U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 
 
Office of Inspector General 
 
 
 
 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All 
Child Victims of Abuse and 
Neglect Have Court 
Representation 
 
   
 
Suzanne Murrin  
Deputy Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections 
March 2021, OEI-12-16-00120  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 
O  ffice of Inspector General 
 
Report in Brief 
 
M arch 2021, OEI-12-16-00120 
 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have 
Why OIG Did This Review 
As a condition of grant  Court Representation 
funding under the Child 
What OIG Found 
Abuse Prevention and 
Key Takeaways  ACF is responsible for overseeing States compliance with 
Treatment Act (CAPTA), as 
CAPTAs requirement for court representation.  However, 
amended, a State must   ACF does little to oversee 
assure through a  States compliance with  ACF does little to monitor or enforce States compliance 
CAPTAs requirement for  with this requirement, relying instead on States self-
certification that it has in 
court representation, relying  certification.   
effect and is enforcing a 
instead on States self-
State law or operating a 
ACF officials reported that ACF considers a State compliant 
certification 
Statewide program that 
as long as the State has assured through a certification that 
includes provisions and 
 Some States lack oversight  it has in effect provisions and procedures requiring court 
procedures requiring that in 
systems to ensure that  representation for child victimsregardless of whether the 
every case of child abuse or 
every child victim has a  State effectively implements and enforces that requirement.  
neglect that results in a 
court representative  ACF officials reported that CAPTA does not provide ACF 
judicial proceeding, a 
with the authority to look behind State assurances and 
representative (e.g., an 
 Some States described  monitor whether States actually appoint court 
attorney or nonattorney  challenges that impede  representatives to all child victims.   
volunteer) be appointed to  their ability to appoint a 
advocate for the childs best  representative to every child  This is concerning because 5 of the 10 States we reviewed 
interests.  However, States  victim  indicated that they do not have systems in place to monitor 
annual reporting to the  whether all child victims are appointed a court 
Administration for Children   Inaccurate data impede  representative.  States also reported numerous challenges 
and Families (ACF) suggests  ACFs ability to identify  that, in some cases, impeded their ability to promptly 
that some States may not be  States that do not ensure  appoint a court representative to every child victim.   
appointing a representative  court representation for all 
child victims  ACF officials explained that ACF prioritizes providing States 
for every child victim.   
with technical assistance to support compliance rather than 
These factors raise concerns  penalizing States.  However, none of the States we reviewed received technical assistance 
about whether ACF has  from ACF related to the court-representation requirement, and only four were aware that 
taken sufficient action to  ACF offers such assistance.     
ensure that vulnerable 
We also found that ACF does not receive complete and accurate court-representative data 
children receive appropriate 
from States, impeding its ability to identify and respond to problems.  Of the 10 States we 
court representation to 
reviewed, only 2 confirmed the accuracy of the court-representative appointment figures 
protect their best interests. 
that they voluntarily reported to ACF.  State officials described technical challenges that 
How OIG Did This Review  impede reporting, such as a lack of centralized data systems.  Additionally, some States face 
To assess ACFs oversight in  challenges related to communication between court or representative program staff and 
selected States, we surveyed  child welfare agency staff.     
and interviewed the 
What OIG Recommends and How the Agency Responded 
10 States with the largest 
We recommend that ACF conduct oversight activitiesseeking statutory authority as 
numbers of child victims of 
necessaryto identify, and proactively provide technical assistance to, States that may not 
abuse and neglect in fiscal 
appoint a court representative to every child victim.  We also recommend that ACF 
year 2016.  We also 
proactively identify and address obstacles that States face in reporting complete and 
summarized ACF officials 
accurate court-representative data.  ACF did not explicitly concur or nonconcur with our 
interview responses and 
recommendations.  However, ACF asserted a lack of statutory authority to implement our 
agency documentation 
recommendations and stated that our recommended approach is inconsistent with the 
about procedures to oversee 
structure of the CAPTA State grant program.   
CAPTAs requirement for 
 
court representation.   
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 
 
 
BACKGROUND  1 
Methodology  4 
FINDINGS  7 
ACF does little to monitor or enforce States compliance with CAPTAs GAL requirement,  7 
relying instead on States self-certification 
ACF has rarely reviewed whether any States are meeting CAPTAs GAL requirement, despite  8 
evidence of potential noncompliance   
Some States are unable to ensure that all child victims are represented in court, raising  10 
questions about ACFs reliance on States self-certification 
Inaccurate and incomplete GAL data impede ACFs ability to identify States that do not ensure  12 
all child victims receive court representation 
RECOMMENDATIONS  15 
Conduct oversight activities to identify States that may not appoint a GAL to every child victim  16 
who undergoes a judicial proceeding, seeking statutory authority as necessary 
Proactively provide technical assistance to States that face challenges in appointing a GAL for  16 
every child victim   
Proactively identify and address obstacles that States face in reporting complete and accurate  17 
GAL data 
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG RESPONSE  19 
APPENDICES  22 
A.  GAL Appointment Figures That States Reported to ACF and OIG Differed for Several States  22 
B.  Agency Comments  23 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND CONTACT  31 
ABOUT THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL  32 
ENDNOTES  33 
   
BACKGROUND 
 
 
Objective 
To assess how the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) ensures that all 
child victims of abuse and neglect have their best interests represented in court, as 
required. 
Approximately one in four children experience abuse or neglect in their lifetimes.  In 
fiscal year (FY) 2018, approximately 3.5 million children received a Child Protective 
Services investigation or alternative response after an allegation of abuse or neglect.  
Abuse and neglect can have both acute and long-term effects, impairing childrens 
physical health; mental health; social and behavioral development; and academic 
functioning.  A supportive home environment, positive school experiences, and 
services to help families address factors underlying child maltreatment can foster 
childrens resilience and help prevent future abuse and neglect.    
To protect child victims, as a condition of receiving grant funding under the Child 
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act as amended (CAPTA),1 States must assure 
through a certification that they have in effect and are enforcing a State law, or are 
operating a Statewide program, that includes provisions and procedures requiring 
that every child victim involved in an abuse or neglect judicial proceeding be 
appointed a representative known as a guardian ad litem (GAL).2  GALs play a critical 
role in ensuring the safety and well-being of vulnerable children victimized by neglect 
and abuse.  The GAL is responsible for gaining an understanding of the childs 
situation and needs and making recommendations to the court regarding the childs 
best interests.  For example, the GAL may make recommendations about where and 
with whom a child should live; what type of contact the child should have with one or 
both parents; what types of services should be provided to the child and family; and 
other decisions that significantly affect the childs well-being.  A substantial body of 
research demonstrates that when child victims of abuse or neglect have a 
court-appointed representative to advocate for their best interests, they are likely to 
achieve better outcomes (e.g., less likely to remain in foster care long-term and more 
likely to have their cases permanently closed).3, 4, 5    
However, States annual reporting to ACF suggests that some States may not be 
appointing a GAL for every child victim.  Some States do not report key information 
about GAL appointments at all.  This raises concerns about whether ACF conducts 
adequate oversight and provides sufficient technical assistance to ensure that States 
are effectively addressing all components of CAPTAs GAL requirement. 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Background | 1  CAPTA Requirements for States  
CAPTA Grants to States 
CAPTA was originally authorized in 1974 to provide grants to States for improving 
the child protective services systems.6  The law has been reauthorized and amended 
several times, with the most recent reauthorization in December 2010 and 
amendment in January 2019.7  CAPTA grants assist States in child abuse and neglect 
prevention, assessment, investigation, prosecution, and treatment activities.8  
Currently 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and four additional 
territories (hereinafter referred to as States) receive grants, with a total of 
$90.1 million in assistance disbursed in FY 2020.  Consistent with Congressional intent, 
ACF instructed States to continue to prioritize use of $60 million from those funds for 
meeting CAPTA requirements regarding the health and safety of substance-exposed 
infants. 
A State that receives CAPTA grant funding must submit to the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services (the Secretary) a plan describing the activities that the State will carry 
out using this funding.9  This State plan must include a signed assurancein the form 
of certification by the Governor of the Statethat the State complies with CAPTAs 
31 requirements relating to child abuse and neglect.  One of these 31 requirements is 
the GAL requirement, described below.10  
CAPTAs GAL Requirement 
CAPTA states that as a condition of receiving grant funds, the State must provide an 
assurance that it either has in effect and enforces a State law, or has in effect and 
operates a statewide program, that includes provisions and procedures requiring that:  
  A GAL is appointed in every case involving a victim of child abuse or neglect 
that results in a judicial proceeding. 
  GALs (1) obtain first-hand, a clear understanding of the situation and needs 
of the child and (2) make recommendations to the court concerning the 
best interests of the child.   
  GALs receive training appropriate to the role, including training in early 
childhood, child, and adolescent development.11  
States vary in the way that they define the GAL role.  The GAL may be an attorney; 
a nonattorney professional representative (e.g., a GAL program staff member); or 
a volunteer, such as a court-appointed special advocate (CASA).  The GAL may work 
independently orin some Statesbe supported by a multidisciplinary team.  For 
example, a volunteer may be responsible for gathering information regarding the 
childs situation and an attorney may present the childs case in court.   
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Background | 2  To enable GALs to represent children, States may include specific duties of GALs in 
statutes and policies.  Required duties may consist of meeting face-to-face with the 
child on a regular basis, conducting an independent investigation, and submitting 
written reports to the court. 
State-Reported GAL Data 
States that receive CAPTA grant funding are required to work with the Secretary to 
provide annually, to the maximum extent practicable, specific data about children 
who have been mistreated.12  Therefore, States may reportbut are not required to 
reportto ACF two data elements related to GAL representation.  States report these 
two data elements through the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System 
(NCANDS).  First, for each child associated with a report to child protective services 
(CPS) of abuse or neglect, the State reports whether the child was appointed a 
representative for the childs best interests.  (Hereinafter, we refer to this information 
as GAL appointment data.)13  Second, the State may report the average number of 
out-of-court contacts between GALs and the children they represent during the 
reporting year.  (Hereinafter, we refer to this information as GAL out-of-court contact 
data.)  Data on out-of-court contacts provides information about the extent to which 
GALs are meeting with children outside of court hearings.  Insufficient contact with a 
child outside of court may impede a GALs ability to understand the childs situation 
and needs for the purpose of making an informed recommendation to the court.   
Each State designates a NCANDS Primary State Contact responsible for ensuring that 
data is submitted through NCANDS on behalf of the State.  Typically, the NCANDS 
Primary State Contact is an employee of the States child welfare agency and is 
responsible for leading, overseeing, and coordinating with other staff in the State 
(e.g., court system staff) to facilitate the reporting of data through NCANDS.   
States data undergo an automatic online validation process and a review by ACFs 
contracted NCANDS Technical Team.14  Once finalized, States data are reviewed by 
ACF, are aggregated, and may be published in ACFs annual Child Maltreatment 
report.15  To improve data reporting, ACF and its contracted NCANDS Technical Team 
may provide general and individual technical assistance to States throughout the year, 
including outside of the data collection period. 
CAPTA-Related Technical Assistance That ACF Provides to States 
ACFs regional offices may provide technical assistance to States regarding CAPTAs 
requirements for State plans.  This includes providing guidance regarding 
documentation of State plans provisions for appointing a GAL and approving States 
requests for technical assistance through ACF-funded resource centers.    
The resource centers mission is to assist States, Tribes, and courts with building their 
capacity to effectively implement best practices, programs, and services supporting 
CAPTA and other child welfare provisions.16  At ACFs direction, the centers provide 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Background | 3  individualized services, including technical assistance, to States.  The centers routinely 
share information with one another, develop resources on common topics, and 
deliver services when reaching States, Tribes, and courts.  
Methodology 
Data Sources 
Our study used the following data sources: 
Data That States Reported to ACF.  From ACF, we obtained the State-reported data 
from FY 2016the most current data at the time we began our reviewon the 
number of children appointed a GAL and the average number of out-of-court 
contacts that GALs had with children.  (Hereinafter, we refer to this information 
collectively as GAL data.)  We also obtained FY 2018 GAL data to determine whether 
reporting trends we identified for FY 2016 have continued. 
ACF Interviews.  We interviewed ACF officials in February 2016, December 2017, and 
January 2018 regarding the mechanisms and procedures that the agency uses to 
monitor and enforce State compliance with CAPTAs GAL requirement.  We asked 
agency officials for relevant supporting documentation and policies. 
State Surveys and Interviews.  In March 2018, we surveyed officials in 10 selected 
States (the 10 States that had the largest number of child victims in FY 2016) and 
conducted follow-up interviews regarding their implementation of CAPTAs GAL 
requirement.  State officials included child welfare staff, court staff, and (where 
applicable) GAL program staff.  We asked officials about policies, procedures, and 
enforcement mechanisms that would support the signed assurances that States 
submitted to ACF.  We also asked States about the extent to which they collectand 
report to ACFGAL data that reflect their respective activities, and the challenges that 
they face in this collecting and reporting.  We requested documentation to support 
State responses. 
Data Analysis 
State Selection.  To review the extent of ACFs monitoring and enforcement in 
selected States, we surveyed and interviewed in March 2018 the 10 States with the 
largest number of child victims of abuse and neglect in FY 2016, asking them about 
their implementation of CAPTAs GAL requirement.17  These 10 States accounted for 
60 percent of child victims in 2016 and 47 percent of CAPTA grant funding to States 
in FY 2016 (see Exhibit 1).18  
 
