still dangerous circumstances. "...they thought children would be left in harm's way. Maybe not serious harm, but would be left, subject to harm," he said.

Lawmakers and the presenter discussed practical options that already exist in many jurisdictions to avoid removing children from the home — for example, calling a family member to care for the child or removing an immediate hazard from a residence — and the uneven availability of those options in rural counties. Representative Valsley highlighted that reporting and recordkeeping are uneven across agencies and asked whether DCF follows up on short-term custody entries that do not become full court cases; Klump replied that statute requires law enforcement to report protective-custody incidents to both the district attorney and DCF regardless of duration, but he could not say how consistently that reporting leads to a DCF follow-up in every case.

Klump also summarized results from two surveys his associations conducted of field officers and investigators across Kansas. Key findings he reported included: many officers have difficulty contacting a DCF caseworker both during and outside business hours; more than 40% of officers reported trouble reaching the DCF call center in the past year; when officers do reach DCF staff, they rated assistance as generally helpful (average 4.6 out of 5); about half of investigators reported seeing redactions in DCF reports they received; and roughly 80% of respondents said being able to speak with a DCF caseworker after business hours would help decisions about removing children for both abuse and neglect cases.

Committee members used the hearing to note several next steps. The chair said the committee needs better data tracking for police protective custody and improved information sharing between agencies so officers have fuller histories when they respond. Representative Humphreys asked whether DCF could be made available to speak by phone when officers face removal decisions; Klump described that as a practical first step and said full 24/7 DCF presence would require staffing and funding changes. Several members suggested piloting or expanding joint arrangements in larger counties where DCF or contractor staff sometimes are embedded with law enforcement.

The committee accepted the presenter’s suggestion to continue the conversation: Klump and others agreed to follow up and provide additional materials for the committee's next meeting (the presenter noted he would compile free-text survey responses and follow up on recurring themes). The committee also moved on to other child-welfare topics for future study, including permanency placement decisions, kinship care definitions and guardian ad litem standards.

Votes and formal actions taken at the start of the meeting were limited. The committee approved the minutes by voice vote after Representative Johnson moved to accept and Representative Riley seconded.

Why it matters: law-enforcement officials told the committee that officers frequently must make immediate child-safety decisions at times when DCF cannot be reached; the survey data presented to the committee show recurring access problems, report redactions and training needs that lawmakers said merit further attention. Committee members asked staff to gather better data on police protective-custody incidents, to explore practical options for after-hours coordination with DCF, and to continue discussions over the summer with sheriffs and district attorneys to clarify legislative intent.

Provenance: The committee discussion and presentation summarizing statutes and surveys were the primary sources for this article; transcript excerpts supporting the coverage span the presenter's opening remarks through the committee Q&A and committee close.