a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Correction made on 7/22/04 to p. 4, line 13, 

revised to read “Few courts provide a basis for 

estimating how many incapacitated elderly 

people have guardians”.

Report to the Chairman, Special 

Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate

July 2004 GUARDIANSHIPS

Collaboration Needed 

to Protect 

Incapacitated Elderly 

People

GAO-04-655
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-655.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Barbara 

Bovbjerg at (202) 512-7215 or 

bovbjergb@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-655, a report to the 

Chairman, Special Committee on Aging, 

U.S. Senate 

July 2004

GUARDIANSHIPS

Collaboration Needed to Protect 

Incapacitated Elderly People 

All states have laws requiring courts to oversee guardianships, but court 

implementation varies. Most require guardians to submit periodic reports, 

but do not specify court review of these reports. Interstate jurisdictional 

issues sometimes arise when states do not recognize guardianships 

originating in other states. Most courts responding to our survey did not 

track the number of active guardianships, and few indicated the number of 

incapacitated elderly people under guardianship. 

 

Four courts recognized by members of the National Guardianship Network 

as having exemplary guardianship programs devote staff to strong programs 

for guardianship training and oversight. Three of these courts offer training 

to guardians even though state law does not require it. Three also have 

programs in which volunteers or social work student interns visit people 

under guardianship and report on their condition. 

 

Although state courts and federal agencies are responsible for protecting 

many of the same incapacitated elderly people, they generally work together 

only on a case-by-case basis. Some courts send notices of guardianship to 

the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Social Security Administration, 

but generally coordination among federal agencies and courts is not 

systematic. Federal agencies and courts do not systematically notify other 

agencies or courts when they identify someone as incapacitated, or when 

they discover that a guardian or a representative payee is abusing the 

incapacitated person. This lack of coordination may leave incapacitated 

people without the protection of responsible guardians and representative 

payees. 

Courts and Federal Agencies Have Responsibilities for Protecting Incapacitated Elderly 

People 

 Incapacitated

 Elderly 

Source: SSA, VA, and OPM data and GAO analysis.

SSA VA

COURTS

Guardian

VA

OPM

5,161 with 

Rep. payees 46,449 with 

Rep. payees

717,623 with

Rep. payees

(number unknown)

number unknown

As people age, some become 

incapable of managing their 

personal and financial affairs. To 

protect these people, state laws 

provide for court appointment of 

guardians to act on their behalf. In 

many cases federal programs 

provide these incapacitated people 

financial benefits. GAO was asked 

to examine: (1) what state courts 

do to ensure that guardians fulfill 

their responsibilities, (2) what 

guardianship programs recognized 

as exemplary do to ensure that 

guardians fulfill their 

responsibilities, and (3) how state 

courts and federal agencies work 

together to protect incapacitated 

elderly people. 

GAO recommends that (1) the 

Social Security Administration lead 

an interagency/state court group to 

study options for prompt and 

systematic information sharing for 

the protection of incapacitated 

elderly people and that (2) the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services provide support to states 

and national organizations involved 

in guardianship programs in efforts 

to compile national data on the 

incidence of abuse with and 

without the assignment of a 

guardian or representative payee 

and to review state policies for 

interstate transfer and recognition 

of guardianship appointments. 

HHS, Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM), and VA 

agreed with the recommendations. 

SSA disagreed, citing privacy 

issues. 
Page i GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

State Laws Provide for Court Oversight of Guardianships, but 

Court Procedures Vary 9

Courts Recognized as Exemplary Focus on Training and 

Monitoring 16

State Courts and Federal Representative Payee Programs Serve 

Many of the Same Incapacitated Elderly People, but Collaborate 

Little in Oversight Efforts 22

Conclusions 30

Recommendations 31

Agency Comments 33

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 36 

Appendix II GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, and 

New York 38 

Appendix III Results from GAO Surveys of Courts in California, 

Florida, and New York 63 

Appendix IV Comments from the Office of Personnel Management 82 

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs 83 

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Health and 

Human Services 84 

Appendix VII Comments from the Social Security Administration 88 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Appendix VIII GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 91 

GAO Contacts 91

Staff Acknowledgments 91

Tables 

Table 1: Characteristics of Selected Federal Representative Payee 

Programs 7

Table 2: Few Surveyed Courts Tracked the Number of Elderly 

People with Guardians the Courts Oversee 15

Table 3: Characteristics of Courts Recognized as Exemplary 17

Table 4: Training and Information Resources for Guardians in the 

Four Courts 18

Table 5: Oversight Procedures in the Four Courts 21

Table 6: Many Elderly People Receive Benefits from More than One 

Federal Agency 23

Table 7: Representative Payee Programs’ Gathering and Exchange 

of Information 26

Figures 

Figure 1: Courts and Federal Agencies Have Responsibilities for 

Protecting Incapacitated Elderly People 6

Figure 2: How Often Guardians’ Accounting Reports Must Be 

Submitted Varies by State 11

Figure 3: Federal Agencies and the Courts May or May Not Assign 

Representative Payee and Guardianship Responsibilities 

to the Same Individual 27
Page iii GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Abbreviations 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

OPM Office of Personnel Management 

SSA Social Security Administration 

VA Department of Veterans Affairs 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

July 13, 2004 

The Honorable Larry E. Craig 

Chairman 

Special Committee on Aging 

United States Senate 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

As people age, some of them become incapable of caring for themselves 

and must rely on a guardian—a person or entity appointed to make 

decisions for them. In the United States, the number of people requiring a 

guardian is expected to increase considerably in the years ahead. The 

number of elderly people (those aged 65 and older) is expected to increase 

substantially over the next several decades, and the number of people 

aged 85 and older is expected to triple by 2040 to 15 million. The Census 

Bureau estimates that about one-quarter of the people in this older age 

group has Alzheimer’s disease, which may lead to dementia that is severe 

enough that people become incapable of caring for themselves.1

 Generally, 

adults are identified as incapacitated when they become physically or 

mentally incapable of making or communicating important decisions, such 

as those required in handling finances or securing possessions. In many 

cases, incapacitated adults are elderly, but in many other cases they are 

not, and generally the same laws and procedures apply to all incapacitated 

adults. Often, family members can provide assistance, but sometimes a 

state or local court needs to appoint a guardian to act on behalf of the 

incapacitated person.2

 The guardian becomes responsible for making 

decisions to protect the incapacitated person from financial and physical 

abuse or neglect, and the incapacitated person loses decision-making 

rights. 

Although guardianship is a state responsibility, there are many 

incapacitated elderly people who receive federal benefits, and this group 

 1

Alzheimer’s disease is only one of the health conditions leading to dementia or other 

incapacity. 

2

For convenience, we use the term “guardian” though some states use other terms. 

California, for example, uses the term “conservator” when the incapacitated person is an 

adult. 

United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

of people may need federal agencies to identify a representative payee—a 

person or organization designated to handle those benefits on their behalf. 

State and local courts are responsible for oversight of guardianship 

appointments, and federal agencies are responsible for oversight of 

representative payees. Courts and federal agencies have identified 

instances in which guardians or representative payees have taken 

advantage of incapacitated elderly people by, for example, stealing from 

them or billing for services not provided. Such cases of abuse and neglect 

of elders by guardians and representative payees have prompted questions 

about the oversight of these programs. 

As part of your committee’s focus on aging issues, you asked us to study 

guardianships for the elderly and the representative payee programs of 

federal agencies such as the Social Security Administration (SSA), the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM), which manages retirement programs for federal 

employees. In response to your request, we examined: (1) what state 

courts do to ensure that guardians fulfill their responsibilities, (2) what 

exemplary guardianship programs do to ensure that guardians fulfill their 

responsibilities, and (3) how state courts and federal agencies work 

together to protect incapacitated elderly people. To study these topics, we 

reviewed state statutes and conducted surveys of courts responsible for 

guardianships in the three states with the largest elderly populations—

California, Florida, and New York. Forty-two of 58 courts in California, 

55 of 67 courts in Florida, and 9 of 12 judicial districts in New York 

responded to our surveys. We also visited courts in eight states and 

interviewed officials responsible for representative payee programs at 

SSA, VA, and OPM and officials at the Department of Health and Human 

Service’s Administration on Aging. In addition, we visited 4 courts 

identified by members of the National Guardianship Network (a joint 

council representing eight national organizations involved in guardianship 

issues) as having exemplary guardianship programs. We conducted our 

work between March 2003 and May 2004 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. (For details concerning our 

scope and methodology, see app. I.) 

All states have laws requiring courts to oversee guardianships, but court 

implementation of these laws varies. At a minimum, most states’ laws 

require guardians of the person to submit a periodic report to the court 

regarding the well being of the incapacitated person and guardians of the 

estate to provide an accounting of the incapacitated person’s finances. 

Many states’ statutes also authorize measures that courts can use to 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

enforce guardianship responsibilities, such as termination of the 

guardianship appointment or imposition of fines for failure to fulfill 

guardianship responsibilities. Often states do not recognize guardianships 

originating in other states, which can raise jurisdictional issues. In 

addition to variations among states’ laws, courts we studied have quite 

varied procedures for implementing guardianship requirements in state 

law. For example, most California and Florida courts responding to our 

survey require guardians to submit time and expense records to support 

petitions for compensation, but both states also have courts that do not 

require these reports. Some courts also take steps beyond what is required 

by state statutes. For example, some courts require that guardians receive 

more training than the minimum required by law. Although information, 

such as the number of people with guardians, is needed for effective 

oversight of guardianships, it is neither required, nor generally available 

from the courts. One-third or fewer of the responding courts tracked the 

number of active guardianships for incapacitated adults and only a few in 

each state provided the number of those who were elderly. 

Judges for four courts widely recognized as having exemplary 

guardianship programs devote staff to the management of guardianships, 

allowing the courts to specialize and develop programs for guardianship 

training and oversight. For example, the court we visited in Florida 

provided comprehensive reference materials for guardians to supplement 

training. The other three courts offered training to guardians even though 

state law does not require it. Three of the exemplary courts have programs 

in which volunteers or student interns visit people under guardianship and 

report on their condition to the court. For example, the court in New 

Hampshire recruits volunteers, primarily retired senior citizens, to visit 

incapacitated people, their guardians, and care providers at least annually, 

and submit a report of their findings to court officials. Exemplary courts in 

Florida and California also have permanent staff to investigate allegations 

of fraud, abuse, or exploitation or cases in which guardians have failed to 

submit required reports. 

Although state courts and federal agencies are responsible for protecting 

many of the same incapacitated elderly people, they generally work 

together only on a case-by-case basis. For example, some courts may send 

notice of guardianship appointments to SSA, allowing the federal agency 

to determine whether the court-appointed guardian could also act as a 

representative payee. Federal agencies may also provide information 

about incapacitated beneficiaries to courts to help assess the 

incapacitated person’s income and whether the guardian needs to 

coordinate with a payee. However, coordination between federal agencies 
Page 4 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

and state and local courts does not take place systematically, nor do 

federal agencies systematically share information with one another. For 

example, if VA does not notify SSA when it identifies someone as 

incapacitated, SSA may not learn that one of its beneficiaries may need a 

representative payee. Similarly, courts identifying a guardian who has 

abused or neglected an incapacitated person do not automatically notify 

the federal agency that assigned the guardian as a representative payee. 

Thus, an incapacitated person may remain at risk of having an identified 

abuser in charge of his or her benefit payments. The extent to which this is 

a problem is unknown, because current efforts to compile statistical data 

by Adult Protective Service agencies and the Justice Department’s Bureau 

of Justice Statistics do not identify cases of elder abuse involving 

guardians or representative payees. Few courts provide a basis for

estimating how many incapacitated elderly people have guardians. 

Without such data, the extent to which improvements in guardian and 

representative payee oversight are needed remains unknown. 

