Kansas court service officers describe roles, training and treatment-court work to House committee

Kevin Waring, legislative chair for the Kansas Association of Court Services Officers and chief court services officer in the 10th Judicial District, told the Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice that court service officers (CSOs) supervise misdemeanor and lower-risk felony probation, perform pretrial assessments and pre-sentence investigations (PSIs), and coordinate specialty treatment courts across all 31 judicial districts in Kansas.

Waring said CSOs “routinely perform pre trial assessments and supervision, dispute resolution in family court cases, child in need of care work, pre sentence investigations, specialty court coordination and supervision” and that the work varies by district at the discretion of the chief judge. He told the committee PSIs include reviews of local and national criminal-history returns and that CSOs must verify whether arrests led to charges or convictions so the PSI accurately reflects a person’s record.

The testimony emphasized training and tools. Waring said CSOs must maintain multiple certifications and that initial training for new staff is “over a 150 hours.” He described training methods including classroom instruction, online learning and practice recordings: “there is then time where you will practice those skills and you have to audio record yourself, a video record yourself, working with individuals…so that way they can see us in the somewhat real life setting.” He also said CSOs use evidence-based supervision models and motivational interviewing to promote client success and public safety.

On supervision structure, Waring said CSOs work for the Office of Judicial Administration at the local district-court level and that other supervision entities include community corrections (through KDOC) and parole. He described recent statutory and process changes that consolidate dual supervision—so one agency takes lead—and efforts to standardize probation conditions across supervision providers.

Waring described CSO involvement in treatment courts and centralized case management. “Court Service Officers continue to work and expand their role in treatment court operations,” he said, adding that CSOs supervise participants, coordinate court sessions and manage grants for juvenile and adult treatment courts. He said CSOs now use a centralized case-management system (enterprise supervision) that integrates with the Odyssey court management system to improve data collection and information sharing.

Committee members asked about degree and staffing requirements, vacancies, and how people enter treatment courts. Waring said current CSO job postings require a college degree, typically in a social-services field, though jurisdictions sometimes hire candidates with other degrees. He said there are vacancies but did not provide statewide counts, and he offered to follow up with membership data. On treatment courts, he said referrals and timing vary by district and by court; referrals can come from attorneys, supervision officers or treatment providers and eligibility is ultimately reviewed by the local treatment team and recommended to a judge.

The committee’s questions also covered rural access to treatment; Waring said telehealth has expanded options but that distance and provider availability remain challenges in some rural areas. He repeated that CSOs live in the communities they serve and that workload and specialization vary by district—some districts have staff dedicated to PSIs or juvenile work while smaller districts require CSOs to cover a wide range of duties.

The presentation concluded with Waring offering to provide written fiscal-year and operational numbers that his organization provided in written testimony to the committee.