Kansas committee hears bill to bar certain registered sex offenders from school property

Senate Bill 288 would make it unlawful for any sex offender age 18 or older whose underlying crime involved a victim younger than 18 to enter school property or attend school activities, and would create felony penalties for violations, supporters told the Judiciary Committee.

The bill, introduced at a committee hearing, would add a new section to the Kansas Offender Registration Act and amend K.S.A. 22-4901 and K.S.A. 22-4902 to define “school property” and “school activity” for purposes of the prohibition. The reviser summarized the penalty scheme: a first conviction would be a severity level 6 person felony, a second conviction a severity level 5 person felony, and a third or subsequent conviction a severity level 3 person felony.

Supporters said the law fills a gap revealed by recent incidents and by local investigations. Johnson County District Attorney Steve Howe said the proposal “is a common sense bill for public safety” that addresses what he called a hole in existing law. Casey Dahlke, executive director of Children’s Advocacy Centers of Kansas, cited research she said shows elevated recidivism for offenders whose victims were minors and said SB 288 “prevents retraumatization” of child victims. Judy Rodman, president and CEO of Sunflower House Child Advocacy Center, and several parents from the Blue Valley School District recounted a recent school dance where a registrant photographed students and said district policies and state law provided no remedy.

Proponents emphasized the bill’s narrow drafting. Ed Klump, speaking for the Kansas Sheriffs Association, the Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police and the Kansas Peace Officers Association, said defining “school property” rather than using the broader statutory term “school” made the measure workable for enforcement and consistent with the offender registration act.

Neutral testimony from Shannon Kimball, government relations specialist for the Kansas Association of School Boards, urged the committee to consider operational conflicts the bill could create. Kimball noted school districts educate students through age 21 under individualized education plans (IEPs) and that some districts host adult education or GED programs on school property; she warned the prohibition could clash with federal special education rights and practical IEP participation unless the statute or administrative practice accounted for those cases.

Opponents said the bill would cast a wide net and could harm families and impede rehabilitation. Grace Tran of the Kansas Board of Indigent Defense Services said federal and academic reviews find location-based restrictions have not been shown to reduce recidivism and in some cases may increase it by isolating people and disrupting stability. Multiple private citizens and advocacy groups said the law could prevent parents or grandparents on the registry from attending graduations, concerts or other school-based events, and could raise retroactivity concerns because registration terms in Kansas changed in 2011.

The committee heard several public commenters who described real-life family impacts if the statute barred a parent on the registry from on-campus participation; other witnesses cited national studies and Department of Justice reports questioning the efficacy of location bans versus other prevention strategies.

No formal action or vote was taken at the hearing. The committee recorded written proponent testimony from local prosecutors, school leaders and advocacy centers and written neutral testimony from Wichita Public Schools; opponents filed written comments as well.

The committee held the item open for questions and indicated follow-up from staff or future committee work could address statutory definitions and potential interactions with federal law and IEP processes.