We are making recommendations to the Social Security Administration, 

Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS), and the Department of Veterans Affairs concerning 

interagency and state and federal collaboration in efforts to plan and 

implement cost-effective measures to systematically compile and share 

information needed to enhance the protection of incapacitated elderly 

people. We provided a draft of this report to each of these agencies and 

received written comments on the draft from all four. See appendixes IV, 

V, VI, and VII for their comments. VA, OPM, and HHS agreed with our 

conclusions and indicated their willingness to participate in the study 

group and other efforts we are recommending. SSA disagreed with our 

recommendations concerning an interagency study group, citing 

differences in federal agency and state court policies regarding protection 

of the incapacitated, the difficulties that would be involved, and 

requirements of the Privacy Act that it believes would preclude the kind of 

information sharing we recommend that SSA and the other agencies study. 

The number of people age 65 and older will nearly double by the year 

2030 to 71 million. An estimated 6 percent of people aged 65 or older have 

Alzheimer’s disease, a degenerative condition that may lead to dementia.3

 3

Other causes of dementia include strokes, brain tumors, and a variety of endocrine, 

metabolic, and nutritional disorders. 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Over time, some elderly adults may become physically or mentally 

incapable of making or communicating important decisions, such as those 

required to handle finances or secure their possessions. In addition, while 

some incapacitated adults may have family members who can assume 

responsibility for their decision-making, many elderly incapacitated people 

do not. The Census Bureau predicts that in the future the elderly 

population will be more likely to live alone and less likely to have family 

caregivers. In situations such as these, additional measures may be 

necessary to ensure that incapacitated people are protected from abuse 

and neglect. 

Several arrangements can be made to protect the elderly or others who 

may become incapacitated. A person may prepare a living will, write 

advance health care directives, and appoint someone to assume durable 

power of attorney, or establish a trust. However, such arrangements may 

not provide sufficient protection. Some federal agencies do not recognize 

durable powers of attorney for managing federal benefits. SSA, for 

example, will assign a representative payee for an incapacitated person if 

it concludes that the interest of the incapacitated beneficiary would be 

served, whether or not the person has granted someone else power of 

attorney.4

 In addition, many states have surrogacy healthcare decisionmaking laws, but these alternatives do not cover all cases. Additional 

measures may be needed to designate legal authority for someone to make 

decisions on the incapacitated person’s behalf. 

To provide further protection for both elderly and non-elderly 

incapacitated adults, state and local courts appoint guardians to oversee 

their personal welfare, their financial well being, or both.5

 The 

appointment of a guardian typically means that the person loses basic 

rights, such as the right to vote, sign contracts, buy or sell real estate, 

marry or divorce, or make decisions about medical procedures. If an 

incapacitated person becomes capable again, by recovering from a stroke, 

 4

For convenience, we use the term “incapacitated,” recognizing that federal agencies and 

states use a variety of terms and somewhat different definitions to assess whether someone 

is in need of a guardian or representative payee. SSA, for example, assigns representative 

payees to people it has determined are incapable of managing or directing the management 

of benefit payments. OPM and VA use the term “incompetent” but have somewhat different 

definitions. Most states use the term “incapacitated,” but others use “incompetent,” “mental 

incompetent,” “disabled,” or “mentally disabled.” 

5

Generally states also have separate provisions for guardianship of minor children, 

including those who are incapacitated and those who are not. 
Page 6 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

for example, he or she cannot dismiss the guardian but, rather, must go 

back to court and petition to have the guardianship terminated. 

The federal government does not regulate or provide any direct support 

for guardianships, but courts may decide that the appointment of a 

guardian is not necessary if a representative payee has already been 

assigned to an incapacitated person by a federal agency. Representative 

payees are entirely independent of court supervision unless they also 

serve their beneficiary as a court-appointed guardian. Guardians are 

supervised by state and local courts and may be removed for failing to 

fulfill their responsibilities. Representative payees are supervised by 

federal agencies, although each federal agency with representative payees 

has different forms and procedures for monitoring them. 

Each state provides a process for initiating and evaluating petitions for 

guardianship appointment. Generally, state laws require that a petition be 

filed with the court and notice be provided to the alleged incapacitated 

person and other people with a connection to the person. In nearly all 

states, the alleged incapacitated person is granted the right to be present 

at the hearing, and the right to counsel. Most states require clear and 

convincing evidence of a person’s incapacity before a guardian can be 

appointed. The court may appoint a family member, friend, attorney, a 

paid private professional, a nonprofit social service agency, or a local 

public agency to serve as the guardian. 

Figure 1: Courts and Federal Agencies Have Responsibilities for Protecting 

Incapacitated Elderly People 

 Incapacitated

 Elderly 

Source: SSA, VA, OPM data, and GAO analysis.

SSA VA

COURTS

Guardian

VA

OPM

5,161 with 

Rep. payees 46,449 with 

Rep. payees

717,623 with

Rep. payees

(number unknown)

number unknown
Page 7 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

In many cases, both courts and federal agencies have responsibilities for 

protecting incapacitated elderly people, as shown in figure 1. For federal 

agencies, a state court determination that someone is incapacitated or 

reports from physicians often provide evidence of a beneficiary’s 

incapacity, but agency procedures also allow statements from lay people 

to serve as a sufficient basis for determining that a beneficiary needs 

someone to handle benefit payments on their behalf—a representative 

payee. SSA, OPM, and VA ask whether the alleged incapacitated person 

has been appointed a guardian and often appoint that person or 

organization as the representative payee. In some cases, however, the 

agencies choose to select someone other than the court-appointed 

guardian. Social Security officials sometimes designate the nursing home 

where the incapacitated person resides as the representative payee 

because it provides for direct payment to the nursing home, ensuring 

continuity of care for the incapacitated person.6

Table 1: Characteristics of Selected Federal Representative Payee Programs 

Characteristics SSA OPM VA 

Benefit programs with 

representative payees 

Old Age and 

Survivors, 

Disability 

Insurance, and 

Supplemental 

Security Income

Civil Service 

Retirement 

System, Federal 

Employee 

Retirement 

System 

VA 

Compensation, 

VA Pension, 

and other VA 

programs 

providing cash 

benefits 

Beneficiaries age 65 and older 

with representative payee 

717,623a 5,161b 46,449c

Beneficiaries of all ages with 

representative payee 

6,863,785a 11,157b 100,239c

Estimated benefits paid in fiscal 

year 2003 to all beneficiaries with 

representative payees 

$43 billiond $115 million $1 billion 

Source: SSA, OPM, and VA data. 

a

As of December 2003. 

b

As of November 2002. 

c

As of September 30, 2003. 

d

Annualized estimate based on data for December 2002. 

 6

In cases where a Medicaid-eligible nursing home resident has insufficient SSA benefits to 

cover the entire cost of the nursing care; however, the law provides that the resident shall 

nonetheless be provided a personal needs allowance of at least $30 each month. 
Page 8 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

In many cases, guardians are appointed with a full range of responsibilities 

for making decisions about the incapacitated person’s health and wellbeing as well as their finances, but several states’ laws require the court to 

limit the powers granted to the guardian, if possible. The court may 

appoint a “guardian of the estate” to make decisions regarding the 

incapacitated person’s finances or a “guardian of the person” to make 

nonfinancial decisions. An incapacitated person with little income other 

than benefits from SSA for example, might not need a “guardian of the 

estate” if he or she already has a representative payee designated by SSA 

to act on their behalf in managing benefit payments. Sometimes the 

guardian is paid for their services from the assets or income of the 

incapacitated person, or from public sources if the incapacitated person is 

unable to pay. In some cases, the representative payee is paid from the 

incapacitated person’s benefit payments. 

Guardians and representative payees may have conflicts of interest that 

pose risks to incapacitated people. While many people appointed as 

guardians or representative payees serve compassionately, often without 

any compensation, some will act in their own interest rather than in the 

interest of the incapacitated person. Oversight of both guardians and 

representative payees is intended to prevent abuse by the people 

designated to protect the incapacitated people. 

While the incidence of elder abuse involving persons assigned a guardian 

or representative payee is unknown, certain cases have received 

widespread attention. The following are examples of abuse by guardians 

and representative payees provided by courts and federal agencies: 

• A guardian and an employee of the guardian’s law firm brought a 

nursing home resident in New York a cake and flowers on her birthday 

and billed her $850 for the visit using hourly rates for legal services. 

• Rather than using electronic direct deposit, a guardian in New York 

City appointed to protect an incapacitated person regularly traveled to 

their branch bank in another borough to deposit her monthly $50 Social 

Security check, charging her $300 per deposit. 

• A company in Michigan acting as guardian for more than 600 

incapacitated people committed felonies against them, including selling 

one individual’s home to a relative of a company employee for $500. 

• A woman in the position of Public Fiduciary at the Gila County Public 

Fiduciary’s Office in Arizona served as guardian of incapacitated 
Page 9 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

people and in that capacity embezzled and misused a total of at least 

$1.2 million of public funds. The county’s investigation concluded that 

“the Court’s lack of oversight contributed to the enormous loss of 

public monies.” 

• A woman in Washington State established a nonprofit service 

organization that SSA designated as the representative payee for about 

200 beneficiaries. One of her clients was a homeless man entitled to 

retroactive payment of benefits totaling about $15,000. She received the 

payment on his behalf, but used the money as her own, along with SSA 

benefits for others. She embezzled a total of approximately $107,000 of 

SSA benefits. 

• A guardian and representative payee for veterans pled guilty to four 

counts of misappropriation after a joint VA and SSA Office of Inspector 

General investigation substantiated allegations that he had embezzled 

over $400,000 from the veterans’ estates. 

• The head of a foundation in West Virginia serving as a representative 

payee for 140 people (including veterans and elderly people) embezzled 

over $300,000 from them over a 4-year period, consisting mostly of 

Social Security benefits. 

All 50 states and the District of Columbia have statutes providing for state 

or local court oversight of guardianship appointments, but court 

procedures for implementing these laws vary considerably. Generally, 

guardians submit periodic reports to the court, but courts’ procedures for 

reviewing reports vary, as do procedures for monitoring guardianships and 

the penalties courts impose when guardians do not perform their duties. 

Jurisdictional issues, such as courts in 2 states being asked to appoint a 

guardian for the same incapacitated person, sometimes complicate 

guardianship appointments. In addition, most state courts surveyed do not 

maintain information needed for effective monitoring and oversight of 

guardianships. 

State laws provide for court appointment and oversight of guardianships. 

Nearly all states require two kinds of reports: one regarding the personal 

status and well being of the incapacitated person and another regarding 

the accounting of the person’s finances. The personal status reports 

usually include information regarding the condition of the incapacitated 

person, although many states require more specific information regarding 

various aspects of the incapacitated person’s status. In many states, the 

State Laws Provide 

for Court Oversight 

of Guardianships, but 

Court Procedures 

Vary 

State Laws Require Courts 

to Oversee Guardianships, 

but Jurisdictional Issues 

Complicate Oversight 
Page 10 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

laws require the report to include documentation of the need for 

continued guardianship. Many statutory requirements are very detailed 

and require a physician’s statement, a determination of the mental status 

of the incapacitated person, or in some instances, reports of any change in 

the condition of the incapacitated person. Other basic report elements 

may include living conditions, place of residence, and the number of 

guardian visits. Some states may allow courts to waive certain reporting 

requirements. 

Most states require that guardians submit a financial accounting and 

record of expenditures for the care of the incapacitated person on an 

annual basis. This document may list the assets and income of the 

incapacitated person, including bank balances, real property holdings, and 

detailed expenses associated with the care and housing of the 

incapacitated person. State statutes usually require court approval for the 

sale of real estate by a guardian. 

How often guardians are required to submit reports varies. Most states 

require guardians to submit personal status reports at least annually. Only 

the District of Columbia’s law requires submission at least semiannually. 

