No capacity: State’s Public Guardian Office rejects nearly all requests to represent vulnerable Nebraskans

After a private guardian with dozens of clients was accused of financial abuse, the public office took on zero wards. The alleged abuser retained six.

Jaclyn Daake looked everywhere. 

The Alma attorney’s new client, a western Nebraska man living with a developmental disability, needed a guardian, someone to manage his life and finances. His guardian for the past two years, a York County woman who served in the court-appointed role for dozens of vulnerable Nebraskans, had just been charged with stealing from one of her clients. Law enforcement was looking for other victims.

Daake scoured court records, searching for anyone who might be willing to serve as the man’s guardian. She wrote letters to 11 people. Eventually, she reached an old friend of the man’s grandfather, who despite the distant connection was willing to serve as his guardian, she said. He was appointed in February, three months after Daake started her search.

During that time, there was one place Daake did not turn: Nebraska’s Office of Public Guardian, the government office meant to serve as the last resort for Nebraskans deemed — often due to old age, disabilities or injuries — unable to care for themselves.

“It’s a waste of time,” Daake said.

When vulnerable Nebraskans don’t have any loved ones willing or able to serve as their guardians, judges often appoint private, for-profit guardians to fill the role. Lawmakers created the Office of Public Guardian in 2014 after one such guardian with more than 600 wards stole thousands of dollars from her unknowing clients.

But with constant demand and stagnant funding, attorneys say Nebraska’s guardian of last resort isn’t a resort at all.

The Public Guardian initially turned down 98% of appointments in the 12-month reporting period that ended Oct. 31, up from 77% in 2020, according to the office’s annual reports, most often because the office has no caseload capacity. State law prevents the office from accepting more than an average of 20 appointments per guardian on its staff.

The office’s inability to take on new cases has boiled to a point of frustration for attorneys like Daake — particularly after the November arrest of Becky Stamp, who wielded near total control over the lives and finances of vulnerable people across 18 counties before she was accused of stealing thousands from a man whose life she managed.

“I guess my ultimate question — and this is where I get on my soapbox — is why do we have this program if it’s kind of smoke and mirrors?” Daake said.

For more than a month after her arrest, Stamp remained the guardian for at least 25 vulnerable Nebraskans, the Flatwater Free Press reported in January. Advocates called it “a systemic failure” to protect the victims caught up in the sweeping abuse scandal, among the 10,000-plus Nebraskans who have been placed under guardianships or conservatorships. In at least some cases, the Public Guardian’s lack of caseload capacity helped leave Stamp’s authority in place for longer. 

Lawmakers and judicial branch leaders have implemented new regulations and safeguards this year aimed at private guardians like Stamp. But legislators, facing a budget shortfall this year, made no adjustment to the Public Guardian’s budget.

Nearly five months after her arrest, Stamp remains the appointed guardian for six vulnerable Nebraskans, according to a Flatwater review of court filings. In three of those cases, attorneys petitioned the Public Guardian to take over.

Each time, the response was the same: “The Office of Public Guardian is unable to accept the nomination due to caseload capacity limitations having been reached.”

‘There’s not the political will’

Michelle Chaffee led the Office of Public Guardian from its inception in 2014, when lawmakers made Nebraska the last state in the country to create a central office for guardianship.

“I started the office,” she said. “I built the office. I worked for it to be credible, (hiring) really high-performance individuals who would care for people who have no voice and make sure they were protected because they can’t speak for themselves.”

But she retired in 2024 after years of leading a staff of underpaid public servants, she said, and fighting legislative attempts to increase their caseload capacity. The job is “really, really tough” and turnover is high, she told a committee of lawmakers in 2023. “You can make a lot more money doing things with a lot less stress because of what our salaries are,” she said then.

Among the final straws that led to Chaffee’s retirement, she said: Gov. Jim Pillen’s decision in May 2023 to line-item veto $500,000 lawmakers had earmarked for the office over two years. Pillen argued Nebraska’s judicial branch, which oversees the Public Guardian Office, had “enough funding to manage potential increases in demand for these services.”