 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Background | 4  Exhibit 1:  OIG surveyed and interviewed the 10 States with the largest 
numbers of child victims of abuse and neglect in FY 2016. 
Rank  State  Number of  CAPTA  Percentage of 
Victims  Funding  Total CAPTA 
Funding 
1  California  68,663  $2,820,309  11% 
2  New York  65,123  $1,332,057  5% 
3  Texas  57,374  $2,202,651  9% 
4  Florida  41,894  $1,274,712  5% 
5  Michigan  37,293  $720,257  3% 
6  Massachusetts  32,093  $469,920  2% 
7  Illinois  29,059  $952,175  4% 
8  Indiana  28,430  $527,659  2% 
9  Ohio  23,635  $846,295  3% 
10  Georgia  21,635  $802,352  3% 
Source:  OIG analysis of FY 2016 data from NCANDS and FY 2016 CAPTA allocation data. 
Note: Number of victims refers to the number of unique child victims in FY 2016.  This field counts a child once, 
regardless of the number of times the child was the subject of a CPS report. 
None of our 10 States reported FY 2016 GAL out-of-court contact data to ACF.  
Therefore, to obtain information regarding States collection and reporting of GAL 
out-of-court contact data, we also selected and interviewed the following four States 
that reported out-of-court contact data to ACF:  Louisiana, Utah, Minnesota, and 
New Mexico.  
Support for States Signed Assurances.  We summarized State survey and interview 
responses and counted the number of States that have in effect provisions and 
procedures requiring the assignment of GALs.  We also counted the number of States 
that enforce GAL-related provisions and procedures and summarized the 
enforcement mechanisms that States use.  We reviewed documentation to support 
States responses. 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Background | 5  Completeness and Accuracy of GAL Representation Data.  We obtained from ACF 
the FY 2016 data that States reported on the number of children appointed a GAL and 
the average number of out-of-court contacts that GALs had with children.  We 
counted the number of States that submitted each data element to ACF in FY 2016.  
For selected States that did not submit one or both GAL data elements in 2016, we 
counted the number of States that were able to provide those missing GAL data 
element(s) to OIG in response to our survey.  Furthermore, we summarized limitations 
of States GAL data and State responses regarding challenges in providing complete 
and accurate GAL data to ACF.  We reviewed documentation to support States and 
ACFs responses. 
ACF Oversight Activities.  We summarized ACF officials responses regarding the 
procedures and mechanisms that the agency carries out to monitor and enforce the 
GAL requirement, including how ACF ensures that States assurances are accurate.  
We also asked ACF whether the agency had conducted a compliance review of any 
States, and, if so, whether it applied any enforcement actions in those States.  
Furthermore, we asked ACF what evidence would prompt the agency to conduct a 
compliance review of States and whether the agency uses the data that it collects 
annually from States to prompt a compliance review.  We reviewed documentation to 
support ACFs responses. 
ACF Technical Assistance.  We counted the number of States that are aware of and 
have received technical assistance from ACF for implementing and enforcing GAL-
related policies and procedures.   
Limitations 
The purpose of this study was to assess ACF oversight of the CAPTA GAL requirement.  
We did not determine whether States are compliant with the CAPTA GAL requirement.  
We also did not independently verify submitted survey responses and supporting 
documentation from State and ACF officials. 
Standards 
We conducted this study in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspection and 
Evaluation issued by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Background | 6   
FINDINGS 
 
ACF does little to monitor or enforce States compliance with 
CAPTAs GAL requirement, relying instead on States 
self-certification 
CAPTA requires that ACF monitor and oversee States compliance with grant 
requirements.  CAPTA states that this monitoring shall be in addition to reviewing 
each States CAPTA plan and may include site visits, reviewing information on the 
States website, and reviewing integration of the CAPTA requirements with the States 
broader child welfare plan.19  CAPTA explicitly requires ACF to monitor States 
compliance with provisions and procedures related to substance-abuse-affected 
infants and their families, but it does not otherwise dictate how CAPTA requirements 
should be prioritized for Federal oversight.  
In practice, ACF does not generally review States implementation of the GAL-related 
CAPTA provisions.  Instead, according to ACFs Child Welfare Policy Manual, States 
themselves are primarily responsible for ensuring compliance, and the States provide 
the agency with signed assurances that they meet all CAPTA requirements.20  ACF has 
provided little guidance to assist States in meeting these requirements. 
ACF does not determine whether States self-certifications of 
compliance reflect actual practices to ensure that children receive 
court representation 
All States that receive CAPTA State grant funding must self-certify (through signed 
assurances) in a State plan that they have in effect and enforce laws, or have in effect 
and operate programs, that include provisions and procedures addressing each 
CAPTA requirement, including the GAL requirement.  However, States are not required 
to provide documentation verifying that their respective CAPTA self-certifications 
reflect actual practices.   
With regard to CAPTAs GAL provisions, ACF draws a distinction between the State 
plan certifications and the actual appointment of GALs.  ACF stated to OIG that the 
statute requires that States certify that they have in place provisions and procedures 
requiring GAL representation.  According to ACF, this distinction means that the 
statute does not require that States in fact ensure that each child has such 
representation.  In line with this interpretation, ACF stated that CAPTA does not 
provide the agency with the authority to monitor whether States effectively enforce 
their provisions and procedures and actually provide a GAL to every child victim.   
 