Statutory requirements for filing financial accountings range from annually 

to at least once every 3 years. (See fig. 2.) In states where accounting 

frequency requirements are left to the discretion of the courts, the 

minimum requirement is that an accounting be made upon resignation or 

removal of the guardian. In many states, there is an explicit requirement 

that court personnel take action when reports are not filed on time. In 

Texas, if a guardian of the person fails to file a report or a guardian of the 

estate fails to file an annual accounting, the guardianship appointment 

expires. 
Page 11 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Figure 2: How Often Guardians’ Accounting Reports Must Be Submitted Varies by 

State 

Some state statutes require an independent party or court personnel to 

determine the accuracy and validity of personal status and accounting 

reports. However, fewer than half of the states require courts to review the 

reports guardians have submitted to them. Other states leave it to the 

court to determine who reviews the reports. For example, Texas specifies 

that a statutory probate7

 court must review filings as part of the annual 

determination of the continued need for a guardianship, but provides that 

courts of general jurisdiction may use any appropriate method determined 

by the court according to the court’s caseload and resources available” in 

order to assess the continued need for a guardianship. 

 7

Typically, probate courts are those that handle cases involving trusts, wills, estates, and 

guardianships. 

Source: American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging.

Annually or more often

Less often than annually

Not specified, left to court's discretion
Page 12 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Apart from requirements for review of the submitted reports, some states’ 

statutes require a periodic review of the guardianships to ensure that 

guardians are adequately fulfilling their responsibilities and there is a 

continuing need for the guardianship. In some states, an investigator will 

visit the incapacitated person to determine whether there is a continuing 

need for a guardianship or if the current guardian should be terminated 

and a new one appointed. For example, Alaska requires courts to evaluate 

incapacitated persons every 3 years. Some states hold a hearing to assess 

the continuing need for a guardianship. For example, Connecticut law 

requires a hearing every 3 years to determine if any changes need to be 

made to the guardianship appointment. 

Many states’ laws authorize penalties that courts can impose to enforce 

guardianship responsibilities. These most frequently include termination 

of the guardianship appointment or imposition of fines for failure to fulfill 

responsibilities. Some states have statutes providing for the denial of 

guardianship fees while others authorize penalties against negligent or 

ineffective guardians, including charging the guardian with contempt of 

court, imprisonment, restitution for mismanagement of property, recovery 

of assets and surcharges, or loss of bond. Many other state statutes allow 

hearings at the court’s discretion or in response to a petition. 

Some states are reluctant to recognize guardianships originating in other 

states, leading to jurisdictional complications. The 1998 Uniform 

Guardianship and Protective Procedures Act has been adopted into many 

states’ statutes. This act gives courts the power to exercise jurisdiction 

when an incapacitated person is moved or travels from one state to 

another. However, these provisions may not sufficiently address all 

complications that arise in guardianships for the elderly such as when 

more than one jurisdiction is asked to appoint a guardian for the same 

incapacitated person. For example, a guardian appointed in one state that 

attempts to sell an incapacitated person’s real property located in another 

state may need to travel to that state and petition a court there in order to 

establish authority to act on behalf of the incapacitated person. Interstate 

jurisdictional issues also arise when the guardian or the incapacitated 

person needs to move to another state. Issues may also occur in cases 

involving the physical removal of an incapacitated person from one 

jurisdiction to another in an effort to gain control over the incapacitated 

person. 
Page 13 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

While some state statutes specify minimal requirements for overseeing 

guardians, individual courts may set their own, sometimes more stringent, 

requirements and standards. The courts in the 3 states we surveyed 

(California, Florida, and New York) implemented their state laws through 

reporting and oversight procedures. (See app. III for a state-by-state 

compilation of survey results.) 

Within the 3 states, court procedures varied for the submission and review 

of reports guardians are required to submit. Most courts responding to our 

survey require an initial inventory of assets, income, and liabilities, and 

courts in Florida and New York typically require annual financial 

statements or accountings. Most courts in Florida and New York require 

some or all guardians to submit a financial plan detailing how the guardian 

will manage the financial affairs of the incapacitated person. Most of the 

responding courts in California and Florida and all of the responding 

judicial districts in New York indicated they require some or all guardians 

to petition or inform the court if plans for the incapacitated person’s care 

change. Nearly all of the courts responding to our survey in each state 

indicated that judges, court personnel, or court examiners review 

guardians’ reports, and a few courts use volunteers. 

In each state surveyed, when guardians receive pay for services, the pay 

varies. We asked courts about compensation approved in the last 

12 months before responding to our survey. Most courts indicated that 

some guardian compensation was based on an hourly rate. In New York, 

rates typically ranged from $25 to $400 per hour, in California they ranged 

from $7 to $250 per hour, and in Florida they ranged from $8 to $85 per 

hour.8

 In other cases, guardians’ compensation was based on the value of 

an elderly incapacitated person’s estate but, while most judicial districts in 

New York had allowed this, few courts in Florida and about one-quarter of 

the courts in California had. In each state, most courts responding to our 

survey required all guardians to submit time and expense records to 

support petitions for compensation, but other courts in each state only 

require these reports for some guardians. 

In all 3 states, responding courts reported a variety of measures for 

guardianship oversight. Most California courts indicated that court 

 8

The New York State Unified Court System’s Commission on Fiduciary Appointments and a 

Special Inspector General have raised concerns about the selection and compensation of 

guardians and other fiduciaries in New York, and the court has established the Office of 

Guardian and Fiduciary Services to help administer a new appointment system. 

Courts’ Procedures for 

Implementing State Laws 

Vary 
Page 14 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

personnel visit all or almost all the incapacitated people, and several 

responding Florida courts and two New York judicial districts indicated 

they had court personnel visit some or most of the incapacitated people. 

Most responding courts reported that they ask questions raised by 

guardians’ reports, send follow-up letters to conservators, or send notices 

or orders to appear in court when reports are late, incomplete, or 

inaccurate. 

Most responding courts in each state indicated they had imposed some 

kinds of penalties when guardians failed to fulfill their responsibilities. The 

most commonly used measures included withholding or reducing 

guardianship compensation, terminating guardianship appointments, and 

contempt of court citations. Several courts indicated they had done one or 

more of these things more than 10 times during the past 3 years. A 

1999 California State law established a statewide registry of private 

professional guardians and requires courts to notify the registry when a 

complaint against a guardian is valid. Only one court indicated it had yet 

notified the registry of a guardian’s resignation or removal for cause.9

Eleven responding courts in California and 9 in Florida indicated they had 

convicted guardians of a crime against the incapacitated person. In New 

York, 2 judicial districts had notified the state registry of a guardian’s 

resignation or removal for cause and 1 had convicted a guardian of a crime 

against an incapacitated person. 

In each state surveyed, some information needed for effective oversight of 

guardianships, such as the number of people with guardians, was generally 

not available. In each of the 3 states, one-third or fewer of the responding 

courts tracked the number of all guardianships for adults that they were 

responsible for monitoring, and only a couple of courts in each state 

provided us with the number of these guardianships that were for 

incapacitated people aged 65 and older. (See table 2.) California courts 

report the number of probate and guardianship filings they handle each 

year, including guardianships, probate of decedents’ estates, and trusts—

for a total of 50,786 filings in fiscal years 2001-2002. The state court 

administration does not, however, require a separate count of 

guardianship filings for adults or the elderly. 

 9

Staff in the California Attorney General’s office responsible for the registry indicated that 

as of April 2003 the registry consisted of 463 guardians, and in only one instance since the 

registry’s establishment has a court-submitted notice of a complaint. 

Most Courts Surveyed Do 

Not Track the Number of 

Active Guardianships 
Page 15 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Table 2: Few Surveyed Courts Tracked the Number of Elderly People with 

Guardians the Courts Oversee 

Number of courtsa

California Florida 

Number of 

judicial districts 

in New York

Provided number of people aged 65 and 

older with guardiansb

 2 2 2

Provided the number of people with 

guardians, but not number of those aged 65 

and older 8 9 1

Provided neither 32 44 6

Did not respond to survey 16 12 3

Total number of courts and New York 

State judicial districts 58 67 12

Source: GAO surveys of courts in California, Florida, and judicial districts in New York. 

a

GAO sent surveys to California superior courts in each California county and to Florida circuit courts 

in each Florida county. GAO sent similar surveys to each New York State judicial district. The 

population of people 65 years of age or older was about 3.7 million in California, 2.8 million in Florida, 

and 2.4 million in New York as of July 2001. 

b

Includes one California court that indicated it had no elderly people with a guardian, but did not 

provide the number of all people (elderly and non-elderly) with guardians. 

In 1999, amendments to California law established a statewide registry of 

private professional guardians, providing courts information about 

prospective guardians’ experience and a record of complaints and cases in 

which they have had a guardianship appointment terminated for cause. 

(The names of people on the registry are available to the public.) Florida 

also maintains a statewide registry of most professional guardians, but 

registration is not required of nonprofessional guardians.10 New York also 

maintains a list of private professional fiduciaries, including guardians. 

However, most of the courts responding to our survey in each state 

indicated that less than half of the guardians they appointed were on the 

state registry. Many of the guardians appointed are family members or 

friends of the incapacitated elderly person. 

 10Professional guardians in Florida are those who receive compensation for serving more 

than two incapacitated people who are not family members. Nonprofessional guardians 

and guardians who are trust companies, state or national banks, federal savings and loans 

associations, neither state, nor independent colleges or universities are required to register. 
Page 16 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Most courts surveyed said they did not have sufficient funds for 

guardianship oversight.11 Often the courts handling guardianship matters 

handle several kinds of cases. In each state, one-fifth or fewer of the 

judges who hear guardianship cases in the responding courts spend a 

majority of their time on them. Judges who spend little of their time on 

guardianship cases tend to focus on each case as it comes up on their 

calendar and find it difficult to devote the time and resources needed to 

develop an effective guardianship program, according to some officials at 

courts recognized as exemplary, but others disagreed saying that general 

jurisdiction courts can also provide good oversight of guardians. In 

Florida, about one-fifth of the judges in courts responding to our survey 

spend the majority of their time on guardianship cases. While in California 

and New York 17 percent and 12 percent of judges, respectively, spend a 

majority of their time on these cases. 

Each of the four courts recognized as exemplary went well beyond 

minimum state requirements for guardianship training and oversight. Each 

court provides training of guardians, even though training is only required 

in one of the state’s statutes. (See table 3.) The courts also actively utilize 

computerized case management, court visitor programs, in-depth review 

of annual reports, or investigations by court employees to oversee 

guardianship cases. Two court officials told us that specialization allows 

courts to focus on issues specific to guardianships and try new strategies 

to improve the court’s oversight of guardians. 

 11In a December 2003 opinion, the Florida Supreme Court called for additional state judges, 

including 6 in Broward County, citing in part the growing number of guardianship and 

probate cases due to Florida’s growing elderly population. 

Courts Recognized as 

Exemplary Focus on 

Training and 

Monitoring 
Page 17 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Table 3: Characteristics of Courts Recognized as Exemplary 

Broward County, 

Fla. 

Rockingham County, 

N.H. 

San Francisco County, 

Calif. 

Tarrant County, Tex. 

Probate Court #2 

Type of court Probate court Probate court Probate Department of the 

Superior Court 

Probate court 

Number of people under 

guardianship 

5,000 to 6,000a 679b 1,350c 978d

People under guardianship 

who are elderly 

About half More than half About three-quarters 299e

Source: Court officials and documents.

a

The court does not keep count of the number of individuals under guardianship as this is done by the 

Clerk of Court in Florida as an independent constitutional officer. Court officials estimate, based upon 

the Clerk of Court reports, that there are between 5,000 and 6,000 open guardianship cases for 

adults and children. 

b

As of December 31, 2003. Number includes adult cases only (minor guardianships tracked 

separately). 

c

Includes adult cases only (minor cases are called guardianships and are tracked separately). 

d

As of June 2004, including guardianships of adults and children. 

e

As of June 2004. 

