The Kansas Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board has agreed to require Kansas Bureau of Investigation background checks for certain license applicants, Executive Director David Fye told the Marriage and Family Therapy Advisory Committee on Aug. 15, 2025. The change stems from a prior legislative authorization and the boards recent decision to align licensure requirements with multistate compacts and neighboring states.

Fye said the requirement will apply to individuals making an initial application for licensure, those seeking to reinstate a license and to holders of student temporary licenses that are not on a pathway to a higher permanent license. He said current licensees would be able to opt in to the background check process to become eligible for future multistate compact participation. "The cost is gonna be $57, and that entire amount would all go to the KBI," Fye said.

Fye said the Board made the decision at its July 28 meeting after reviewing compact developments for psychologists, professional counselors and social workers that include background-check expectations. He also noted staff are working with KBI to implement the process and that the operational impacts remain uncertain: staff will review results and investigations caseloads could increase. "What we were hearing is that usually, about a week, if not more quickly," Fye said when asked about KBI turnaround times.

Committee members asked about timing and whether currently licensed practitioners would be required to obtain checks at renewal; Fye said the board did not seek authority to require checks for routine renewals of existing licenses. Instead, the initial rollout will target initial applications, reinstatements and certain student temporary licenses, with an option for existing licensees to opt in to become compact-eligible. Details about how student applicants might front-load checks before a posted degree remain under discussion.

Fye said staff will provide additional implementation details and public guidance before a compliance date is set. He cautioned that the boards current understanding of the workload impact is incomplete and that more operational planning remains.

Votes and formal actions at this advisory meeting did not approve the boards July 28 decision (the July 28 board action was reported as a board-level decision rather than an advisory committee vote).