Thus, ACF bases its determination of compliance simply on whether States have in 
place provisions and procedures requiring GAL appointments, regardless of whether 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Findings | 7  those requirements are effectively implemented and enforced.  This means that even 
in a State that ACF deems compliant, some child victims may lack court 
representation to protect their best interests.    
ACF has rarely reviewed whether any States are meeting 
CAPTAs GAL requirement, despite evidence of potential 
noncompliance  
ACFs Child Welfare Policy Manual states that if the agency is presented with 
evidence of potential deficiencies within a State program, action will be taken to 
verify whether a problem actually exists.  For example, ACF officials stated that the 
agency could become apprised of potential compliance issues indirectly, through 
reviews not related to CAPTA requirements, or through other outlets such as the 
media and lawsuits.21  The Child Welfare Policy Manual further states that if ACF 
verifies that a deficiency exists, the agency will notify the State in writing and require it 
to take corrective action through a Program Improvement Plan within a specified 
timeframe.  If the State fails to correct the deficiency within the timeframe, the State 
risks losing its CAPTA State grant funds.22   
In practice, however, ACF has not reviewed any States compliance with the GAL 
requirement or imposed a Program Improvement Plan related to GALs since 2011.23  
This lack of oversight has occurred despite evidence that some States may be failing 
to provide GAL representation.  For example, ACFs annual publication on child 
maltreatment data routinely reports low rates of court representatives being 
appointed.  In fact, of the 36 States that reported appointment data to ACF for 
FY 2016, 32 States reported representation rates below 50 percent, 28 States reported 
rates below 25 percent, and 13 States reported rates below 10 percent that year. 
ACF indicated that these data are unreliable.  ACFs annual Child Maltreatment report 
states that the State-reported GAL appointment rates are likely to be an undercount 
given the statutory requirement in CAPTA that says, in every case involving an abused 
or neglected child, which results in a judicial proceeding, a Guardian ad Litem... who 
may be an attorney or a court-appointed special advocate... shall be appointed to 
represent the child in such proceedings...24  However, ACF staff acknowledged to 
OIG that the agency has no alternate data that contradict information provided by 
States.  As previously mentioned, ACF staff also told OIG that CAPTA does not provide 
ACF with the authority to determine whether all child victims of abuse or neglect are 
in fact appointed GALs.   
ACF suggested that rates below 100 percent might be partially explained by instances 
in which a child victim is determined to be a victim of abuse or neglect, but the courts 
are not involved.  ACF also noted that in some States, GALs are not directly appointed 
by the court.  However, ACF has not determined whether or to what extent low rates 
are attributable to these factors.25   
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Findings | 8  ACF provides limited guidance and minimal proactive technical 
assistance to States regarding CAPTAs GAL requirement  
ACF officials reported that they are technical-assistance focused rather than 
prioritizing strict enforcement of CAPTA requirements or penalizing States for 
noncompliance.  Although ACF provides technical assistance for policy-related 
activitiesboth directly and through the resource centersStates may not be aware 
of these opportunities.  Only 4 of the 10 States in our review were aware that ACF 
offers technical assistance for establishing and enforcing GAL-related policies and 
procedures, and none of the 10 States received such technical assistance.   
Additionally, ACF has issued limited guidance and regulation to assist States in 
implementing the CAPTA GAL requirement.  ACF issued CAPTA regulations in the past 
but rescinded these regulations in their entirety in June 2015.26  According to the 
agency, the regulations were out of date and unnecessary, as ACF believe[s] the 
program requirements are made clear in the statute and [has] provided policy 
interpretations and program instructions to implement the program since 1996 in lieu 
of regulations.27  ACF has not issued any updated regulations that could assist States 
in interpreting and effectively implementing the CAPTA GAL requirement.  
Moreover, ACFs Child Welfare Policy Manual and other policy issuances generally 
restate the language of the law without further detail.28  ACFs guidance does not 
define terms that are vital to effective State implementation of the CAPTA GAL 
requirement.  For example, CAPTA requires that GALs make recommendations to the 
court concerning the best interests of the child; however, neither CAPTA nor the 
Child Welfare Policy Manual recommends factors to consider in determining a childs 
best interests, and States have interpreted the requirement in different ways.29  
Similarly, because of reports that GALs were failing to meet with children and were 
making uninformed recommendations to courts, Congress added to CAPTA a 
requirement that GALs obtain first-hand, a clear understanding of the situation and 
needs of the child.  However, ACF has not recommended standards, such as the 
number of visits that GALs should have with children, nor has it disseminated best 
practices to help States ensure that GALs spend sufficient time with children to 
effectively determine the childrens best interests.   
Although ACF has provided minimal guidance regarding the GAL requirement, the 
agency has taken some steps to encourage legal representation in child welfare 
proceedings more broadly.  In 2017, ACF issued policy guidance to emphasize the 
importance of high quality legal representation... for all parents, children and youth, 
and child welfare agencies in all stages of child welfare proceedings.30  The guidance 
includes best practices for attorneys representing parents, children, or agencies in 
child welfare proceedings.  However, it is not specific to the GAL role and does not 
address the various nonattorney models that States employ to meet the GAL 
requirement (e.g., CASA-based).  Additionally, in 2019 and 2020, ACF added policies 
to its Child Welfare Policy Manual to facilitate States use of non-CAPTA Federal 
funding for independent legal representation by an attorney for children and their 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Findings | 9  parents undergoing foster care legal proceedings.31  In some States, this could 
provide additional funding for attorney GALs; however, States that use CASA models 
may be unable to utilize the funding to improve GAL representation.  
Some States are unable to ensure that all child victims are 
represented in court, raising questions about ACFs reliance on 
States self-certification 
Six of the 10 States included in our review reported numerous challenges to meeting 
the CAPTA GAL requirement.  As of March 2018, all 10 States had established laws 
and/or regulations requiring that each child victim be appointed a GAL;32 however, 
some States had no mechanisms for ensuring that these requirements are effectively 
implemented and enforced.   
States reported numerous challenges to ensuring that every child 
is promptly appointed a GAL who can determine the childs best 
interests 
Six of the 10 States we reviewed reported challenges, including: 
  inadequate funding for GAL programs33,  
  an insufficient number of GALs to meet the increasing number of children 
requiring representation,  
  unavailability of certain types of GALs, and  
  judges not appointing GALs.   
For example, one State official explained,  
During the last three years, the numbers of children in out-of-home care in 
[our State] have grown dramatically, largely in response to a nationwide epidemic 
of opioid abuse which has hit [our State] very directly.  Despite infusions of 
additional resources [...], the increases in the number of judicial cases has 
outstripped the resources of the Program. 
Three of the six States that reported challenges said that as a result of these 
problems, they are not always able to assign a GAL to every child victim undergoing 
judicial proceedings despite self-certifying that that they have a requirement to do so 
and that they enforce this requirement.  One of the three States noted that during the 
time when children are on a waiting list for GAL appointments, their cases may be 
temporarily assigned to an advocate who reviews their paperwork.  The State 
explained that it does not consider those children to have GAL representation as 
described in CAPTA, because the advocate in that scenario is not meeting with the 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Findings | 10  child or able to make informed recommendations to the court as the childs case 
proceeds.   
Furthermore, some States that did report appointing a GAL to every child nonetheless 
faced challenges in ensuring timely and appropriate representation.  One State 
reported that although no case will proceed without a GAL, one county had 
experienced difficulties in making prompt GAL appointments, thereby delaying some 
childrens cases until a GAL became available.  Additionally, some States reported that 
although every child has a GAL, the GALs have high caseloads.  In one State, each GAL 
represents 200 children, on average.  High caseloads may prevent GALs from 
obtaining a firsthand, clear understanding of the childs situation and needs as 
specified by CAPTA.     
Some States have no systems in place to assess and ensure their 
own compliance with the CAPTA GAL requirement   
Half of the 10 States in our review reported that they rely solely on presiding judges 
to ensure that each child victim in their courtrooms is appointed a GAL.  These five 
States reported that they have not implemented any additional oversight mechanisms 
to enforce the requirement that every child receives a GAL, such as monitoring 
appointment data, reviewing case files, or conducting site visits.   
States may not become aware of deficiencies because they do not proactively monitor 
their compliance with CAPTAs GAL requirement.  Of the seven States in our review 
that reported assigning a GAL to every child victim undergoing a judicial proceeding, 
six said that they had not received complaints about representation and therefore 
assume that all children are appointed a GAL.  (One State did not report whether it 
had received complaints.)  Without proactively reviewing compliance and instead 
relying only on complaints for monitoring compliance, States may not be aware of 
deficiencies.34 
CAPTA also states that a GAL should obtain firsthand a clear understanding of the 
childs situation and needs.  However, some States in our review reported that they 
lack oversight mechanisms to ensure that GALs meet with children outside of court to 
gather information about childrens respective situations.  Specifically, seven States 
reported conducting reviews to ensure that GALs meet with children, one State 
reported that judges are solely responsible for overseeing GALs in its courtrooms, and 
one State reported that it has no mechanisms for ensuring that GALs meet with 
children.  The remaining State did not report whether it has oversight mechanisms to 
ensure that GALs meet with children.  If GALs do not have sufficient contact with 
children outside the childrens court appearances, they may not be able to make 
informed recommendations to the courts as to the childrens best interests. 
Several States described challenges to conducting oversight, including lack of 
mechanisms to monitor GAL appointments and activities; lack of authority to 
intervene with judges if the GAL requirement is not being met; and problems with 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Findings | 11  data (e.g., lack of a centralized database or unreliable data).  These challenges prevent 
States from determining whether the GAL requirement is being met and taking action 
if it is not.  As one State official reported, [We] lack any enforcement mechanism in 
[our State].  We cant even track our GALs, let alone look at the quality of their work 
except by going into the courts and watching them work, which is labor-intensive and 
somewhat subjective. 
Inaccurate and incomplete GAL data impede ACFs ability to 
identify States that do not ensure all child victims receive court 
representation 
CAPTA requires that States annually provide to ACF, to the maximum extent 
practicable, certain data elements, including GAL appointment data and data on GAL 
out-of-court contacts.  However, ACF does not have the statutory authority to 
penalize States for nonreporting or for reporting inaccurate data.     
State-reported GAL data could be a valuable source of information for ACF as to 
whether States are properly implementing the CAPTA GAL requirement.  However, the 
agency stated that it cannot use GAL data for this purpose because State-reported 
GAL data are not complete or reliable and do not accurately represent States GAL-
related activities.  ACFs annual public report on child maltreatment data includes GAL 
appointment figures with the caveat that they are likely to be an undercount, given 
the statutory requirement in CAPTA.35  ACF considers one data elementthe average 
number of out-of-court contacts between a GAL and a childto be so unreliable that 
it does not include those figures in public reporting at all.   
OIGs review confirms ACFs view that the data States currently report are inaccurate.  
State officials described technical challenges that impede reporting, such as a lack of 
centralized data systems and misalignment between States data definitions and those 
used by ACF.  Additionally, some States face challenges related to communication 
between court or GAL program staff and child welfare agency staff.     
ACF does not receive complete and accurate GAL data from 
States  
OIG found that when States do report GAL data to ACF, the data are often inaccurate 
and do not reflect States actual GAL appointments and out-of-court contacts.   
Many States do not report GAL data to ACF.  In total, 14 of 52 States did not report 
GAL appointment data between FYs 2012 and 2016 and 44 of the 52 did not report 
GAL out-of-court contact data during this period.36  For FY 2016 specifically, 36 States 
reported GAL appointment data and 8 States reported GAL out-of-court contact data 
to ACF.37  The trend continues as we found that 15 States did not report FY 2018 GAL 
appointment data to ACF, and 42 States did not report GAL out-of-court contact data 
to the agency.38   
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Findings | 12  ACF receives inaccurate GAL data from States that do report.  Of the 10 selected 
States in our review, 2 confirmed the accuracy of the FY 2016 GAL appointment 
figures that they reported to ACF.39  Five States contradicted the GAL appointment 
figure they originally reported to ACFsometimes by a substantial amount (see 
Exhibit 2).  Finally, the remaining three States we reviewed did not report FY 2016 GAL 
appointment data to ACF.     
Similarly, of the four additional States that had provided ACF with GAL out-of-court 
contact data and whose officials we interviewed, only one State confirmed the 
accuracy of the GAL figure that it had reported to ACF.40   
States reported that technical and coordination challenges 
impede their reporting of complete and accurate GAL data 
to ACF 
All 10 States in our review reported challenges in collecting and reporting GAL data.  
Examples include:  
  data are not consistently recorded on the local level by courts or GALs;  
  data are maintained only at the local level and no mechanism exists to 
aggregate information at the State level; 
  State-level data systems do not include data from all counties (for example, 
the database covers only counties that use volunteer GALs, omitting counties 
that use attorney GALs); 
  data are maintained in court system databases or GAL program databases that 
are not linked to the child welfare data system that States use for NCANDS 
reporting; 
  the field with data related to GAL appointments is not mandatory in the child 
welfare databases; and  
  State data definitions differ from those necessary for NCANDS reporting.   
Because none of the 10 States in our review reported out-of-court contacts to ACF in 
FY 2016, we interviewed 4 additional States that did report these data.  These States 
reported benefiting from having a statewide database with GAL information and, in 
some cases, a collaborative relationship between the child welfare agency and other 
entities that provide GAL appointments. 
However, some States, including both those that reported out-of-court contacts and 
those that did not, described challenges related to communication between court or 
GAL program staff and child welfare agency staff.  Court staff were not always aware 
that States respective child welfare agencies needed data on GAL appointments and 
data on out-of-court contacts for NCANDS reporting.  ACF assigns responsibility to 
NCANDS Primary State Contactswho are employees of State child welfare 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Findings | 13  agenciesto coordinate NCANDS data reporting with other staff (e.g., court system 
staff) in their respective States.41 
Some States have access to more complete and accurate GAL data than they report 
to ACF.  Despite challenges, some States are capable of reporting more complete and 
accurate GAL data than what they currently report to ACF through NCANDS.  Of the 
three States in our review that did not report GAL appointment data to ACF, two were 
able to provide OIG with those data.42  Additionally, of the five States that told OIG 
that the GAL appointment figure reported to ACF was inaccurate, three were able to 
provide a corrected figure to OIG (see Exhibit 2).43   
Further, although none of the 10 States that we reviewed reported data on GAL out-
of-court contacts to ACF for FY 2016, most reported to OIG that they do track this 
information in some capacity, such as through attorney billing, visit notes, and local 
databases.  However, they could not provide OIG with the average number of out-of-
court contacts that GALs had with children.   
Exhibit 2:  Three States reported GAL appointment figures to ACF that 
differed from data reported to OIG. 
Florida
Indiana
California
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
Reported to ACF  Reported to OIG   
 