The courts recognized as exemplary provide training and/or information 

resources for guardians. (See table 4.) Of the 4 states in which the courts 

recognized as exemplary are located, only Florida requires guardians to 

receive training, but Broward County provides training beyond what is 

required in state law for nonprofessional guardians and provides 

supplemental reference materials, such as a software program for 

preparing guardianship reports.12 The courts in San Francisco and Tarrant 

County, Texas, also provide independently developed training for 

guardians. For example, as of January 2004, the San Francisco court 

required professional and nonprofessional guardians alike to complete 

formal classroom training.13 Working in partnership with a group of 

 12Parents who are appointed guardians of the property of their minor children are subject 

to different requirements. Each person appointed by the court to be the guardian of the 

property of his or her minor child must receive a minimum of 4 hours of instruction and 

training that covers the guardian’s duties, preparation of reports, and use of guardianship 

assets 

13In California a private professional guardian (conservator) is generally “a person or entity 

appointed as conservator of the person or estate, or both, of two or more conservatees at 

the same time who are not related to the conservator by blood or marriage, except a bank 

or other entity authorized to conduct the business of a trust company, or any public officer 

or public agency including the public guardian, public conservator, or other agency of the 

State of California.” 

Courts Recognized as 

Exemplary Provide 

Training and Sources of 

Information Resources 

for Guardians 
Page 18 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

professional guardians, the court developed a required half-day training 

course that nonprofessional guardians must complete within 6 months of 

their appointment. 

Table 4: Training and Information Resources for Guardians in the Four Courts 

 Training requirements in state law Court procedures exceeding state law 

Broward County, 

Fla. 

• Nonprofessional: 8 hours (4 hours parent of 

minor child.) 

• Professional: 40 hours, plus 16 continuing 

education hours every 2 years. 

• Courses must be certified by state. 

• Requires 12-hour course for nonprofessional guardians and a 

48-hour course for professional guardians. 

• Handbook, required forms, required software for preparing 

guardianship reports, court procedures, and answers to 

frequently asked questions available on Web site.a

 

Rockingham 

County, N.H. 

• None specified • Provides information packet and checklist. 

• Offers informal information sessions with judge. 

• Provides video explaining guardianship. 

• Forms, information packet, and checklist available on Web 

site. 

San Francisco 

County, Calif. 

• Required to provide handbook and resource 

supplement book for local resources. 

• Nonprofessionals: must complete up to 6 hours of courtsupervised training. Those appointed guardian of person must 

complete a 3-hour course and those appointed guardian of 

estate must complete another 3-hour course. 

• Professionals: complete certificate program at university or 

demonstrate equivalent experience. 

• Guardians are required to watch video. 

Tarrant County, 

Tex. 

• None specified. • Court staff provides 20-30 minute training and handbook. 

• Training also available at local organization offering 

guardianship services. 

Source: Court officials and documents. 

a

The court requires that guardians use this software to prepare initial inventories, initial plans, annual 

plans, annual accountings, and simplified accounting reports. 

Each of the exemplary courts uses at least one means to actively oversee 

guardianships, and while each will penalize guardians who fail to fulfill 

their responsibilities, two courts dedicate extra resources to enforcement 

activities. These two, Rockingham County and Tarrant County, oversee 

guardianship cases through computerized case management systems. The 

system in Rockingham County automatically notifies court staff when 

reports are due for each guardianship case. For example, when a 

guardianship of the estate is established, the system prints a notice to the 

guardian that an inventory of the incapacitated person’s assets must be 

submitted to the court within 90 days. If the court has not received the 

inventory, the system notifies court staff that an inventory default notice is 

needed. This system also tracks the number of new guardianship cases 

and the total number of active cases. Similarly, Tarrant County enters 

Courts Recognized as 

Exemplary Actively 

Oversee Guardianships 
Page 19 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

information about each new guardianship case into a database. Each 

month the court generates a list of annual reports that are due and mails 

the guardians the required report form. The court also enters the date the 

report is received into the database. 

Two of the courts have developed procedures for in-depth review of 

guardians’ reports. In Florida, the state statute requires that the clerk of 

the court review each guardianship report to ensure that it contains the 

appropriate information. Broward County has implemented a three-tiered 

sampling system for reviewing the reports from the substantial caseload of 

approximately 5,000 guardianships. All reports are subject to the first level 

of review, which is conducted by the Audit Division of the Clerk of the 

Court’s office. A further sample of reports is selected, and the Audit 

Division conducts a more intensive second level review. At the third level 

of review, a further sample of reports is selected, and the audit division 

conducts detailed in-house and field audits of supporting documentation 

to verify the information in the reports. If these reviews indicate any 

irregularities, the Audit Division sends a memorandum to the judge to 

review the report and the auditor’s findings. Tarrant County also employs 

an auditor who is responsible for monitoring guardianships of the estate. 

The auditor uses a database to track when guardians’ reports are due. 

Twice a month, the auditor checks this database to ensure that no reports 

are overdue or overlooked. 

As shown in table 5, each court recognized as exemplary uses a visitor 

program to support guardianship oversight. Tarrant County is required by 

state law to have court visitors monitor the status of people under 

guardianship, so the court provides visitation internships to social work 

students who work as court visitors.14 A licensed Master Social Worker on 

the court staff acts as program manager and trains and supervises the 

interns. The students receive course credit, and the program is of little 

cost to the court. There are typically 4 or 5 interns making an average of 

60-70 visits each month. The visitors submit a report of the visit to the 

program manager for review, and the judge reviews these reports to guide 

his or her decision on whether to continue the guardianship for an 

additional year. 

 14Volunteers also conduct some court visits. The county has a volunteer coordinator who 

assists in finding volunteers who are interested in doing court visits. The court asks 

volunteers to make a 1-year commitment. Volunteers attend the 4-hour orientation and 

training. 
Page 20 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Rockingham County recruits volunteers from AARP to serve as either 

visitors or researchers. Researchers prepare files for the court with 

contact information, case background, and the last annual guardian’s 

report. The visitors then contact the guardian and arrange to visit the 

incapacitated person. They assess the ward’s living situation, finances, 

health, and social activities, and recommend follow-up actions to the 

court. A court employee serves as the volunteer coordinator. According to 

the volunteer coordinator in Rockingham County, costs are minimal 

because volunteers use court telephones, and the state provides supplies. 

According to the court, the detailed, first-hand information provided about 

the incapacitated person’s environment and condition helps the court 

make better decisions when the case is reviewed. 
Page 21 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Table 5: Oversight Procedures in the Four Courts 

 Requirements in state law Court procedures exceeding state laws 

Broward County, 

Fla. 

Monitoring: 

• Court may require background investigation of 

nonprofessionals. 

• Court must require initial background investigation of 

professionals and reinvestigate every 2 years. 

• Clerk’s office is required to audit guardian reports. 

• Registration of professional guardians. 

• Bond required for all. 

Enforcement: 

• Court may employ court monitors. 

• Show cause hearing, etc., for delinquent reports. 

• Background investigations of all guardians 

required. 

• Background investigations required annually. 

• 3-tiered report review system. 

• Electronic reporting software. 

• The Office of the Public Guardian—a publicly 

funded agency that serves as a guardian, 

which is one of only a handful in the state. 

• Full-time court monitor on staff and part-time 

contractors to investigate abuse. 

Rockingham 

County, N.H. 

Monitoring: 

• Bond required for all guardians. 

• Criminal background check required for guardians of the 

person. 

Enforcement: 

• Court may issue show cause order, fine guardian, arrest 

guardian, or terminate guardianship for failure to file reports. 

• Volunteer Court Visitor program. 

• Follow-up on court visitor recommendations. 

San Francisco 

County, Calif. 

Monitoring: 

• Court investigators visit incapacitated people 1st year then 

every other year. 

• Status reports required for guardians of estate who are also 

guardians of person. 

• Statewide registration system for professionals. 

• Full bond on all liquid assets required for all guardians. 

Enforcement: 

• Punish or remove guardian, suspend powers, appoint legal 

counsel, or granting a 60-day extension. 

• General Plan required for all guardianships. 

• Status report required for all guardianships of 

person after first year then every other year 

even if no guardianship of estate exists. 

• Examiners review accountings. 

• Yearlong study on guardianship data. 

• More frequent investigations on troubled 

cases. 

• Investigations on all petitions for termination 

of guardianship. 

Tarrant County, 

Tex. 

Monitoring: 

• Court visitor program. 

• Annual renewal of guardianship letters. 

• Judge considers and approves annual accounts. 

• Criminal background check for professionals required. 

• Bond required for all guardians. 

Enforcement: 

• Show cause hearing, fine, or removal if necessary. 

• Court investigator investigates complaints. 

• Authority to sentence guardians to jail for misconduct. 

• Court visitors are social work students. 

• Database system to track open cases. 

• Auditor reviews annual accounts. 

• Program Manager follows up on concerns in 

guardian and court visitor reports before 

judge’s review. 

• Criminal background checks for 

nonprofessional guardians in court-initiated 

guardianship. 

Source: Court officials and documents. 
Page 22 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

When guardians fail to fulfill their responsibilities, the courts have legal 

authority to penalize guardians, and two of the courts recognized as 

exemplary have staff dedicated to investigating these types of cases. 

Broward County employs court monitors to investigate abuse allegations 

involving guardians, or problems discovered due to annual background 

checks, report review, or other tips. A study of statewide guardianship 

monitoring practices found that Broward County conducts about 400 field 

investigations a year, some of which have resulted in referrals to the state 

attorney for prosecution. 

Federal agencies and state courts’ representative payee programs 

collaborate little to protect incapacitated people and prevent misuse of 

federal benefits. Although overlap is known to occur among the 

incapacitated populations they serve, the extent of this overlap is not 

known. Some state courts and federal agencies share certain information 

on a case-by-case basis. However, the absence of a systematic means for 

compiling and exchanging pertinent information may leave many 

incapacitated people at risk and result in the misuse of benefits and 

increased federal expense. State courts and federal agencies lack 

consistent and sustained compilations of data needed to assess options for 

improving oversight of guardians and representative payees. 

The incapacitated populations served by state courts and federal agencies 

overlap to some extent. Because we focused on incapacitated elderly 

people, we did not assess overlaps between agencies’ general beneficiary 

populations. (See table 6.) An estimated 95 percent of all people 65 and 

older are SSA recipients, and elderly recipients of OPM or VA benefits 

often also receive SSA payments. An estimated 96 percent of VA 

beneficiaries aged 65 and older are also SSA recipients and about 

9 percent are OPM beneficiaries. Also, an estimated 82 percent of OPM 

elderly beneficiaries are also SSA beneficiaries. While there are no data on 

the number of beneficiaries who are incapacitated in each category, it is 

likely that a number of incapacitated people are beneficiaries from more 

than one federal agency, and a number could also have court-appointed 

guardians. 

State Courts and 

Federal 

Representative Payee 

Programs Serve Many 

of the Same 

Incapacitated Elderly 

People, but 

Collaborate Little in 

Oversight Efforts 

Beneficiary Populations 

Overlap, but Coordination 

Is on a Case-by-Case Basis 
Page 23 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Table 6: Many Elderly People Receive Benefits from More than One Federal Agency 

Agencies providing benefitsa

Estimated number of 

beneficiaries aged 65 or oldera

SSA and VA 1,164,000b

SSA and OPM 1,191,000

VA and OPM 109,000

SSA, VA, and OPM 100,000

Source: Census Bureau analysis of Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) Data, 2001, Wave 6 survey results. 

a

Each estimate includes beneficiaries listed in other rows. For example, about 100,000 of the 

estimated 1,164,000 people aged 65 or older who were beneficiaries of both SSA and VA were also 

OPM beneficiaries. 

b

The 90 percent confidence interval for this estimate is from 1.0 to 1.3 million elderly people. 

Like many courts that oversee guardianship programs, federal agencies 

collect certain information from representative payees.15 SSA annually 

sends each representative payee (whether a court-appointed guardian or 

not) a two-page report form asking for certain information—-for example, 

whether the representative payee was convicted of a felony, whether the 

beneficiary continued to live in the same circumstances, how much of the 

benefit payments were spent on the beneficiary’s behalf, how much was 

saved, and in what kind of account the funds are held.16 Similarly, OPM 

biennially sends its representative payees a brief survey asking for similar 

information, though those who are court-appointed guardians are not 

required to complete the survey. OPM leaves it to the courts to monitor 

these payees. VA also requires its representative payees to submit a twopage accounting report, but asks payees who are court-appointed 

guardians to submit the same accountings that they submit to the court. 

