Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Defense Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas public-defender system asks for higher starting pay and more positions
Summary
Anne Sagan, executive director of the Kansas Board of Indigent Defense Services, told the Senate Judiciary Committee BIDS needs higher starting pay (proposed $80,000) to recruit attorneys, highlighted reliance on private counsel paid $120/hour, and said capital-case costs were about $7.2 million in FY25 while the agency closed roughly 8,503 trial cases.
Anne Sagan, executive director of the Kansas Board of Indigent Defense Services (BIDS), told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 26 that the agency faces persistent staffing and funding shortfalls that limit its ability to provide timely counsel in felony cases statewide.
Sagan said BIDS provides public-defender offices, an assigned-counsel panel, appellate and capital-defense services, and that in fiscal year 2025 BIDS closed about 8,503 trial-level cases. She told the committee that when BIDS cannot staff cases internally it pays private attorneys roughly $120 an hour plus expenses and sometimes pays "windshield time" to reach rural counties.
Capital-defense work, Sagan said, accounts for about 11.5% of the agency’s operating budget and cost roughly $7,200,000 in FY25. She told lawmakers that these cases are resource-intensive because statutes allow death-penalty charging even though Kansas has not had an execution since 1965 and no new death sentence in about a decade.
On recruitment, Sagan said BIDS is asking the legislature to increase starting pay for new public defenders (PD1) to $80,000 to retain talent and reduce reliance on expensive contract counsel. When asked whether BIDS would prioritize more full‑time positions or higher base pay, Sagan said raising base pay is the immediate priority to reduce vacancies.
Sagan also discussed a social-worker-exemption bill that would allow licensed social workers serving as mitigation specialists to function without mandatory-reporting conflicts. Committee staff reported the same bill (Senate Bill 128) passed the senate 40–0 and passed House judiciary with no changes but was later stricken from the House calendar by rule and would need to be reintroduced.
No committee action was taken during the meeting; members thanked Sagan and invited continued dialogue as budget deliberations proceed.