Source:  OIG analysis of FY 2016 NCANDS data and OIG survey data.  
Note: California reported to OIG that its GAL-related data underwent analysis by the NCANDS Technical Team (an ACF 
contractor), which applied a separate methodology to determine the figure that would ultimately be submitted to ACF 
through NCANDS.  California noted that the data it provided to OIG were consistent with the data it had originally 
provided to the NCANDS Technical Team. 
Note:  See Appendix A for detailed submission information for all 10 States OIG we reviewed. 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Findings | 14   
RECOMMENDATIONS 
 
 
Research has demonstrated that children with a court-appointed representative to 
advocate for their best interests, such as a GAL, have better outcomes.  For example, 
they are less likely to remain in foster care long-term and are more likely to have their 
cases permanently closed.   
Recognizing this, Congress sought to protect vulnerable children by including in 
CAPTA a requirement that each State not only must certify that it has in effect, but 
also must enforce a State law or operate a Statewide program that includes provisions 
and procedures requiring that every child victim be appointed a GAL to protect the 
childs best interests.  Congress also included provisions in CAPTA that direct the 
Secretary, through ACF, to monitor States compliance with CAPTA requirements.  
CAPTA further states that the Federal Government should assist States and 
communities with the fiscal, human, and technical resources necessary to develop and 
implement a successful and comprehensive child and family protection strategy.44 
We found that ACF conducts little oversight and provides limited guidance to support 
States compliance with and effective implementation of the GAL requirement.  ACF 
officials reported to OIG that ACF does not have the authority to monitor whether 
States actually appoint GALs to all children.  Instead, the agency relies on States own 
assurances that they have, and enforce, provisions and procedures requiring that a 
GAL be appointed to every child victim and that these GALs have sufficient contact 
with children to understand childrens situations and make informed 
recommendations to courts.     
ACFs reliance on States self-certification is concerning, because our review found 
that not all States have oversight mechanisms in place to ensure their own 
compliance.  Additionally, three States in our review reported that as a result of 
significant challenges, they are not always able to assign a GAL to every child victim 
undergoing judicial proceedings.  Further, because States do not report complete and 
accurate GAL data to ACF, the agency has no way of distinguishing poor data from 
actual failure to provide a GAL to every child victim.   
Our findings demonstrate that ACF is neither supporting States in implementing the 
CAPTA GAL requirement, nor monitoring States compliance with the requirement.  As 
a result, ACF cannot ensure that all child victims of abuse and neglect have court 
representation to protect their best interests.   
 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Recommendations | 15  To address these vulnerabilities and better protect children, we 
recommend that ACF: 
Conduct oversight activities to identify States that may not 
appoint a GAL to every child victim who undergoes a judicial 
proceeding, seeking statutory authority as necessary 
ACF has not conducted reviews of any States compliance with the GAL requirement 
in nearly a decade, despite evidence of potential noncompliance.  ACF could more 
effectively oversee States compliance by periodically reviewing States practices, 
seeking statutory authority as necessary.  This reviewing could include such steps as:  
  requesting that States submit information supporting their self-certifications, 
  conducting reviews of selected childrens cases, 
  conducting site visits, 
  reviewing information on States websites, or 
  reviewing the integration of the CAPTA requirements into States broader child 
welfare plans. 
ACF need not conduct all of these activities, nor implement them for all States, to 
improve its oversight.  Instead, to best use its oversight resources, ACF could prioritize 
its reviews to focus on States that appear to have greater vulnerabilities.  For example, 
OIG has provided ACF with additional information about States thatfrom the 
information in our reviewdo not currently appoint a GAL to every child victim.   
Proactively provide technical assistance to States that face 
challenges in appointing a GAL for every child victim  
ACF and its funded resource centers should provide technical assistance to court 
system program staff and (if applicable) GAL program staffi.e., staff in programs 
that are responsible for appointing GALsas well as to child welfare staff.  ACF should 
proactively provide technical assistance that addresses the significant challenges that 
States face in appointing GALs, including: 
  inadequate funding for GAL programs 
  an insufficient number of GALs to meet the increasing number of children 
requiring representation;  
  unavailability of certain types of GALs, such as court-appointed special 
advocates; and 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Recommendations | 16    judges not appointing GALs.   
Our review found that as a result of these challenges, three of the 10 States we 
reviewed may not be able to assign a GAL to every child, and several additional States 
may not provide timely and appropriate representation.  However, most States in our 
review were not aware that the agency offers technical assistance for the GAL 
requirement, and none received it.  
Technical assistance should also focus on challenges that States face in assessing and 
ensuring their own compliance, including lack of mechanisms to monitor GAL 
appointments and activities; lack of authority to impose corrective actions on judges if 
the GAL requirement is not being met; and data issues (e.g., lack of a centralized 
database or unreliable data).  Without the ability to conduct proper oversight, States 
will not be able to ensure on an ongoing basis that all child victims are appointed a 
GAL. 
Proactively identify and address obstacles that States face in 
reporting complete and accurate GAL data 
Complete and accurate State-reported GAL data would further support ACFs efforts 
to monitor and oversee States compliance with the GAL requirement and would also 
enable ACF to more effectively target its technical assistance.  However, ACF has 
acknowledged that the GAL data the agency currently receives are incomplete and 
inaccurate.   
Two of the three States in our review that did not report GAL appointment data to 
ACF were able to provide such data to OIG.  Additionally, three of the five States that 
had told OIG that the data they reported to ACF were inaccurate were nonetheless 
able to provide corrected figures in response to our request.  These facts suggest that 
States are capable of more complete and accurate reporting but may need assistance 
to overcome the technical and coordination challenges that impede their ability to 
report these data to ACF. 
To improve States reporting, ACF should direct its contracted NCANDS Technical 
Team to work with the NCANDS Primary State Contacts to identify all possible data 
sources to assist States in reporting the most accurate and complete GAL data 
available.  The Team should encourage each States Primary State Contact to engage 
other State agencies (for example, court systems and GAL programs operated 
separately from the child welfare agency) to communicate the GAL requirement and 
technical assistance available.   
In addition, some States told OIG that database issues have hindered their ability to 
collect and report GAL data to ACF.  Therefore, ACF could assist States with 
developing solutions to improve the transmission of GAL data from court system 
databases and/or GAL program databases to each States child welfare system 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Recommendations | 17  database.  For example, ACF could share best practices and lessons learned from 
States in which child welfare and court staff successfully share GAL data.      
 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Recommendations | 18   
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG RESPONSE 
 