Each agency sends follow-up mailings, and SSA and VA visit payees as 

needed in cases where payees fail to submit a report. In addition, VA sends 

field examiners to visit each incapacitated beneficiary. Agency officials 

indicated that these efforts often help identify cases in which beneficiaries 

or representative payees have moved or cases where a payee may need to 

be replaced for a variety of reasons. For example, they may no longer be 

living close enough to the beneficiary or they themselves have become 

 15Each of the three agencies has its own criteria and process for identifying beneficiaries in 

need of a representative payee and though the three agencies use terms such as 

“incompetence,” we use the term “incapacitated.” 

16State mental hospitals that are representative payees are subject to different accounting 

requirements and are subject to on-site reviews by SSA staff. 
Page 24 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

unable to handle the benefit payments. Typically, however, cases of abuse 

come to the agencies’ attention by way of tips from individuals who know 

of the beneficiary rather than from report and survey follow-up efforts. 

Some state courts and federal agencies share certain information about 

some beneficiaries on a case-by-case basis. Some state court officials that 

we spoke with indicated that they have established a rapport with staff in 

local offices of federal agencies, such as SSA and VA, and are able to 

obtain information concerning incapacitated beneficiaries or their 

representative payees. (See table 7.) For example, upon request, federal 

agencies will sometimes provide them with information to allow the court 

to determine all sources of the incapacitated person’s income and whether 

the guardian needs to coordinate with a payee. State courts may also offer 

information to federal agencies. For example, some courts send 

occasional notices of guardianship appointment to SSA, allowing SSA staff 

to identify which of their beneficiaries is incapacitated and determine if 

the guardian can be designated as a representative payee. 

While coordination is often case-by-case, some takes place more 

systematically and is based on previously established agreements. For 

example, about one-third of the states have adopted the Uniform Veterans’ 

Guardianship Act that requires state courts to notify VA when they appoint 

a guardian for a veteran. According to this act, VA must receive copies of 

court orders and accountings related to the veteran’s case. The act also 

gives VA the right to appear in court during guardianship proceedings 

involving a veteran. 

Federal agencies may also establish agreements with one another to 

exchange information. For example, SSA allows a limited number of VA 

service representatives nationwide to electronically access some SSA 

information about veterans’ SSA benefits. This SSA data system includes 

the amount of SSA benefits veterans receive, whether SSA has identified 

them as incapacitated, and the identity of a representative payee, if one 

has been designated. VA officials regularly look at SSA’s information 

before conducting a field examination to help determine incapacity and 

choose a fiduciary, according to a VA official responsible for managing the 

agency’s fiduciary program. VA is not, however, notified when SSA 

changes a beneficiary’s representative payee. Many VA representative 

payee program staff that do not currently have access to the database see 
Page 25 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

it as a useful tool and have expressed a desire to be able to use it in order 

to more efficiently assess beneficiaries’ needs.17

The lack of systematic coordination weakens the oversight of both elderly 

and non-elderly incapacitated people and may leave incapacitated people 

at risk of not being assigned a representative payee or guardian despite 

having been identified either by a state or federal entity as a person who 

needs one. For example, if a federal agency has identified one of its 

beneficiaries as incapacitated and assigns a representative payee, the 

agency does not systematically notify the courts or other agencies. (See 

table 7.) The other agencies making payments to the same person may not 

learn that they may need to assign a representative payee to handle their 

benefit payments to the person. Such notification could also be useful to 

state courts in assessing the need for a guardian. This lack of coordination 

could leave the incapacitated person who needs a representative payee or 

guardian without one. 

 17Without the information on SSA benefits being provided to veterans, VA staff would have 

to find benefit and income information through other means, and they would have no way 

to verify the information. There is a potential for fraud, since a beneficiary could claim to 

not receive Social Security benefits, when in fact the person does receive a benefit and this 

may affect their eligibility for VA benefits. In addition, without information from SSA that 

may help indicate a veteran’s total income, VA may recommend an inappropriately low 

spending allowance for the incapacitated person. 

Lack of Systematic 

Coordination Weakens 

Oversight of Incapacitated 

People 
Page 26 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Table 7: Representative Payee Programs’ Gathering and Exchange of Information 

Information gathered or exchanged SSA OPM VA 

Ask whether incapacitated beneficiary has a court-appointed guardian? Yes Yes Yes 

Compile names of guardians not designated as agency’s payee? No Not applicablea No 

Give other agencies/courts access to database with name of 

representative payee? 

Yes, VA access only No No 

Systematically notify other agencies/courts of assignment of a 

representative payee? 

No No Not other 

agencies, courts 

in some casesb

Systematically notify other agencies/courts of the replacement of a 

representative payee? 

No No Not other 

agencies, courts 

in some casesb 

Source: GAO interviews with SSA, OPM, and VA officials. 

a

OPM’s policy is to designate the guardian as the representative payee. 

b

A VA official indicated that VA typically informs the court by letter if it selects a new or successor 

representative payee other than one who was previously appointed by the court. 

Insufficient interagency coordination may also leave incapacitated elderly 

people more vulnerable to abuse or neglect. For example, when an agency 

identifies a representative payee who is abusing or neglecting an 

incapacitated person, it does not automatically notify the state court or 

other federal agencies that have assigned a guardian or representative 

payee. Without such a notification, the court or other federal agency may 

be unaware of the need to replace an abusive or negligent guardian or 

representative payee. 

If agencies and courts do not communicate with each other concerning 

incapacitated beneficiaries, they may unknowingly assign different people 

as representative payees or guardians with overlapping responsibilities. 

However, in some cases, agencies and courts intentionally select different 

people or organizations as representative payee or guardian. Although 

most Old Age, Survivor, and Disability Insurance beneficiaries with both a 

guardian and SSA-designated representative payee, have the same person 

serving in both roles, for an estimated 19 percent of these beneficiaries the 

guardian is not their representative payee.18 Some guardians choose not to 

 18SSA estimated that as of December 2002, 250,000 Old Age, Survivor, and Disability 

Insurance beneficiaries had both an SSA-designated representative payee and a courtappointed guardian. For about 48,000 of these beneficiaries the guardian was not the 

designated representative payee. 
Page 27 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

be the representative payee, so SSA designates someone else. (See fig. 3.) 

Sometimes VA designates a nursing home as a representative payee, even 

though a court has appointed a family member or other person to be the 

incapacitated resident’s guardian. The guardian and the nursing home may 

get into conflict over the use of the incapacitated person’s benefit 

payments. Additional coordination among federal agencies and courts and 

cooperation among guardians and representative payees may be necessary 

to avoid conflicts and better protect the incapacitated person. 

Figure 3: Federal Agencies and the Courts May or May Not Assign Representative Payee and Guardianship Responsibilities 

to the Same Individual 

Source: Interviews with court officials and federal officials responsible for for SSA, VA, and OPM representative payee programs.

One or more 

federal agencies One or more 

federal agencies

One or 

more 

representative 

payees Guardian

Incapacitated 

Coordination ?

Coordination ? Coordination ? Courts Courts

All responsibilities

assigned to 

different

individuals

All responsibilities

assigned to

one

individual

Incapacitated 

Guardian 

who is a

representative

payee
Page 28 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Federal officials have recognized the need for better exchange of 

information regarding incapacitated beneficiaries. In response to 

provisions in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, SSA and VA 

studied the feasibility of collaborating in serving veterans who were also 

SSA beneficiaries.19 In 1993, several agencies participated in a discussion 

group on representative payee programs. Two of the agencies—SSA and 

VA—signed an agreement calling for each agency to notify the other when 

it had information that could be helpful to the other agency’s oversight of 

its representative payee.20 However, according to VA and SSA officials, 

efforts to implement the agreement failed due to changes in management 

personnel, concerns about costs, and issues concerning nondisclosure of 

confidential information. 

Not only is it likely that the lack of coordination limits the protection of 

incapacitated people and their federal benefits, it may also result in 

increased federal expenditures. The recently enacted Social Security 

Protection Act of 2004 requires SSA to repay the benefits in certain cases 

of misuse.21 For example, if a representative payee that is an organization, 

or an individual serving 15 or more beneficiaries misuses the benefit 

payments, SSA will have to reissue the misused benefits to the 

beneficiaries or to an alternate representative payee, resulting in increased 

federal expenditures. Before the passage of this act, SSA was only required 

to replace benefits if SSA was negligent in its oversight of a representative 

payee. Annually, SSA has found fewer than 1,000 cases of misuse, and only 

in a small percentage of those cases was SSA found to be negligent. 

However, according to an SSA official, the new provisions may mean that 

more benefits will have to be reissued. 

 19These and other federal agencies currently collaborate in the exchange of data on 

beneficiaries for other purposes. For example, through SSA’s Death Master File federal and 

state agencies, including SSA, OPM, and VA, periodically match their beneficiary lists with 

lists of people who have died. This cooperative effort helps agencies ensure that they do 

not continue to send payments to people who are no longer eligible. 

20Memorandum of Understanding between the Social Security Administration and the 

Department of Veterans Affairs, signed by Acting Commissioner, SSA, and Undersecretary 

for Benefits, October 13, 1993. 

21Pub. L. No. 108-203 §101, March 2, 2004. 
Page 29 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Certain data, such as the number of active guardianships and incidence of 

abuse, could help courts and agencies determine the effectiveness of 

efforts to protect incapacitated people but are not currently available. The 

courts we surveyed generally do not compile aggregate data such as the 

number of incapacitated people, or elderly incapacitated people, with 

guardians. Often the only records concerning guardianship appointments 

aside from a calendar of upcoming hearings and due dates for required 

reports are in individual paper files. Some states, however, are making 

efforts to compile statewide data on guardianships. In Vermont, for 

example, the Supreme Court compiles reports from each court on the 

number of open guardianship cases, but without any information on the 

age of the incapacitated people. In New York, the state court’s Guardian 

and Fiduciary Services is working on the development of a statewide 

database on guardians, fiduciaries, and the people they were appointed to 

serve. 

The federal agencies that we examined, SSA, VA, and OPM, do more to 

compile data on representative payees than most courts responding to our 

3-state survey do for incapacitated people with guardians. All three of the 

federal agencies that we examined have databases that keep count of the 

different types of representative payees for incapacitated people. Neither 

SSA nor VA, however, consistently compiles information showing how 

many beneficiaries with representative payees have a court-appointed 

guardian who is not the representative payee.22

To keep these databases current, all three agencies require most of their 

representative payees to submit periodic reports. SSA, VA, and OPM 

compile and maintain basic information, such as contact information, 

about the representative payees they designate. They also ask whether an 

incapacitated beneficiary has a court-appointed guardian before 

designating a representative payee. They do not, however, compile and 

maintain more detailed information that could contribute to more effective 

oversight of representative payees. For example, none of these agencies 

consistently records information about a beneficiary’s court-appointed 

guardian in its computerized records system or updates the information 

unless the agency also designates the court-appointed guardian as its 

beneficiary’s representative payee. Although SSA compiles some 

information about the reasons it replaces representative payees, such as 

the assignment of a more suitable payee, misuse of benefits, or fraud, for 

 22OPM’s policy is to designate the guardian as the representative payee. 

Statistical Data to Analyze 

Options for Improving 

Oversight Not Available 
Page 30 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

example—OPM and VA do not. This information might be useful in making 

future assignments. 

