Skip to Main Content


A Review of the South Carolina Guardian ad Litem Program
October 2007

Report (PDF)     Summary (PDF) 

Members of the General Assembly requested the Legislative Audit Council to conduct an audit of the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) program administered by the Governor’s Office. The GAL program recruits, trains, and supervises volunteers who represent the best interests of children involved in child abuse and neglect cases. We reviewed the program’s performance in achieving its mission and issues related to program operations and management. We found that the program fills an important role for the children it serves. Our findings and suggested improvements are summarized below.

  • The GAL program has received increased funding in recent years; however, the program will need additional resources if it is to succeed in its mission to serve more children.
  • Since FY 04-05, the program has been funded in part by a portion of funds due in interest on refunds to taxpayers. This funding is not consistent and does not allow the GAL program to budget and plan expenditures appropriately. It could also be inequitable to taxpayers.
  • Approximately half of the children who need a guardian do not receive one from the program. According to GAL records, in FY 05-06, the program provided guardians for approximately 51% of the cases for which it received a request. The program’s goal is to accept 90% of potential cases.
  • The GAL program has not adequately emphasized recruiting. Although the program has recognized the need for recruiting, it has not implemented formal recruiting plans or consistently allocated resources to oversee and/or target resources to the recruiting effort. Other programs, such as Richland County CASA and the North Carolina GAL program, have identified successful approaches to recruiting.
  • Staff of the GAL program serve as guardians ad litem in a substantial number of cases. The use of staff as guardians is not in accord with the program’s mission and should be phased out. When staff serve as guardians, they have less time to focus on recruiting, training, and supervising volunteers.
  • The GAL program should improve the performance reporting in its annual accountability report. The program has not reported its progress on key measures, such as the percentage of child abuse and neglect cases for which the program provides volunteers.
  • The GAL program does not have a comprehensive policy for determining which cases should have priority when there are not enough volunteers for all of the cases. Without clear guidelines, program staff may be inconsistent and could make case decisions that are not based on appropriate priorities.
  • When volunteers are not available, judges appoint attorneys to serve as guardians ad litem. The attorneys are appointed involuntarily from lists of those available and are not required to have any specialized training or experience in abuse and neglect cases. The federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act requires that attorneys or court-appointed special advocates who are appointed as guardians ad litem receive training appropriate to their role.
  • The statutory authority of the Guardian ad Litem program to supervise volunteer guardians is unclear. It is not clear whether the program has the authority to dismiss guardians who do not follow program guidelines. Litigation addressing its authority has been costly to the program.
  • The GAL program does not meet national standards for the supervision of volunteer guardians by staff. Staff who supervise large numbers of volunteers may not be able to provide the comprehensive guidance and support that can improve volunteer retention and quality of service.
  • The GAL program has recently obtained additional resources to compensate attorneys who represent volunteer guardians in court. The program should ensure that it compensates attorneys consistently based on workloads.
  • The GAL program did not have a comprehensive quality control process to ensure that employees and volunteers follow program policies for management of children’s cases. In 2007 the program began to implement a policy for auditing its files. This process should be beneficial. However, we recommend some changes to the policy to improve effectiveness and increase accountability.
  • The program has not maintained reliable data about program activities. There are inadequate controls to ensure that data in the program’s information system is complete and accurate. Some counties have not maintained adequate records of program activity in the information system.
  • The majority of the staff of the GAL program are employed on a time-limited basis. The use of time-limited positions for the program is inappropriate and may hinder its efforts to recruit qualified staff.