 
ACF did not explicitly concur or nonconcur with our three recommendations.  ACF 
characterized OIGs recommendations as calling for intensive monitoring, corrective 
action and penalties and stated that the agency lacks statutory authority to pursue 
such an approach.  The HHS Office of the General Counsel (OGC) separately wrote to 
OIG supporting ACFs interpretation of the statute.  
OIG does not agree that our recommendations entail intensive monitoring; further, we 
did not recommend that ACF impose corrective action or penalties.  Rather, OIG 
recommended measured steps that are at ACFs disposal and build on the agencys 
technical-assistance-focused approach to CAPTA oversight.  OIGs recommendations 
could enable ACF to better assess States provision of court representation, help 
States address challenges, and improve States ability to provide ACF with complete 
and accurate data about court representation.  Additionally, these steps could address 
OIGs finding that States do not always ensure that every child victim has a 
representative to advocate for the childs best interestsa finding that raises 
questions central to CAPTAs and ACFs shared goal of improving outcomes for 
children who have been abused or neglected.   
First, OIG recommended that ACF conduct oversight activitiesseeking statutory 
authority as necessaryto identify States that may not appoint a GAL to every child 
victim who undergoes a judicial proceeding.  In response, ACF stated that it agrees 
that representation in court for child victims of abuse and neglect is critical, but that 
the agency does not have the statutory authority to monitor whether States appoint a 
GAL to every child victim.  ACF also stated that such monitoring would be resource-
intensive and that Congress has not provided additional funding for this purpose.   
OIGs recommendation notes several possible mechanisms for increased oversight 
and explains that ACF need not conduct all of those activities, nor implement them 
for all States, to improve its oversight of the CAPTA GAL requirement.  The agency 
could best use limited resources by prioritizing its oversight activities to focus on 
States that have greater vulnerabilities, such as the three States in our review that 
explicitly told OIG that they do not appoint a GAL to every child victim.  If ACF 
believes that it lacks authority to conduct such monitoring, it could seek authority 
through the legislative coordination process for Executive Branch agencies as 
governed by the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-19.  
ACF has stated its commitment to quality representation for children who have been 
abused or neglected.  To that end, ACF has tools at its disposalincluding seeking 
legislative change, if it deems it necessaryto ensure such representation.  Although 
OIG believes that the statute supports the monitoring activities that we recommend, 
we recognize that ACF disagrees.  Our review identified a critical vulnerability 
affecting abused and neglected children, and our recommendations to ACF are 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Agency Comments and OIG Response | 19  intended to address this vulnerability so that the agency can more effectively support 
States efforts to protect childrens best interests.  Given the Departments 
interpretation of the scope of ACFs statutory authority, OIG recommends that ACF 
seek legislative change as it deems necessary to allow the agency to better ensure 
quality representation for children.    
Second, OIG recommended that ACF proactively provide technical assistance to States 
that face challenges in appointing a GAL for every child victim.  In response, ACF 
explained that it has provided substantial technical assistance and other support to 
States to improve legal representation of children.  ACF stated that the type of 
technical assistance that OIG recommends is beyond the scope of CAPTA, intensive, 
and unlikely to result in improved performance or better outcomes for children.   
OIG recognizes that ACF and its funded resource centers provide assistance to States; 
indeed, our recommendation intentionally builds on ACFs technical-assistance-
focused approach to CAPTA oversight.  States reported significant challenges that in 
some cases prevent them from promptly appointing a GAL to every child victim, yet 
most States in our review were not aware that ACF offers technical assistance for the 
GAL requirement, and none received it.  Efforts to improve technical assistance 
regarding court representation need not be intensive, but they should be proactive 
(rather than being offered only at States request) to bring additional focus to this 
critical child welfare issue.    
Finally, OIG recommended that ACF proactively identify and address obstacles that 
States face in reporting complete and accurate GAL data.  In response, ACF explained 
that its NCANDS Technical Team is continuing to work with States on improving 
States reporting of GAL data.  ACF stated that the methods OIG recommends to ACF 
are unrealistic and that modifications to State data-collection systems are not a 
prudent use of State resources.  ACF said that it does not have the authority to 
resolve State-specific issues regarding coordination and data transmission 
challenges.   
Complete and accurate State-reported GAL data would provide ACF with further 
information about States implementation of the GAL requirement, enabling more 
efficient and targeted oversight and assistance.  OIG recognizes the barriers that 
States face in reporting complete and accurate data.  However, we found that States 
are often capable of more complete and accurate reporting but may need assistance 
to overcome the technical and coordination challenges that impede their ability to 
report these data to ACF.  For example, two of the three States in our review that did 
not report GAL appointment data to ACF were able to provide such data to OIG.  In 
addition, three of the five States that had told OIG that the data they reported to ACF 
were inaccurate were nonetheless able to provide corrected figures in response to our 
request.  Further, we found that court staff were not always aware that States 
respective child welfare agencies needed GAL data for NCANDS reporting.  In fact, 
after OIG interviewed State staff for this study, staff in two States notified OIG that 
they will now coordinate with other agencies in their respective States to better report 
GAL data to ACF.  This demonstrates that even modest steps to help States 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Agency Comments and OIG Response | 20  coordinate can improve the reporting of GAL data.  It further indicates that the 
NCANDS Technical Teams current technical assistance activities could be improved to 
target and address challenges that States face in reporting GAL data to ACF.   
We ask that ACF clarify in its Final Management Decision its concurrence or 
nonconcurrence with each recommendation, and the steps ACF is taking to 
implement each recommendation. 
For the full text of ACFs comments, see Appendix B. 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Agency Comments and OIG Response | 21   
APPENDIX A 
 