Before her retirement, Chaffee said she calculated the office would soon need up to 100 public guardians and an operating budget of about $6 million to meet the state’s needs. 

The office’s budget last year was $2.9 million — about $267,000 less than what the agency had sought from lawmakers, according to state budget documents. The budget paid for 30 employees, around 20 of whom were associate public guardians serving wards across the state.

“Bottom line,” Chaffee said, “there’s not the political will and commitment to provide services to the most vulnerable in Nebraska.”

Lawmakers in 2022 did allocate an extra $524,000 to the office, allowing the state to hire four more employees. But the office’s growth hasn’t kept pace with its demand.

The Public Guardian accepted more than 22% of the appointments to which it was nominated in 2020, but that rate plummeted to 1.6% last year, according to its annual reports, most often attributable to lack of caseload capacity. More than 75% of nominations have been declined due to lack of capacity since November 2021.

Most cases the office declines to take head to a waitlist, where wards can wait up to 90 days for a vacancy to open. If that doesn’t happen, they’re removed from the waitlist altogether, the fate most cases meet. Last year, the Public Guardian took on 32 of the 121 cases that had been referred to the waitlist.

No Capacity

Nebraska’s Office of Public Guardian has accepted fewer and fewer appointments to serve vulnerable Nebraskans since 2021, increasingly because the state-funded office does not have the capacity to take them on.

YearNominationsNo Capacity*Accepted
20251241032
20241321018
20231158314
2022946715
20211127621
* Cases in which the Office of the Public Guardian told the courts they did not have enough capacity to serve when nominated. Each “year” reflects a 12-month reporting period that ends Oct. 31.

Source: Office of the Public Guardian annual reports

Corey Steel, the state court administrator who oversees the operations of Nebraska’s judicial branch, said that once a ward is assigned a public guardian, they typically remain on the office’s caseload until a court deems they can care for themselves or they die. The rate at which either happens is far lower than how often the office is nominated to serve.

“And so that’s the quandary we sit in,” he said. “Without more associate public guardians … we’re at that capacity level.”

Sen. Wendy DeBoer of Omaha, who authored guardianship reform efforts before and after Stamp’s arrest last year, noted that she has tried to secure more funding for the office, including the $500,000 Pillen vetoed.

“But I don’t think it’s ever going to be the answer to fully do everything through the OPG,” she said. “We’re going to have to do some of it through private guardianships. It’s always a balance.”

‘You don’t want to overcorrect’

Nebraska’s legislative and judicial branches have both sought to reform the state’s guardianship system in the months since Stamp’s arrest. Lawmakers voted 49-0 last week to send to Pillen’s desk a bill that DeBoer sponsored preventing private guardians from taking on more than 20 cases at a time — the same caseload limit state law already puts on public guardians. Stamp had been nominated as the guardian for 42 wards.

The bill also requires private guardians to visit the Nebraskans they serve at least once every three months and guarantees wards the right to attend court hearings in their own cases virtually or in person.

Sen. Wendy DeBoer of Omaha sponsored a bill this year preventing private guardians from taking on more than 20 cases at a time, among other reforms. Lawmakers voted 49-0 last week to send the bill to Gov. Jim Pillen’s desk. Photo courtesy of Nebraska Legislature

Separately, the judicial branch in January began quarterly reviews of all cases assigned to guardians who have taken on five or more wards, reporting any red flags to judges overseeing the cases, Steel said.

Even with the new reforms, neither Steel nor DeBoer sees Nebraska’s guardianship system as a finished product, they both said. Nor does Amy Miller, a staff attorney at the nonprofit advocacy group Disability Rights Nebraska, which first publicized Stamp’s alleged theft in December and testified in support of DeBoer’s latest bill.

“Down the road, I think we’re going to need further legislative reform if we want to close the loopholes that have allowed financial abuse,” Miller said. She and other advocates hope the state considers less sweeping alternatives to full guardianships, which accounted for more than 97% of cases on the Public Guardian’s docket last year despite a state law that already requires judges to explore less restrictive alternatives.

