A Kansas Senate bill barring registered sex offenders from school property got strong pushback Tuesday from some defense advocates who say it is based on inaccurate beliefs about offenders and would end up failing to keep children safe.
The bill, submitted by Republican Sen. Kellie Warren of Leawood, stems from an incident on Feb. 8 in which a registered sex offender who had been convicted in 2011 was allowed to attend a school dance at Blue River Elementary in Overland Park.
Since then, angry parents at the school have pushed for policy changes in the Blue Valley School District and also turned their focus to trying to change state law.
Warren’s bill, SB 288, prohibits sex offenders 18 years or older who are on the state offender registry from entering school property or attending school activities.
Kansas law currently does not bar offenders on the registry from schools, nor does it regulate how far from a school they are allowed to live. Warren and some of the people who testified in favor of her bill this week said they were surprised by that.
Johnson County DA testified in support
The majority of oral and written testimony at the bill’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday was in its favor. But nine of the 32 people who testified — including emotional remarks from a registered sex offender — opposed it, with some saying it was based more on fear and panic than on empirical data about the level of risk registered offenders pose to children.
Johnson County District Attorney Steve Howe spoke in favor of the bill, including in his written testimony a 2018 Department of Justice study that said there is evidence that people who commit such crimes against children are more likely to reoffend and that those who sexually assault children are at a higher risk to reoffend.
“This is clearly a hole that needs to be filled. It’s not a partisan matter. It’s more of a public safety issue,” he said.
But some who opposed the bill disputed that contention.
Grace Tran, an attorney with the Kansas Board of Indigents’ Defense Services, said the proposed law could actually increase the chances of a subsequent offense because it isolates offenders from the social groups that help stabilize them.
“We believe it will not decrease recidivism and may actually increase it,” she said.
Tran also listed some other unintended consequences that might result.
For instance, the eventual law could prohibit parents and grandparents from dropping off and picking up students or attending conferences. If a school also serves as a polling place or is being used by a church on the weekends, it could also keep an offender from voting or attending a worship service, she said.
The offender registry is wide-reaching and includes people who committed lower-level felonies and misdemeanors, Tran said. The most serious offenders get longer prison sentences and usually have probation restrictions that already limit their interactions on release, she added.
“Ultimately, these registrants are members of our community, and it’s in all of our best interest to support policies that promote rehabilitation. We respectfully suggest this policy does not do that.”
“A bill based on fear”
Teresa Butell, a state representative for the National Association for Rational Sexual Offenders Laws, spoke and submitted written testimony saying that most sex offenders do not go on to be convicted of another sexual offense. The longer offenders live in a community offense-free, the less likely they are to be convicted of another sex crime, she said, citing public health data from Canada.
Butell also said the proposed law would also punish the children of sexual offenders who already have a lot of anxiety and depression because they have a parent on the registry.
“Senate Bill 288 would devastate their lives,” she said, calling it “a bill based on fear.”
That was backed up by anguished testimony from Keith Weidner, a registered sex offender who is also a single father.
Speaking remotely at the hearing, Weidner had to pause multiple times to choke back tears as he described how the bill would affect him and his daughter.
“I do not take lightly the mistakes I made in the past,” he said.
But barring him from school property would “essentially separate me from her world. I would no longer be able to be there when she needs me the most, whether it’s attending parent-teacher conferences, picking her up from school or being present at her extracurricular activities.”
Weidner said the bill doesn’t consider the “real-world impact” in families like his.
“As a single father, I am doing everything I can to ensure my daughter grows up in an environment full of love, support and stability,” he said. “I work endlessly to be the father she needs me to be, and I have made it my life’s purpose to provide her with a safe, nurturing home. But the reality is that this bill would tear that apart.”
Considerations from Blue Valley district
Tonya Merrigan, Superintendent of the Blue Valley School District and the Kansas Association of School Boards, asked lawmakers to consider how a district’s legal obligations to educate students might be affected.
Merrigan’s written testimony in support of the bill said students from 18 to 21 may still be eligible for public education, even if on the offender registry. Federal law also requires schools to provide parental participation when determining federally mandated educational programs for special education students, regardless of parents’ status on the registry.
The Kansas Association of School Boards submitted similar concerns but took a neutral stance on the bill.
Stance of law enforcement, advocacy groups
The proposal had support from some law enforcement agencies as well as children’s safety advocates.
Ed Klumpp of the Kansas Sheriff’s Association, Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police and the Kansas Peace Officers Association said state law on sex offenders had already caught the attention of law enforcement and that the issue of registered offenders on school grounds needs to be discussed.
Kacey Dalke, executive director of Children’s Advocacy Centers of Kansas, and Judi Rodman, of the Sunflower House advocacy center, both supported the bill.
Dalke called it “a common sense safety measure protecting Kansas kids.”
“Schools should be a safe place for children,” she said, adding that the bill prevents children who have been sexually abused from being re-traumatized by confronting an offender in the school setting.
She also cited a Department of Justice study from 2017 saying offenders have a 23% rate of recidivism over 15 years, and that reoffending is more likely when the person has access to contact with minors.