GAL Appointment Figures That States Reported to ACF and OIG 
Differed for Several States  
State  Reported to ACF  Reported to OIG 
California  23,288  26,504 
Florida  43  30,376 
Georgia  5,193  5,193 
Illinois  Unreported  Unreported 
Indiana  7,946  24,569 
Massachusetts  6,780  Unreported 
Michigan  2,355  Unreported 
New York  Unreported  19,927 
Ohio  4,127  4,127 
Texas  Unreported  19,090 
Source:  OIG analysis of FY 2016 GAL appointment data from NCANDS and OIG survey responses. 
Note:  Massachusetts and Michigan contradicted the GAL appointment figures that they had originally reported to ACF, but they 
could not provide OIG with corrected figures. 
Note:  California reported to OIG that its GAL-related data underwent analysis by the NCANDS Technical Team (an ACF contractor), 
which applied a separate methodology to determine the figure that would ultimately be submitted to ACF through NCANDS.  
California noted that the data it provided to OIG were consistent with the data it had originally provided to the NCANDS Technical 
Team. 
 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Appendix A | 22  APPENDIX B:  Agency Comments
Office of the Assistant Secretary | 330 C Street, S.W., Suite 4034 
Washington, D.C. 20201 | www.acf.hhs.gov 
November 9, 2020 
Ms. Suzanne Murrin 
Deputy Inspector General 
   for Evaluation and Inspections 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 
330 Independence Avenue, SW 
Washington, DC  20201 
Dear Ms. Murrin: 
I am writing to provide the Administration for Children and Families' (ACF) response to the 
Office of Inspector General's (OIG) report, "ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of 
Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation (OEI-12-16-00120), which contains 
recommendations for the Childrens Bureau (CB).  I appreciate the OIGs review of this 
important issue and want to share information about CBs actions with regard to legal 
representation for children in foster care.   
ACF believes that representationparticiarly high quality legal representationfor children 
in foster care, candidates for foster care, and their parents is critical to ensure a well-
functioning child welfare system.  Research shows that early appointment of counsel in 
child welfare proceedings can improve case planning, expedite permanency for children, 
and lead to cost savings for state and tribal governments.  CB communicates this message to 
the field by writing articles, conducting interviews, and speaking publicly about the need for 
families at risk of having a child placed into out-of-home care to have quality legal 
representation throughout the duration of their involvement with child welfare.  CB has 
demonstrated leadership in highlighting the importance of legal representation and has used 
other legal authorities to support funding of independent legal representation in foster care 
proceedings.  
However, as outlined in the attached memorandum from the HHS Office of General 
Counsel (OGC), we understand that the CB does not have the statutory authority to 
implement the OIGs suggested approach of intensive monitoring, corrective action and 
penalties with respect to the Guardian ad Litem provisions in CAPTA.  The OIGs 
recommended approach also appears inconsistent with how the CAPTA State Grant 
program is structured.  From our decades of experience implementing the CAPTA State 
Grant program and providing technical assistance (TA) to states, we understand that the 
primary challenge to states in providing legal representation to these children and parents is 
simply a lack of resources.  As a programmatic matter, beyond the statutory authority issues 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation
OEI-12-16-00120                            Appendix B | 23 Page 2  The Deputy Inspector General 
outlined by OGC, CB believes its current efforts to address this resource gap are a more 
effective approach than investing federal resources into intensive monitoring and 
withholding a portion of the limited funding states receive to address the many important 
CAPTA state plan requirements.   
This is why, in recent years, CB has been proactive in taking actions to help states address 
this resource gap.   
 In 2017, CB issued information on such research and guidance to the child welfare
field and strongly encouraged all child welfare agencies and jurisdictions to work
together to ensure that high quality legal representation is provided to all parties in all
stages of child welfare proceedings.
 In 2018 and 2019, CB amended the Child Welfare Policy Manual to issue revised
and new policies that allow title IV-E agencies to claim federal financial participation
(FFP) for certain administrative costs of independent legal representation provided
by an attorney per the Social Security Act (the Act) and current regulations.
 In 2020, CB responded to title IV-E agency and other stakeholder frequently asked
questions about the aforementioned policies.  CB also informed states and tribal
grantees that they may use kinship navigator funds provided in accordance with title
IV-B, subpart 2 of the Act to provide brief legal services to assist kinship caregivers
in learning about, finding and using programs and services to meet the needs of the
children they are raising and their own needs, which may include support[ing] any
other activities designed to assist kinship caregivers in obtaining benefits and
services to improve their caregiving.  We are aware of at least four states and one
tribe that are using kinship navigator funds for this purpose now.  In addition, all
kinship navigator programs are required to have information and referral services to
link kinship caregivers to relevant legal assistance and help in obtaining legal
services.
CB will continue this approach as it works towards the shared goal of ensuring that all 
children and parents receive high-quality legal representation during their involvement with 
the child welfare system.  
OIG makes the following findings in its report: 
 ACF does little to monitor or enforce States compliance with CAPTAs GAL
requirement, relying instead on states self-certification
 ACF has not reviewed in nearly a decade whether any States are meeting CAPTAs
GAL requirement, despite evidence of potential noncompliance
 Some States are unable to ensure that all child victims are represented in court,
raising questions about reliance on self-certification
 Inaccurate and incomplete GAL data impede ACFs ability to identify States that do
not ensure all child victims receive court representation
We again refer to the attached legal memorandum from OGC, which provides HHSs 
interpretation of the relevant statutory authorities. We note that several findings above are 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation
OEI-12-16-00120                            Appendix B | 24 Page 3  The Deputy Inspector General 
based on a statutory interpretation that is inconsistent with that of OGC. 
RECOMMENDATION 1: Conduct oversight activities to identify States that may not 
appoint a GAL to every child victim who undergoes a judicial proceeding, seeking 
statutory authority as necessary 
ACF Response:  As we have stated above, we agree that representation in court for child 
victims of child abuse and neglect is critical. However, as decribed in the memorandum from 
OGC, HHS does not currently have statutory authority for such oversight.  No additional 
funding for monitoring of the CAPTA state grant program has been provided by Congress in any 
re-authorizations of the program, other than the recent increases targeted to address plans of safe 
care for substance-exposed infants made by Public Law 114-198, the Comprehensive Addiction 
and Recovery Act.  
Scope, funding, and size of program.  In the CAPTA Amendments of 1996, Congress 
specifically designed the CAPTA state grant program to be state driven and operated with 
minimal federal oversight and intrusion.  Neither the statute nor the legislative history indicate 
that Congress intended for the increased level of intensive oversight and monitoring of states as 
recommended by OIG.  
The CAPTA state grant program is one of the smaller federal programs supporting state child 
welfare services and provides formula grants to states to improve child protective service 
systems.  Historically, annual funding for the program totaled approximately $25 million.  In 
fiscal year (FY) 2018 and FY 2019, funding increased to approximately $85 million and in FY 
2020 to approximately $90 million.  However, Congress directed that $60 million of the increase 
in funding be prioritized for the development, implementation and monitoring of plans of safe 
care for substance-exposed infants, consistent with the requirement at section 106(b)(2)(B)(iii) of 
CAPTA.  At the FY 2020 funding level, seven states receive grants of only $186,000 to 
$300,000, with most of the funding to be prioritized for meeting requirements relating to plans of 
safe care.  As a programmatic matter, this leaves very little federal funding to address the GAL 
provisions or other purposes of the CAPTA grant.  
Monitoring to be considered within the context of CAPTA.  Federal monitoring of the CAPTA 
state grant must be considered in the context of the statutory language governing the program. 
Our approach to monitoring is consistent with statutory requirements as interpreted by OGC,  
funding for states, and federal staffing.  We monitor CAPTA through statutorily required annual 
updates and our ongoing partnership with states in joint planning and oversight.   
As stated above, the CAPTA Amendments of 1996 restructured, simplified, and streamlined the 
CAPTA state grant program in order to reduce the administrative burden on states.  As such, 
Congress signaled with the use of assurances rather than requirements that federal scrutiny is 
reduced in lieu of state governor certifications that their CAPTA programs meet the requirements 
of the CAPTA state grant program.  Once the assurance is submitted to the federal government, 
CB does not routinely verify assurances since the state has complied with the CAPTA statutory 
requirements.  In addition, states must submit annual updates on their activities under or changes 
to its CAPTA plan.   
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation
OEI-12-16-00120                               Appendix B | 25 Page 4  The Deputy Inspector General 
As explained in Section 2.1, Question 2 of the Child Welfare Policy Manual, if there are 
instances in which CB is presented with evidence of potential deficiencies (e.g., through the 
child and family services program reviews or other sources), action will be taken to verify 
whether a problem actually exists.  If a deficiency is verified, the state will be notified in writing 
and will be required to take corrective action within a specified timeframe.  Funds will not be 
jeopardized unless the state fails to correct the deficiency within the specified timeframe.   
However, the OIG recommends that CB go further than what the law requires to request that 
states submit information supporting their self-certification for the GAL representation provision, 
conduct reviews of selected childrens cases, and conduct state site visits.  These are highly 
resource intensive for both the federal government and states, go beyond current federal 
authority, and are not warranted considering the statutory requirements.  Any determination of 
state compliance with the CAPTA statute must be based on whether a state has a provision or 
procedure requiring that a GAL be appointed in every case involving a victim of child abuse or 
neglect which results in a judicial proceeding, not how many GALs have been assigned.  
Lack of  legal authority to implement specific monitoring recommendations.  The 
recommended level of scrutiny is out of proportion with this type of program, which is a 
formula grant program rather than a child specific entitlement.  We also want to address the 
OIG finding that ACF could ensure states compliance by seeking statutory authority as 
necessary.  CB currectly lacks the statutory authority to implement OIGs recommendation 
and would view it as inappropriate to either concur with a recommendation for which it 
lacks authority and resources, or speak to an intent to seek additional authority, outside of 
traditional legislative development channels within the Executive branch.  
RECOMMENDATION 2: Proactively provide technical assistance to States that face 
challenges in appointing a GAL for every child victim 
ACF does not review states' implementation of the GAL requirement, because it does not have 
authority to do so, as described in the memorandum from OGC. ACF has, however, provided 
substantial technical assistance and other support to states to improve the legal representation of 
children in the child welfare system. CB believes it is important to describe that information 
here. 
Specifically, CB issued Information Memorandum ACYF-CB-IM-17-02, the purpose of which 
was to encourage all child welfare agencies, courts, administrative offices of the courts, and 
Court Improvement Programs to work together to ensure parents, children and youth, and child 
welfare agencies, receive high quality legal representation at all stages of child welfare 
proceedings.  We also released a Technical Bulletin with Frequently Asked Questions on 
Independent Legal Representation.  We believe this is the most appropriate focus of federal staff 
resources in the area of court representation for children, with the goal of being impactful and 
better serving children in the child welfare system. 
ACF provides TA consistent with the statutory underpinnings.  ACF provides TA as needed on a 
state specific level, to our program grantees, when requested or necessary to meet a program 
requirement.  For example, in regards to the Policy Manual change that allows title IV-E 
agencies to claim FFP for legal representation, our Capacity Building Center for Courts 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation
OEI-12-16-00120                            Appendix B | 26 Page 5  The Deputy Inspector General 
(CBCC) has provided tailored TA to state Court Improvement Programs (CIPs) and child 
welfare agencies in developing infrastructure, policies, and evaluation approaches to 
facilitate approvable plans.  The CBCC and CB have also repeatedly encouraged states to 
explore this option and other practices to strengthen legal representation for children during 
constituency events.1  Since 2017, the Child Welfare Capacity Building Collaborative, 
including the CBCC and the Center for States, has provided tailored TA to 26 states on topics 
relating to legal representation, involving over 430 hours of consultation.  Our ongoing 
partnership and work with states in joint planning and oversight gives us insight into states 
needs so we can mobilize resources when requested, and provide the assistance needed to 
continuously improve their ability to respond to and prevent child abuse and neglect.  To 
facilitate coordination between the CAPTA state plan and title IV-B, CB continues to require 
that the annual report describing use of CAPTA funds be submitted with the Annual Progress 
and Services Report (APSR).    
TA for State monitoring is outside the scope of the law.  The type and manner of TA 
recommended goes beyond the scope of what is required by the CAPTA statute.  The OIG 
recommends that TA should also focus on challenges that states face in assessing and ensuring 
their own compliance, including the lack of mechanisms to monitor GAL appointments, and the 
lack of authority to impose corrective actions on judges if the GAL requirement is not being met.  
This appears to be based on findings that states do not monitor themselves and implies that 
CAPTA requires states to conduct monitoring of their implementation of the GAL provision.  As 
discussed in the memorandum from OGC, the statute does not require that states analyze their 
practices, and therefore this would be an inappropriate use of federal resources and outside the 
scope of the requirement.  As we have indicated, states are only required to provide an 
assurance/certification.  For example, state child welfare agencies are not required by statute to 
have systems in place to verify GAL appointments with courts, over which they have no 
authority; or to proactively monitor individual GAL appointments.  
Unrealistic expectations for ACF TA.  The types of TA recommended for ACF to provide to 
CAPTA grantees are unlikely to result in improved performance or better outcomes for 
children, since such efforts would be unlikely to have an impact on such things as 
inadequate funding, judicial behavior, the insufficient number of volunteers, or available 
CASAs.  Further, we do not believe it is appropriate or effective to focus intensive TA on 
this one assurance in isolation.  In recent years, CB has refocused its TA to provide capacity 
building services to child welfare agencies and the courts, through the Child Welfare 
1 For instance, on March 7, 2017, a virtual event was held to give an overview of the Childrens Bureau Information 
Memorandum of legal representation.  This event included presentations by a child welfare agency representative 
and childrens and parents attorneys.  Also in 2017, the CBCC sponsored a series of day-long, in-person CIP 
regional meetings, focused on strengthening joint projects between CIPs and child welfare agencies, most of which 
included some aspect of improving legal representation.  In 2018, a series of four CIP virtual events were held 
devoted to applying continuous quality improvement in legal representation.  On June 16, 2020, a CIP call discussed 
ensuring procedural fairness, equity, and access to justice for all families.  Participants discussed the role of quality 
legal representation in safely preventing unnecessary entry of children into foster care and analysis to address and 
reduce racial disparities in child welfare. 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation
OEI-12-16-00120                           Appendix B | 27 Page 6  The Deputy Inspector General 
Capacity Building Collaborative, comprised of the Center for States, the Center for Tribes 
and the Center for Courts.  The most intensive, state-specific type of assistance is provided 
through tailored services.  For tailored services, Centers partner with jurisdictions and use an 
assessment process to identify strengths and needs.  They then develop a work plan for 
jurisdictions that decide to engage in services.  The work plan outlines the activities of the 
jurisdiction and the services provided by the Center for States to achieve the desired 
enhancements in organizational capacity and practice improvements.  This integrated, 
assessment-driven approach to capacity building, that engages all key stakeholders in the 
jurisdiction is far more likely to yield improved outcomes for children and families, than 
federally driven TA on an isolated topic.   
RECOMMENDATION 3: Proactively identify and address obstacles that States face in 
reporting complete and accurate GAL data 
As noted in the 2018 Child Maltreatment report, the NCANDS Technical Team is continuing to 
work with states on improving reporting in this area, even though NCANDS is a voluntary 
system.  The NCANDS Technical Team regularly addresses data quality issues with states in 
order to improve NCANDS reporting.  This occurs through a yearly webinar series, in addition 
to individualized state TA.  Information regarding changes in reporting or data quality is 
provided by states and made available to the public in the yearly Child Maltreatment report.  The 
reports  language implies that the work mentioned above is not happening, which is not 
accurate.  
NCANDS reporting on this item is, consistent with the statute, the number of children for whom 
individuals were appointed by the court to represent the best interests of children.  As such, this 
data does not account for attorneys who represent children but are not appointed by the court, 
such as with locations that have institutional legal representation providers that manage their 
own case assignments automatically when petitions are filed, meaning that this data is 
underrepresented and is only a subset of the children who are represented in court. 
The OIG notes that per CAPTA, the state is to report NCANDS data to the maximum extent 
practicable, which means that reporting is not mandatory.  In implementing the NCANDS, we 
have encouraged states to report fully on all fields, but ultimately, NCANDS is a voluntary 
system, leaving it to states to determine what NCANDS data fields they are able to report.   
Data cannot be used for compliance.  The basis for the OIGs recommendation appears to 
be a misunderstanding that complete and accurate state-reported GAL data would further 
support ACF efforts to monitor and oversee states compliance with the GAL requirement.  This 
is not true for several reasons.  ACF does not monitor compliance with the GAL assurance 
through this data.  As described in the memorandum from OGC, the statutory requirement is for 
the state to have provisions and procedures for appointing GALs, and there is no associated data 
reporting requirement.  Furthermore, the NCANDS reporting on this item is, consistent with the 
statute, the number of children for whom individuals were appointed by the court to represent the 
best interests of children.  As such, this data does not account for attorneys who represent 
children but are not appointed by the court, such as with locations that have institutional legal 
representation providers that manage their own case assignments automatically when petitions 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation
OEI-12-16-00120                           Appendix B | 28 Page 7  The Deputy Inspector General 
are filed, meaning that this data is underrepresented and is only a subset of the children who are 
represented in court.  
Methods recommended for ACF to assist states are unrealistic.  As a programmatic matter, we 
note that the OIGs recommendations for the type of assistance that ACF should provide to 
improve reporting on this data field are unrealistic.  These suggestions appear to be related to 
resolving state specific issues and are mostly outside the purview of ACFs authority.  It would 
not be in CBs jurisdiction, for example, to follow the recommendation that we work directly 
with states to improve the transmission of GAL data from court system databases and/or GAL 
program databases to the states child welfare system.  
Not a prudent use of resources.  The OIG may not be aware that this recommendation comes 
with a cost at both the state and federal levels, and that it is costly for states to make even minor 
changes to data collection systems.  The OIG predicts that if states had assistance from ACF, 
they could overcome the technical and coordination challenges that impede their ability to report 
these data to ACF.  We disagree that the assistance described is within our role and believe 
many states would not view it as a prudent use of resources for a voluntary data collection.  
The level of resources needed to implement this has the potential to  exceed the total funding 
available under the CAPTA state grant program for many states.  
State reasons for not reporting are valid and complex.  The OIG points to technical and 
coordination challenges that are barriers to state reporting the GAL data field.  The OIG 
may not recognize that the barriers states face are valid, significant, and in most cases not 
something the federal ACF staff have jurisdiction over or an ability to assist or influence.  
The report notes that data are not consistently recorded on the local level by courts or GALs and 
data are maintained in court system databases or GAL program databases that are not linked to 
the child welfare data system that states use for NCANDS reporting.   Multiple states have 
provided reasons for not consistently reporting these data.  In many cases, child welfare agencies 
do not house the data, and have no authority over the work of the courts or GAL programs, and 
thus are unable to mandate that these entities provide this data or link to child welfare systems.  
As explained in the Child Maltreatment 2018 Report State Commentary, states have noted that 
the data are maintained in court system databases or GAL program databases that are not linked 
to the child welfare data system that states use for NCANDS reporting.  In many instances these 
data are not collected at the family level, creating difficulty in making meaningful inferences 
about GAL involvement.    
We would like to note that ACF places a high value on complete and reliable data and is 
supportive of states using their resources to meet statutorily required mandates.  In fact, 
ACF is currently providing assistance to states on implementing the AFCARS final rule.  
Unlike the GAL data field, this data set is statutorily required, used for monitoring and 
program purposes, and carries a penalty for non-compliance.   
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation
OEI-12-16-00120                            Appendix B | 29 Page 8  The Deputy Inspector General 
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this report.  Please direct any 
follow-up inquiries to our OIG liaison Scott Logan, Office of Legislative Affairs and Budget, at 
(202) 401-4529.
Sincerely, 
Lynn A. Johnson,  
Assistant Secretary 
  for Children and Families 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation
OEI-12-16-00120                                Appendix B | 30  
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND CONTACT 
 