Sufficient data are not available to determine the incidence of abuse of 

incapacitated people by guardians or representative payees, nor the extent 

to which guardians and representative payees are protecting incapacitated 

people from abuse. Current efforts to compile aggregate national data on 

elder abuse do not identify cases when a guardian or representative payee 

has been assigned to the victim of abuse, or whether a guardian or 

representative payee commits the abuse. States compile statistics on 

incidence of abuse and neglect, including information on the age of 

victims.23 National associations collect these statistics from Adult 

Protective Service agencies and Area Agencies on Aging. Generally, states 

track types of abuse and some of the relationships between perpetrators 

and victims, but they do not track instances where the victim had been 

assigned a guardian or representative payee or had granted a power of 

attorney to someone. As a result, federal agencies lack national data 

concerning the incidence of elder abuse by guardians and representative 

payees or the incidence of abuse with and without the assignment of a 

guardian or representative payee. Similarly, national crime statistics, such 

as crime victimization surveys, identify various relationships between 

victims and perpetrators, and the age of victims, but fail to identify cases 

involving guardians or representative payees. SSA tracks the number of 

cases in which representative payees are found to have misused benefits—

fewer than a 1,000 cases each year for beneficiaries of all ages. SSA 

officials agreed, however, that since SSA largely relies on tips from third 

parties to discover cases of misuse, their records of misuse might be 

incomplete. 

Although state and local courts have primary responsibility for protecting 

incapacitated people, including the elderly, by appointing and overseeing 

guardians, federal agencies also have responsibilities to help protect many 

of the same incapacitated people through representative payee programs. 

Yet, courts and federal agencies collaborate little in the protection of 

incapacitated elderly people and the protection of federal benefit 

payments from misuse. Court and agency efforts to improve protection of 

the incapacitated is limited by their failure to systematically compile and 

exchange data—by, for example, promptly notifying each other when an 

 2342 U.S.C. §3058i. 

Conclusions 
Page 31 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

incapacitated person is identified or a representative payee or guardian is 

appointed or needs to be replaced, due to their failure to fulfill their 

responsibilities, or for other reasons. However, the extent to which the 

courts and agencies leave elderly incapacitated people at risk is unknown. 

Neither the states nor the federal government compile data concerning the 

incidence of abuse of people assigned a guardian or representative payee 

or even the number of elderly people with guardians. Without better 

statistical data concerning the size of the incapacitated population or how 

effectively it is being served, it will be difficult to determine precisely what 

kinds of efforts may be appropriate to better protect incapacitated elderly 

people from exploitation, abuse, and neglect. 

Improvements in oversight of guardians and representative payees depend 

in part on additional efforts by states, state and local courts, federal 

agencies, state area agencies on aging, and HHS. Although the focus of our 

review was elderly incapacitated people, state guardianship and federal 

representative payee programs also serve other incapacitated adults. 

Improvements could be of benefit to all incapacitated adults, particularly if 

they are designed with both the elderly and non-elderly in mind. However, 

certain actions that would improve oversight are not currently being 

undertaken. For example, the various entities responsible for oversight do 

not collaborate to compile, on a continuing basis, consistent national data 

concerning guardianships and representative payees. Without such 

statistical data, the extent of preventable abuse and neglect of 

incapacitated elderly people is unknown. Finally, the states have done 

little to collaborate on interstate recognition and transfer of guardianship 

appointments. Few states have adopted procedures for accepting transfer 

of guardianship from another state or recognizing some or all of the 

powers of a guardian appointed in another state. This can be a problem 

when an incapacitated elderly person needs to move to another state or 

the guardian needs to conduct business in another state on his or her 

behalf. The need to establish a new guardianship in another state because 

of these gaps in states’ law can make it difficult for guardians and the 

courts that supervise them to ensure that they fulfill their responsibilities. 

The prospect of increasing numbers of incapacitated elderly people in the 

year’s ahead signals the need to reassess the way in which state and local 

courts and federal agencies work together in efforts to protect 

incapacitated elderly people. 

To increase the ability of representative payee programs to protect federal 

benefit payments from misuse, SSA should convene an interagency study Recommendations 
Page 32 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

group that includes representatives from HHS, federal agencies with 

representative payee programs, including VA and OPM, and state courts 

that wish to participate in order to study the costs and benefits of options 

for improving interagency cooperation and federal-state cooperation in the 

protection of incapacitated elderly and non-elderly people. Options may 

include: 

• prompt and systematic sharing among federal agencies’ representative 

payee programs of information such as the identity of individuals who 

are incapacitated, the identity of those individuals’ designated 

guardians and representative payees, the identity of guardians and 

representative payees who fail to fulfill their duties, and the assignment 

of successor guardians and successor representative payees; and 

• prompt and systematic sharing of similar information among federal 

agencies and courts responsible for guardianships that choose to 

participate. 

Information-sharing initiatives must be designed in a manner that is costeffective, respectful of privacy rights, and consistent with federal 

nondisclosure requirements concerning confidential information. 

To facilitate state efforts to improve oversight of guardianships and to aid 

guardians in the fulfillment of their responsibilities, the Department of 

Health and Human Services should work with national organizations 

involved in guardianship programs, such as the those represented on the 

National Guardianship Network, to provide support and leadership to the 

states for cost-effective pilot and demonstration projects to: 

• develop cost-effective approaches for compiling, on a continuing basis, 

consistent national data concerning guardianships to aid in the 

management of programs for protecting incapacitated adults, such as 

the age of the incapacitated person, the type of guardian appointed, etc; 

• study options for compiling data from federal agencies and state 

agencies, such as Adult Protective Services agencies, concerning the 

incidence of elder abuse in cases in which the victim had granted 

someone the durable power of attorney or had been assigned a 

fiduciary, such as a guardian or representative payee, and in cases in 

which the victim did not have a fiduciary; and 

• review state policies and procedures concerning interstate transfer and 

recognition of guardianship appointments to facilitate efficient and 

cost-effective solutions for interstate jurisdictional issues. 
Page 33 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

We provided a draft of this report to SSA, OPM, VA, and HHS and received 

written comments on the draft from all four. See appendixes IV, V, VI, and 

VII for their responses. 

SSA disagreed with our recommendation concerning an interagency study 

group. It views the study we recommend as something beyond its purview. 

Although SSA shares concern about incapacitated people’s general 

welfare, it stated that its responsibility focuses on ensuring that any SSA 

benefits incapacitated people receive are used for their maintenance and 

welfare. SSA stated that systematic sharing of information among federal 

agencies and state courts would be extremely difficult and a study group 

focusing on such sharing would not be within SSA’s purview. SSA also 

commented that efforts to coordinate with state courts must meet Privacy 

Act requirements, and in that regard they noted that there is currently no 

statement of routine use allowing SSA to share representative payee 

information with state courts. Because state courts, SSA, and other federal 

agencies have such different policies regarding representative payees and 

guardians, SSA believes that it is constrained by the Privacy Act in 

releasing information. 

We believe that the systematic exchange of data could help SSA better 

ensure that SSA benefits are used for incapacitated people’s maintenance 

and welfare. The interagency study group should be able to develop 

policies allowing for the sharing of information consistent with the Privacy 

Act and other applicable nondisclosure requirements. We believe that an 

interagency study group could identify carefully specified kinds of 

information that under specified circumstances could be shared among 

limited numbers of federal and state court officials with jurisdiction over 

guardianships in a manner that is consistent with the Privacy Act and 

other applicable nondisclosure requirements. SSA and the other federal 

agencies involved have the authority to develop statements of routine use 

to provide for such exchange of information. They currently have such 

agreements in place to share data with other federal agencies, such as 

SSA’s sharing of information concerning its representative payees with a 

limited number of VA staff. Although exchange of data among federal 

agencies with representative payee programs may be easier to establish 

than exchange between federal agencies and state courts, further study is 

warranted to assess the feasibility of such exchange and the extent to 

which it could enable courts and federal agencies to better protect 

incapacitated elderly people. 

Agency Comments 
Page 34 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

VA and OPM agreed with our conclusions pertaining to their agencies, 

indicating that they look forward to participating in the study group we are 

recommending. VA noted wide variations in state guardianship laws and 

procedures, the need for federal agencies and state courts to share 

information on cases of common interest, and the current lack of 

systematic information sharing among federal agencies state agencies, and 

state courts relating to the protection of elderly beneficiaries. OPM 

suggested that we assert that it would be to the federal government’s 

benefit, either in terms of efficiency or savings, to create systems for 

sharing information on guardians or representative payees. OPM also 

urged that we add to the report statistics demonstrating the efficiency of 

coordination with state courts. Although adding these would strengthen 

the report, data necessary to do so are not currently available. Our 

findings strongly suggest that savings and greater efficiency would result 

from collaboration, but the extent to which this is the case will not be 

known until agencies and state courts start collaborating in efforts to 

assess overlaps in the populations of incapacitated people they serve, 

incidence of abuse, and the costs and benefits of data exchange. 

HHS agreed that guardians should be adequately trained and monitored, 

and that governmental agencies and courts should coordinate their efforts 

and share information concerning guardians and representative payees. 

HHS plans to carry out our recommendation to study options for 

compiling data from federal agencies and state agencies concerning the 

incidence of elder abuse in cases in which the victim had granted someone 

the durable power of attorney or had been assigned a fiduciary, such as a 

guardian or representative payee. This year the National Center on Elder 

Abuse will survey all state adult protective services agencies to determine 

the incidence of elder abuse reports and the characteristics of victims and 

perpetrators. The center plans to ask states to cite the number or 

percentage of perpetrators of elder abuse who served as the victims’ 

powers of attorney, guardians, or representative payees. HHS also plans to 

explore cost-effective pilot and demonstration projects to develop 

approaches for compiling guardianship data and to facilitate solutions for 

interstate jurisdictional issues. It also agreed to serve on an interagency 

study group to develop options for improving interagency cooperation and 

federal-state cooperation in the protection of incapacitated elderly and 

non-elderly people. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents or 

authorize its release sooner, we will not distribute it until 30 days from the 

date of issuance. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the 

Commissioner of Social Security, the Director of the Office of Personnel 
Page 35 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Management, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs. We will also make copies available to others 

on request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov/. 

If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact Barbara 

Bovbjerg or Alicia Puente Cackley at (202) 512-7215. See appendix VIII for 

other contacts and staff acknowledgments. 

Sincerely yours, 

Barbara D. Bovbjerg 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 36 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Our review included a review of state laws on guardianship, the 

development and administration of surveys of state courts in 3 states, 

visits to 15 courts in 8 states, and interviews with federal officials at the 

Social Security Administration (SSA), Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA), Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS). In addition, one member of the team 

completed a 2-day training program for professional guardians in 

Washington State and two attended a conference of the National 

Guardianship Association. We conducted our review between March 2003 

and May 2004 in accord with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

To determine what state courts do to ensure that guardians fulfill their 

responsibilities, we studied both states’ laws concerning guardianship and 

court practices, particularly those concerning court oversight of 

guardians. Our review of states’ laws relied in part on the compilations 

prepared by the American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging. 

To review court practices we limited our scope to courts with jurisdiction 

over guardianships for the elderly in the three states with the largest 

elderly populations (residents aged 65 and older)—California, New York, 

and Florida. Together these three states account for about one-quarter of 

the nation’s elderly population. We administered similar survey 

instruments tailored to the courts in each of these states. We refined the 

survey instruments based on pretest visits to court officials at three 

counties in California, three counties in Florida, and two counties in New 

York. We sent finalized survey instruments to California Superior Courts in 

each of California’s 58 counties, to circuit courts in each of Florida’s 

67 counties, and to each of New York’s 12 judicial districts. We received 

usable survey responses from 42 California courts, 55 Florida courts, and 

9 of New York’s judicial districts for response rates of 72 percent, 

82 percent, and 75 percent, respectively. Several courts provided 

responses to some items, but no responses to other items in the survey 

instrument. For details on the numbers of responses to each item and a 

compilation of responses by state, see appendix III. We reviewed courts’ 

survey responses for consistency, but did not independently review the 

accuracy of the court officials’ responses. 

To determine what guardianship programs recognized as exemplary do to 

ensure that guardians fulfill their responsibilities we visited 4 courts to 

study their procedures. We selected the four courts by contacting 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 37 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

members of the National Guardianship Network and asking them which 

courts throughout the nation they regard as having exemplary practices.1

The four courts we selected were each identified as exemplary by two or 

more members of the network. We visited each of the courts and 

interviewed judges, probate directors, monitoring staff, volunteers, legal 

staff, and others. In two of the courts, we attended guardianship hearings. 