Acknowledgments 
Bahar Adili served as the team leader for this study, and Michael Kvassay served as 
the lead analyst.  Others in the Office of Evaluation and Inspections who conducted 
the study include Kara Robinson.  Office of Evaluation and Inspections staff who 
provided support include Althea Hosein, Seta Hovagimian, Kevin Manley, and 
Christine Moritz.  
We would also like to acknowledge the contributions of other Office of Inspector 
General staff, including Diana Merelman and Jessica Swanstrom.   
This report was prepared under the direction of Dave Tawes, Regional Inspector 
General for Evaluation and Inspections in the Baltimore regional office, Heather 
Barton, Deputy Regional Inspector General, and Louise Schoggen, Assistant Regional 
Inspector General. 
Contact 
To obtain additional information concerning this report, contact the Office of Public 
Affairs at Public.Affairs@oig.hhs.gov.  OIG reports and other information can be found 
on the OIG website at oig.hhs.gov. 
Office of Inspector General 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 
330 Independence Avenue, SW 
Washington, DC 20201 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Acknowledgments and Contact | 31   
ABOUT THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 
 
 
The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-
452, as amended, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS) programs, as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by 
those programs.  This statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network 
of audits, investigations, and inspections conducted by the following operating 
components: 
The Office of Audit Services (OAS) provides auditing services for HHS, 
either by conducting audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work 
done by others.  Audits examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its 
grantees and contractors in carrying out their respective responsibilities and are 
intended to provide independent assessments of HHS programs and operations.  
These assessments help reduce waste, abuse, and mismanagement and promote 
economy and efficiency throughout HHS. 
The Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts national 
evaluations to provide HHS, Congress, and the public with timely, useful, and reliable 
information on significant issues.  These evaluations focus on preventing fraud, waste, 
or abuse and promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of departmental 
programs.  To promote impact, OEI reports also present practical recommendations 
for improving program operations. 
The Office of Investigations (OI) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative 
investigations of fraud and misconduct related to HHS programs, operations, and 
beneficiaries.  With investigators working in all 50 States and the District of Columbia, 
OI utilizes its resources by actively coordinating with the Department of Justice and 
other Federal, State, and local law enforcement authorities.  The investigative efforts 
of OI often lead to criminal convictions, administrative sanctions, and/or civil 
monetary penalties. 
The Office of Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG) provides 
general legal services to OIG, rendering advice and opinions on HHS programs and 
operations and providing all legal support for OIGs internal operations.  OCIG 
represents OIG in all civil and administrative fraud and abuse cases involving HHS 
programs, including False Claims Act, program exclusion, and civil monetary penalty 
cases.  In connection with these cases, OCIG also negotiates and monitors corporate 
integrity agreements.  OCIG renders advisory opinions, issues compliance program 
guidance, publishes fraud alerts, and provides other guidance to the health care 
industry concerning the anti-kickback statute and other OIG enforcement authorities.
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  About OIG | 32  ENDNOTES 
 
 
1 P.L. No. 93-247, Jan. 31, 1974. Codified at 42 U.S.C.  5101  ff. 
2 CAPTA  106; 42 U.S.C.  5106a. 
3 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division, National Court-Appointed Special Advocate 
Program, Audit Report 07-04, December 2006. 
4 Abramson, S., Use of Court-appointed Advocates to Assist in Permanency Planning for Minority Children. Child Welfare, 
70(4), 1991, 477-487. 
5 Brennan, K., Wilson, D., George, T., McLaughlin, O., University of Washington School of Social Work and Washington State 
Center for Court Research, Washington State Court Appointed Special Advocate Program Evaluation Report, 2010. 
6 CAPTA  106(a); 42 U.S.C.  5106a(a). 
7 CAPTA was last reauthorized on December 20, 2010, by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. No. 111-320) and certain 
provisions of the act were amended on January 7, 2019, by the Victims of Child Abuse Act Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L. 
No. 115-424). 
8 CAPTA also identifies the Federal governments role in research, technical assistance, and data collection activities.  It also 
provides grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations; establishes the Office on Child Abuse and Neglect; and 
establishes a national clearinghouse of information relating to child abuse and neglect. 
9 CAPTA  106(b)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C.  5106a(b)(1)(A).  A State is required to update its State plan if it makes changes to its policies 
and programs, or if new provisions are added to CAPTA as a result of amendments. 
10 CAPTA  106(b)(2)(B)(xiii) and 42 U.S.C.  5106a(b)(2)(B)(xiii).  Requirements for which States must provide assurances are 
listed in sections 106(b)(2) and 113 of CAPTA.   
11 CAPTA 106(b)(2)(B)(xiii); 42 U.S.C. 5106a(b)(2)(B)(xiii)).   
12 CAPTA 106(d).  Data elements that States report are listed in  106(d)(1) through  106(d)(18).  Data are reported based on 
the FY calendar, which begins on October 1st and ends the following September 30th.  Given that States are required to report 
data only to the maximum extent practicable, States may not report information related to all National Child Abuse and 
Neglect Data System (NCANDS) elements annually, depending on their data capabilities and other factors.  Of the 56 States 
that receive CAPTA grant funding, 52 report data to ACF through NCANDS.  Because they receive CAPTA funding as part of a 
consolidated award pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1469a(c), American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands do not report CAPTA data to ACF. 
13 The field is one of the 30 Services Provided data elements in NCANDS.  These data elements contain information about 
services that are provided for the child or family.  Examples of other NCANDS service fields are family preservation, case 
management, counseling, and employment services. 
14 Currently, the contractor that serves as the NCANDS Technical Team provider is a company named WRMA.  Each State is 
assigned an NCANDS Technical Team Liaison who works directly with the NCANDS Primary State Contact.     
15 Annual Child Maltreatment reports are publicly available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-
research/child-maltreatment. 
 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Endnotes | 33 
   
16 ACF funds the Child Welfare Capacity Building Collaborative, which consists of three centers that provide technical 
assistance: (1) the Center for States, which serves certain child welfare agencies; (2) the Center for Courts, which serves Court 
Improvement Programs; and (3) the Center for Tribes, which serves certain tribal child welfare agencies and consortia.  For 
more information, see https://capacity.childwelfare.gov/. 
17 We used the unique count of child victims to select the 10 States that had the largest number of child victims of abuse and 
neglect in FY 2016.  This field counts a child once, regardless of the number of times the child was the subject of a CPS report. 
18 These 10 States accounted for 58 percent of total child victims in FY 2018 and 48 percent of total CAPTA grant funding for 
States that year. 
19 CAPTA  114; 42 U.S.C.  5108. 
20 ACF, Child Welfare Policy Manual,  2.1, Question 2.  
21 Examples of non-CAPTA related reviews include Title IV-B and Title IV-E State plan updates and Child and Family Services 
reviews. 
22 ACF, Child Welfare Policy Manual,  2.1, Question 2. 
23 ACF told OIG that in 2011, one State was required to complete a Program Improvement Plan to address several CAPTA 
provisions, including the CAPTA GAL requirement.  ACF said that the State did not have legislation in effect to address GAL 
training requirements specified under CAPTA  106(b)(2)(B)(xiii). 
24 For example, see ACFs statement on the limitations of GAL appointment data in ACF, Child Maltreatment 2016, p. 80.  
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm2016.pdf 
25 ACFs annual Child Maltreatment publication reports the percentage of all child victims who received court representation.  
The report does not attribute low representation rates to victims without court involvement or to GALs who are not directly 
appointed by the court, nor did the 10 States that OIG reviewed raise these as factors that would explain low representation 
rates or data discrepancies. 
26 The rescinded regulations included more specific requirements regarding GALs.  For example, now-rescinded 45 CFR 
 1340.14 stated that to qualify for CAPTA State grants, in every case involving an abused or neglected child that results in a 
judicial proceeding, the State must ensure the appointment of a GAL or other individual whom the State recognizes as fulfilling 
the same functions as a GAL, to represent and protect the rights and best interests of the child.  This requirement may be 
satisfied (1) by a statute mandating the appointments; (2) by a statute permitting the appointments, accompanied by a 
statement from the Governor that the appointments are made in every case; (3) in the absence of a specific statute, by a formal 
opinion of the Attorney General that the appointments are permitted, accompanied by a Governor's statement that the 
appointments are made in every case; or (4) by the State's Uniform Court Rule mandating appointments in every case.  
However, the GAL shall not be the attorney responsible for presenting the evidence alleging child abuse or neglect. 
27 Technical Regulation: Removal of Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention and Treatment Act Implementing Regulations, 
80 Fed. Reg. 16577-16579 (March 30, 2015). 
28 ACF, Child Welfare Policy Manual,  2.1D.  ACF, program instruction ACYF-CB-PI-11-06, April 28, 2011, 
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/pi1106.pdf.  Accessed on September 8, 2019.  ACF, NEW LEGISLATIONPublic 
Law 111-320, the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010, program instruction ACYF-CB-IM-11-02, February 15, 2011, 
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/im1102.pdf.  Accessed on September 8, 2019. 
29 For example, 8 of the 10 States that we reviewed require the GAL to represent the childs best interests.  One State requires 
the GAL to represent the childs expressed wishes rather than best interests; the tenth State requires best interest 
representation under some circumstances and requires expressed wishes representation for all children.  
 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Endnotes | 34 
   
30 ACF, High Quality Legal Representation for All Parties in Child Welfare Proceedings, information memorandum 
ACYF-CB-IM-17-02, January 17, 2017, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/im1702.pdf.  Accessed on October 2, 2020. 
31 ACF, Child Welfare Policy Manual,  8.1B, Questions 30, 31, and 32.   
32 Eight of the 10 States require the GAL to represent the childs best interests.  One State requires the GAL to represent the 
childs expressed wishes rather than best interests; the tenth State requires best interest representation under some 
circumstances and requires expressed wishes representation for all children. 
33 OIG interviewed States about challenges meeting the GAL requirement prior to ACFs recent guidance explaining that States 
may claim Title IV-E administrative costs for independent legal representation by an attorney for children and their parents 
undergoing foster care legal proceedings.  Child Welfare Policy Manual,  8.1B, Questions 30, 31, and 32.  In some States, this 
could provide additional funding for attorney GALs; however, States that use CASA models may be unable to utilize the 
funding to improve GAL representation. 
34 A December 2019 report by the Boston Globe and ProPublica found that most Statesincluding several of the six States in 
our review that said they had not received complaints about lack of GAL representation, as well as othersdo not fully comply 
with the CAPTA GAL requirement.  See: Palmer, Emily and Huseman, Jessica, The federal government has one main law to 
prevent child abuse.  No state follows all of it, The Boston Globe, December 13, 2019.  Available at 
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/12/13/cry-for-help/prT5xvp27BGZK6AZQWRNVL/story.html. 
35 ACF includes this disclaimer about GAL appointment data in its Child Maltreatment reports.  For example, see ACF, Child 
Maltreatment 2016, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm2016.pdf. 
36 OIG analysis of FY 2016 GAL appointment data from NCANDS.  Also see ACF, Child Maltreatment 2016.  ACF excludes a 
States GAL appointment data from the Child Maltreatment report if the State reports that fewer than 5 percent of victims were 
appointed a GAL.  For FY 2016, the agency excluded GAL appointment data from 11 States.   
37 OIG analysis of FY 2016 GAL data from NCANDS.  Also see ACF, Child Maltreatment 2016.  Data on GAL out-of-court 
contacts are not published in the Child Maltreatment report because ACF has determined that the data are not reliable. 
38 OIG analysis of FY 2018 GAL data from NCANDS.  Also see ACF, Child Maltreatment 2018.  Data on GAL out-of-court 
contacts are not published in the Child Maltreatment report because ACF has determined that the data are not reliable. 
39 Neither State that confirmed ACFs GAL appointment figure was able to provide OIG with supporting documentation. 
40 The State was able to provide OIG with documentation to support its submission to ACF. 
41 Staff in two States later notified us that they will now coordinate with other agencies in their respective States to better 
report GAL data to ACF.   
42 Both States were able to provide OIG with documentation to support their GAL appointment figures. 
43 All three States that provided a GAL appointment figure to OIG were able to provide OIG with supporting documentation. 
44 CAPTA  2, No. 14; 42 U.S.C.  5101, Note. 
ACF Cannot Ensure That All Child Victims of Abuse and Neglect Have Court Representation 
OEI-12-16-00120  Endnotes | 35