We reviewed each of the court’s documents concerning probate 

procedures including state laws, rules of court, training materials, forms, 

and written and Web site documents. We also examined examples of 

guardianship case files. 

To determine to what extent do state courts and federal agencies 

coordinate their efforts to protect incapacitated elderly people, we 

interviewed court officials in each of the four courts recognized as 

exemplary and in several additional courts. We attended the National 

Guardianship Association’s conference including sessions concerning 

guardianships and VA and guardianships and the Healthcare Insurance 

Portability and Privacy Act of 1996.2

 We met with a group of conference 

attendees, including judges, probate lawyers, and guardians, to discuss 

federal agencies’ interactions with guardians and courts. We also reviewed 

documents provided by court officials concerning specific cases in which 

federal agencies were involved in guardianship cases. We also interviewed 

officials at SSA, VA, OPM, and HHS and reviewed applicable regulations 

and policy manuals and handbooks. 

 1

The National Guardianship Network is a joint council representing the National College of 

Probate Judges, National guardianship Association, American Bar Association—

Commission on Law and Aging, National Center for State Courts, National Academy of 

Elder Law Attorneys, National Guardianship Foundation, American Bar Association—Real 

Property Probate and Trust Section, and American College of Trust and Estate Counsel. 

2

Pub. L. 104-191, August 21, 1996. 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 38 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

The following are surveys GAO mailed to the California Superior Court in each of the 

58 counties in California, the Florida Circuit Courts in each of the 67 counties in 

Florida, and the 12 Judicial Districts in New York. For summary results of the survey, 

see appendix III. 

Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in 

California, Florida, and New York 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 39 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 40 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 41 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 42 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 43 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 44 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 45 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 46 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 47 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 48 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 49 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 50 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 51 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 52 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 53 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 54 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 55 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 56 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 57 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 58 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 59 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 60 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 61 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix II: GAO Surveys of Courts in California, Florida, 

and New York 

Page 62 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

Courts in California, Florida, and New York 

Page 63 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Below are tabulations of survey responses received from 42 of the 58 

superior courts in California, 55 of the 67 superior courts in Florida, and 9 

of the12 judicial districts in New York. In some cases, respondents to the 

survey did not respond to particular items in the survey. 

Court Policies and Procedures 

Which of the following resources are available to guardians appointed by 

your court?a

 (Check one for each resource.) 

 California Florida New York 

Yes No Yes No Yes No

A. Summary of statutory duties of 

guardians 

31 5 18 30 6 2

B. List of resources and contacts for 

guardians (e.g., Area Agencies on 

Aging, county/state support 

agencies, etc.) 

25 10 14 30 6 3

C. Training classes 2 29 30 20 7 2

D. Training video 18 19 13 33 7 2

E. Guardian handbook or manual 40 1 17 29 6 3

F. Online reporting forms 4 24 5 39 3 6

G. Examples of model reports 8 24 10 33 7 2

H. Other (please specify) 2 5 2 5 1 0

a

Surveys to courts in California use the term “conservators.” In California guardians are appointed to 

protect minors and conservators are appointed to protect adults. For convenience, for the purposes of 

this report, we use the term “guardian” rather than “conservator.” 

Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

Courts in California, Florida, and New York 
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

Courts in California, Florida, and New York 

Page 64 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Does your court require formal training (e.g., classes, videos, instructional 

meetings) for any of the following types of guardians? (Check one for each 

row.) 

Training required for 

California Florida New York 

All Some None All Some None All Some None

A. Guardians who are family members or friends 10 3 27 31 16 6 4 4 1

B. Guardians who are attorneys 9 1 31 8 5 38 4 2 3

C. Guardians (not family members, friends or attorneys) 

who are paid from public sources (e.g., social service 

agencies, etc.) 6 3 31 28 9 11 3 0 5

D. Guardians (not family members, friends or attorneys) 

who are paid from the income or assets of the 

incapacitated person (e.g., non-attorneys on the state 

registry) 9 5 27 37 9 6 4 2 3

E. Others (please specify) 1 0 8 0 1 7 1 0 0
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

Courts in California, Florida, and New York 

Page 65 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Does your court require guardians of the property to submit 

documentation of the following items, either separately or as part of a 

report? (Check one for each item.) 

 California Florida New York 

Guardians 

of the 

property 

Required 

for all 

Required 

for some 

Not 

required 

Annual, 

then 

bienniala

Required 

for all

Required 

for some

Not 

required 

Required 

for all 

Required 

for some 

Not 

required

A. Initial 

inventory of 

assets, 

income, and 

liabilities 

38 3 1 53 2 0 9 0 0

B. Annual 

financial 

statements 

or 

accountings 

13 11 3 15 50 5 0 9 0 0

C. More 

frequent 

than annual 

financial 

statements 

or 

accountings 

0 9 30 0 15 39 0 2 7

D. Less 

frequent 

than annual 

financial 

statements 

or 

accountings 

5 14 6 15 0 10 43 0 2 7

E. Written 

financial 

plan 

5 9 26 18 12 24 3 5 1

F. Written 

report 

and/or 

petition 

when plans 

change 

9 12 18 25 7 21 8 1 0

G. Other 

(please 

specify) 

3 1 6 0 0 3 0 0 0

a

California state law generally requires an accounting and report by the end of the first year following 

the appointment and at 2-year intervals (biennially) thereafter. 
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

Courts in California, Florida, and New York 

Page 66 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Does your court require guardians of the person to submit documentation 

of the following items, either separately or as part of a report? (Check one 

for each item.) 

 California Florida New York 

Guardians 

of the 

person 

Required 

for all 

Required 

for some 

Not 

required 

Annual, 

then 

bienniala

Required 

for all

Required 

for some

Not 

required 

Required 

for all 

Required 

for some 

Not 

required

A. Initial 

description 

of personal 

status 

31 3 8 0 51 2 2 9 0 0

B. Annual 

personal 

status 

reports 

9 9 18 3 46 6 2 7 2 0

C. More 

frequent 

than annual 

personal 

status 

reports 

1 8 29 0 0 10 44 0 4 5

D. Less 

frequent 

than annual 

personal 

status 

reports 

9 10 18 2 0 6 48 0 1 8

E. Written 

plan for 

personal 

care 

7 8 23 1 44 6 5 7 1 1

F. Written 

report and/or 

petition 

when plans 

change 

9 12 19 0 31 10 13 9 0 0

G. Other 

(please 

specify) 

3 0 5 0 1 0 3 0 0 0

a

California state law generally requires an accounting and report by the end of the first year following 

the appointment and at 2-year intervals (biennially) thereafter. 
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

Courts in California, Florida, and New York 

Page 67 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Monitoring Guardianships 

How sufficient is your court’s funding for monitoring guardianships? 

(Check one.) 

 California Florida New York 

A. Much more than sufficient 0 0 0

B. More than sufficient 0 0 0

C. Sufficient 7 15 2

D. Less than sufficient 13 5 1

E. Much less than sufficient 9 5 2

F. No funds available for this purpose 10 28 3

Do courts in your county require that guardians of the property be 

bonded? (Check one.) 

 California Florida New York 

A. Yes, for all or almost all 26 15 4

B. Yes, for some 13 36 4

C. Not required for guardians of the property 3 4 1

Do courts in your county require background checks on guardians of the 

property? (Check one.) 

 California Florida New York 

A. Yes, for all or almost all 15 8 2

B. Yes, for some 10 31 1

C. Not required for guardians of the property 17 13 6
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

Courts in California, Florida, and New York 

Page 68 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Do courts in your county require background checks on guardians of the 

person? (Check one.) 

 California Florida New York 

A. Yes, for all or almost all 17 7 1

B. Yes, for some 8 28 2

C. Not required for guardians of the person 17 17 6

Other than relying on reports by guardians, which, if any, of the following 

strategies does your court use after the initial hearing to assess the 

personal status of people who have guardians appointed by the court? 

(Check one for each strategy.) 

Court strategy All almost all the cases Most cases About half the cases Some cases No cases

California 

A. Personal visits by court official 32 3 0 1 5

B. Personal visits by persons outside 

the court, other than the appointed 

guardian 

3 1 0 10 23

C. Periodic hearings on the 

continued need for guardianship 

20 5 2 8 5

D. Other (please specify) 1 0 0 1 8

Florida 

A. Personal visits by court official 0 0 0 7 44

B. Personal visits by persons outside 

the court, other than the appointed 

guardian 

1 0 1 6 45

C. Periodic hearings on the 

continued need for guardianship 

0 4 1 14 32

D. Other (please specify) 2 0 0 3 7

New York 

A. Personal visits by court official 0 1 0 1 7

B. Personal visits by persons outside 

the court, other than the appointed 

guardian 

1 0 0 3 5

C. Periodic hearings on the 

continued need for guardianship 

0 1 1 5 2

D. Other (please specify) 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

Courts in California, Florida, and New York 

Page 69 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Who reviews financial and personal status reports submitted by guardians 

appointed by your court? (Check one for each type of reviewer.) 

Court strategy 

All/almost 

all the 

cases

Most 

cases 

About 

half the 

cases 

Some 

cases

No 

cases

California 

A. A judge 30 1 0 7 1

B. Court personnel other 

than judges 

25 2 0 1 11

C. Volunteers 1 0 0 2 30

D. Government agencies 

other than the court 

0 0 0 5 27

E. Other (please specify) 6 0 0 1 10

Florida 

A. A judge 28 2 0 6 6

B. Court personnel other 

than judges 

47 0 0 0 4

C. Volunteers 0 0 0 1 36

D. Government agencies 

other than the court 

4 0 0 6 28

E. Other (please specify) 7 0 1 3 5

New York 

A. A judge 5 0 0 1 3

B. Court personnel other 

than judges 

7 0 0 0 2

C. Court examiner or other 

compensated person 

appointed to review reportsa

8 0 0 0 1

D. Volunteers 0 0 0 0 7

E. Government agencies 

other than the court 

1 0 0 2 6

F. Other (please specify) 0 0 0 0 0

a

This item was included only in the surveys to New York judicial districts. 
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

Courts in California, Florida, and New York 

Page 70 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

What steps, if any, are taken to verify information in financial and personal 

status reports? (Check one for each step.) 

All or 

almost all 

reports

Most 

reports 

About 

half the 

reports 

Some 

reports

No 

reports

California 

A. Information in personal 

status reports is verified. 

22 1 0 5 10

B. Information in financial 

reports is verified. 

16 3 0 11 7

C. Supporting 

documentation for financial 

information must be 

submitted (e.g., 

bank/brokerage 

statements). 

24 2 0 8 5

D. Other (please specify) 3 0 0 1 7

Florida 

A. Information in personal 

status reports is verified. 

19 2 1 9 18

B. Information in financial 

reports is verified. 

29 1 0 7 11

C. Supporting 

documentation for financial 

information must be 

submitted (e.g., 

bank/brokerage 

statements). 

48 2 0 4 1

D. Other (please specify) 5 0 0 0 5

New York 

A. Information in personal 

status reports is verified. 

5 1 0 1 2

B. Information in financial 

reports is verified. 

6 1 0 1 1

C. Supporting 

documentation for financial 

information must be 

submitted (e.g., 

bank/brokerage 

statements). 

5 2 0 2 0

D. Other (please specify) 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

Courts in California, Florida, and New York 

Page 71 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Is your court required to document approval of financial and personal 

status reports? (Check one.) 

 California Florida New York

A. Only required to document approval of 

financial reports 

12 11 0

B. Only required to document approval of 

personal status reports 

0 0 0

C. Required to document approval of both 

financial and personal status reports 

20 39 6

D. No requirement for court to document 

approval of reports 

8 4 3

Does your court use a computer(s) to track when financial and/or personal 

status reports are due and when they are filed? (Check one.) 

 California Florida New York

A. Yes, for financial reports only 4 2 0

B. Yes, for personal status reports only 2 0 0

C. Yes, for both financial and personal status 

reports 

22 37 4

D. No 13 15 5

About how many of the required guardianship reports for the elderly are 

filed on time? (Check one.) 

 California Florida New York 

A. All or almost all 5 4 0

B. Most 18 16 2

C. About half 6 15 2

D. Less than half 6 14 1

E. Few, if any 3 1 0

F. Do not know 4 5 4
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

Courts in California, Florida, and New York 

Page 72 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Guardian Compensation 

In the last 12 months, has your court approved any guardian compensation 

that was based on a percentage of the value of an elderly incapacitated 

person’s estate? (Check one.) 

 California Florida New York 

Yes 11 3 7

No 30 48 2

If “Yes,” what is the range of percentages typically approved? 

California Florida New York 

Lowest Highest Lowest Highest Lowest Highest

0.75% 5% 0.5% 1.5% 0.03% 5%

In the last 12 months, has your court approved any guardian compensation 

that was based on a percentage of an elderly incapacitated person’s 

income? (Check one.) 

 California Florida New York 

Yes 4 2 6

No 37 51 3
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

Courts in California, Florida, and New York 

Page 73 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

If “Yes,” what is the range of percentages typically approved? 

California Florida New York 

Lowest Highest Lowest Highest Lowest Highest

0.9% 10% 0% 5% 1% 5%

In the last 12 months, has your court approved any guardian compensation 

based on an hourly rate? (Check one.) 

 California Florida New York 

Yes 31 35 6

No 11 18 3

If “Yes,” what is the range of hourly rates typically approved? 

California Florida New York 

Lowest Highest Lowest Highest Lowest Highest

$7 $250 $8 $85 $25 $400
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

Courts in California, Florida, and New York 

Page 74 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

How does your court handle petitions from guardians for compensation? 

(Check one for each row.) 

California Florida New York 

All Some None All Some None All Some None

A. Court personnel review petitions. 27 5 8 26 6 19 6 1 2

B. Judges review petitions. 34 7 0 46 1 2 7 2 0

C. Guardians are required to submit time and 

expense records to support their compensation 

petitions. 

24 12 5 40 6 4 6 3 0

D. Petitions are approved by court personnel or 

judge unless a problem surfaces. 

32 4 6 34 3 6 7 1 1

E. Final approval is required by circuit or state 

office. 

0 0 34 12 2 25 3 0 6

F. Other (please specify) 0 1 7 1 0 5 1 0 0

Statistical Information 

How many judges in your court hear guardianship petitions for the 

elderly? (Enter number.) 

 California Florida New York 

Minimum 1 1 3

Maximum 11 8 32

Mean 1.60 1.62 10.78

Median 1 1 8
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

Courts in California, Florida, and New York 

Page 75 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Of the judges in your court who hear guardianship petitions for the elderly, 

how many work more than half the time on guardianship matters? (Enter 

number less than or equal to that given in Question 20.) 

 California Florida New York 

Minimum 0 0 0

Maximum 1 2 5

Mean 0.34 0.42 1.44

Median 0 0 1

How frequently is the elderly respondent (aged 65 and over) to a 

guardianship petition present at the appointment hearing? (Check one.) 

 California Florida New York 

A. Always or almost always 3 4 2

B. In most cases 5 3 3

C. In about half the cases 8 6 3

D. In less than half the cases 16 12 1

E. In few, if any, cases 8 28 0

Does your court keep counts of the number of people, elderly and nonelderly, who have guardians appointed by the court? (Check one.) 

 California Florida New York 

Yes 13 12 3

No 29 41 6
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

Courts in California, Florida, and New York 

Page 76 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Currently, how many people, elderly and non-elderly, have active or 

continuing guardians appointed by your court? (Please provide actual 

numbers, if possible. If they are not available, check the box under 

“Information is not available.”) 

 California Florida New York 

Minimum 103 2 1,131

Maximum 2,034 7,412 3,150

Mean 853 1,225 2,217

Median 833 590 2,370

Number of responses 9 11 3

Does your court keep counts of the number of people with active or 

continuing guardians appointed by your court who are elderly (aged 

65 and over)? (Check one.) 

 California Florida New York 

Yes 4 4 2

No 37 50 7

If “Yes,” currently, how many elderly have guardians? 

 California Florida New York 

Minimum 0 2 1,165

Maximum 103 1,073 2,520

Mean 52 538 1,842

Median 52 538 1,842

Number of responses 2 2 2
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

Courts in California, Florida, and New York 

Page 77 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Currently, about what percentage of the people with guardians appointed 

by your court are elderly (aged 65 and over)? (Check one.) 

 California Florida New York 

A. All or almost all 1 4 2

B. More than half 22 10 2

C. About half 0 6 1

D. Less than half 1 8 0

E. In few, if any, cases 1 2 0

F. Information is not available 17 20 4

In the last 12 months, about what percentage of petitions for guardianship 

of elderly people resulted in the appointment of a guardian? (Check one.) 

 California Florida New York 

A. All or almost all 28 43 8

B. More than half 8 3 0

C. About half 0 0 0

D. Less than half 0 0 0

E. Few, if any 0 0 0

F. Information is not available 6 9 1

Does your court keep counts of the types of guardians (e.g., family 

members, attorneys, or other guardians who receive payment from either 

public sources or the income and assets of the incapacitated person) 

appointed for elderly persons? 

 California Florida New York 

Yes 3 4 3

No 39 50 6
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

Courts in California, Florida, and New York 

Page 78 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

How frequently does your court appoint each of the following types of 

guardians for elderly persons? (Check one for each type.) 

Few, if any, 

cases

Less than 

half the 

cases 

About half 

the cases 

Most 

cases

All or 

almost all 

the cases

California 

A. Guardians who are family members or friends 2 8 14 14 1

B. Guardians who are attorneys 33 3 0 1 0

C. Guardians, other than family members, friends, or attorneys, 

who receive payment for services from public sources (e.g., 

social service agencies, etc.) 12 19 6 1 1

D. Guardians, other than family members, friends, or attorneys, 

who receive payment for services from the income or assets of 

the incapacitated person 14 21 3 0 0

E. Other (please specify) 4 3 1 1 0

Florida 

A. Guardians who are family members or friends 0 3 10 20 15

B. Guardians who are attorneys 44 2 0 0 0

C. Guardians, other than family members, friends, or attorneys, 

who receive payment for services from public sources (e.g., 

social service agencies, etc.) 35 7 2 1 0

D. Guardians, other than family members, friends, or attorneys, 

who receive payment for services from the income or assets of 

the incapacitated person 23 12 7 4 0

E. Other (please specify) 1 0 0 0 1

New York 

A. Guardians who are family members or friends 0 1 1 5 1

B. Guardians who are attorneys 3 4 1 0 0

C. Guardians, other than family members, friends, or attorneys, 

who receive payment for services from public sources (e.g., 

social service agencies, etc.) 3 4 0 0 0

D. Guardians, other than family members, friends, or attorneys, 

who receive payment for services from the income or assets of 

the incapacitated person 6 1 0 0 0

E. Other (please specify) 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

Courts in California, Florida, and New York 

Page 79 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

About what percentage of the guardians appointed by your court are on 

the state registry? (Check one.) 

 California Florida New York

A. All or almost all 0 2 2

B. More than half 0 2 1

C. About half 1 2 0

D. Less than half 13 6 4

E. Few, if any 17 12 1

F. Information is not available 10 30 1

Enforcement 

In the last 12 months, which actions has your court taken to enforce 

requirements for guardians for the elderly? (Check one for each action.) 

 California Florida New York 

Yes No Yes No Yes No

A. Asked guardians questions raised by submitted reports 35 5 43 6 8 1

B. Sent follow-up letters to guardians when reports are late, incomplete, or 

inaccurate 

25 14 44 6 8 1

C. Sent show cause order, summons, or court notice for delinquent reports 33 7 43 7 7 2

D. Investigated complaints about guardians 30 9 27 21 7 2

E. Held hearings on complaints from incapacitated persons, family members, or 

other parties 

32 8 35 15 8 1

F. Other (please specify) 3 2 3 4 1 0
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

Courts in California, Florida, and New York 

Page 80 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Over the last 3 years, about how often has your court imposed the 

following penalties on guardians for the elderly for failure to fulfill their 

responsibilities? (Check one estimate for each penalty.) 

 Never 1-5 times 6-10 times More than 10 Do not know

California 

A. Terminated appointment 6 20 3 5 5

B. Reduced guardian’s power over incapacitated person 11 15 1 3 10

C. Fined or surcharged guardian for filing required reports late 21 9 1 2 7

D. Surcharged bond for property mismanagement 16 11 3 3 7

E. Denied guardian’s petition for a new appointment 14 15 1 1 7

F. Notified state registry of guardian’s resignation or removal for 

cause 29 1 0 0 8

G. Letter of reprimand 31 1 0 0 7

H. Mandated additional training 33 1 0 0 6

I. Withheld or reduced compensation 9 11 4 9 6

J. Notified bar about attorneys who submit delinquent reports 32 0 0 0 7

K. Awarded damages for civil actions against a guardian 25 5 0 0 9

L. Issued contempt of court citation 15 7 4 8 6

M. Convicted a guardian of a crime against the incapacitated person 17 11 0 0 12

N. Other (please specify) 4 0 0 1 4

Florida 

A. Terminated appointment 11 20 6 6 6

B. Reduced guardian’s power over incapacitated person 20 13 3 2 10

C. Fined or surcharged guardian for filing required reports late 38 3 0 2 5

D. Surcharged bond for property mismanagement 32 9 3 0 4

E. Denied guardian’s petition for a new appointment 26 13 0 2 7

F. Notified state registry of guardian’s resignation or removal for 

cause 

40 0 0 0 8

G. Letter of reprimand 29 5 0 4 9

H. Mandated additional training 26 8 2 3 8

I. Withheld or reduced compensation 17 12 2 10 7

J. Notified bar about attorneys who submit delinquent reports 33 6 0 1 8

K. Awarded damages for civil actions against a guardian 29 7 0 1 10

L. Issued contempt of court citation 18 11 1 11 8

M. Convicted a guardian of a crime against the incapacitated person 31 8 0 1 8

N. Other (please specify) 4 1 0 2 4
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

Courts in California, Florida, and New York 

Page 81 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Never 1-5 times 6-10 times More than 10 Do not know

New York 

A. Terminated appointment 0 4 0 2 3

B. Reduced guardian’s power over incapacitated person 2 3 0 1 3

C. Fined or surcharged guardian for filing required reports late 2 3 1 0 3

D. Surcharged bond for property mismanagement 3 2 1 0 3

E. Denied guardian’s petition for a new appointment 5 0 0 0 4

F. Notified state registry of guardian’s resignation or removal for 

cause 

6 1 0 0 2

G. Letter of reprimand 7 0 0 0 1

H. Mandated additional training 8 0 0 0 1

I. Withheld or reduced compensation 1 2 0 3 2

J. Notified bar about attorneys who submit delinquent reports 7 0 0 0 2

K. Awarded damages for civil actions against a guardian 7 0 0 0 2

L. Issued contempt of court citation 4 2 0 1 2

M. Convicted a guardian of a crime against the incapacitated person 6 1 0 0 2

N. Other (please specify) 1 0 0 0 1
Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management 

Page 82 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Veterans Affairs 

Page 83 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Veterans Affairs 
Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Page 84 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of Health and Human Services 
Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Page 85 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Page 86 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Page 87 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix VII: Comments from the Social Security Administration 

Page 88 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Social 

Security Administration 
Appendix VII: Comments from the Social Security Administration 

Page 89 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix VII: Comments from the Social Security Administration 

Page 90 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 
Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 91 GAO-04-655 Guardianships 

Alicia Puente Cackley (202) 512-7022 

Benjamin P. Pfeiffer (206) 287-4832 

Carolyn M. Boyce, Nicole E. Gore, Jill M. Johnson, Corinna A. Nicolaou, 

Daniel A. Schwimer, Derald Seid, and John E. Trubey also contributed to 

this report. 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(130247) 
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm 

of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of 

the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of 

public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 

analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 

informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to 

good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, 

and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548