DeBoer introduced a resolution calling for a study of Nebraska’s guardianship system, including whether judges get enough information to know whether someone should be placed under a full guardianship.

“This is one of those things where you take little bites at the apple and try to get it, because you don’t want to overcorrect,” she said.

For Molly Blazek, an Omaha attorney who founded the firm Nebraska Guardianship Counsel in 2018, the state may have overcorrected already.

Blazek said her law firm was initially “born to take over some of that overflow” from the Office of Public Guardian as its caseload began to rise. Now, Blazek is the guardian or conservator for 46 vulnerable Nebraskans, more than double the limit lawmakers put in place this month.

DeBoer’s bill prohibits guardians from accepting new appointments if they have 20 or more clients already. It’s unclear if the law will require Blazek to comply with the new limit retroactively — and where the wards in her care will end up if it does.

“If the change in law is going to say I can no longer help the 46 people that I’m helping,” she said, “my biggest concern is: Who’s going to help these people next?”

By Andrew Wegley

Andrew Wegley is a reporter for the Flatwater Free Press. He previously covered state government and politics for the Lincoln Journal Star, where he kept a close eye on Nebraska's governor, lawmakers and prison system. A Kansas City, Missouri, native, he joined the paper as a breaking news reporter after graduating from Northwest Missouri State University in 2021.

6 Comments

It’s an interesting article… and it makes slightly less use of meaningless anecdotes and more use of facts than most Flatwater articles do, so it has that going for it. But it still leaves me with a lot of unanswered questions… “plot holes,” we might call them:

1. If the government is the problem, why is government also the proposed solution?

2. Who are these people who end up needing a guardian, why do they need these guardians, and why does the article say almost nothing about these details?

3. Following on the above plot hole, why don’t these people have loved ones (family, friends, church, neighbors, etc.) who are willing to take care of them?

4. Following on that, even if these individuals have no loved ones to care for them, are we entirely sure that assigning some lawyer in Omaha or a government bureaucrat in Lincoln to care for them will result in good outcomes? Aren’t lawyers and bureaucrats among the LEAST trustworthy members of our society?

5. Ultimately, regardless of if you somehow get the government to do it or round up someone else, who is going to PAY for this to happen?

There may be very reasonable answers to the above questions, but my point is that the article doesn’t provide them. And leaving all these plot holes and loose ends makes it seem as if Flatwater is really good at attacking and blaming state government agencies for allegedly causing everyone’s problems, but not very good at explaining how they plan to fix the issue without creating an even bigger and equally ineffective government. And that is a weak argument to be making when the original issue was actually a private citizen who committed a crime.

Would you volunteer to be a guardian for someone who has no family to consent to their healthcare needs and manage their resources? Please. Those of us who work in this area are always in need of selfless people who may not be paid or reimbursed much for the time it takes to fill out court-ordered paperwork, visit the protected person, and see to their needs. There are vulnerable adults (developmental disability; cognitive limitations, dementia) who go without guardians and people to care for their welfare for literally years, sitting on the waitlist, in this state because the state will not prioritize the welfare of those citizens who are vulnerable and without a voice. The court process is paperwork heavy for volunteers, so they shy away. We are all open to solutions for this overwhelming problem, because the majority of the legislature and the Governor have failed to address it.

Is this something that a person can volunteer to help with? I feel like I have capacity to help with one person if I’m given training on what I would need to do.

Now see, that is very informative information! Volunteers who were willing to help with this could alleviate the problem… but it’s a very “paperwork” heavy process that most people aren’t up for. And I believe that, because most average people will turn around and walk the other way when even the most simplistic “paperwork” stands as an obstacle between them and whatever they were trying to do. Had that information been included in the article, it would have cleared up a lot of the plot holes!

Now, here remains the question: What to do about it?

What if, instead of asking the government to solve a problem by creating another army of tax funded bureaucrats and lawyers (who are of dubious trustworthiness anyway), the government looked at ways to streamline the process, reduce the amount of paperwork and recruit capable volunteers who had the right skills for the job?

And following that logic, what if there were social service organizations that agreed to do the work as an act of charity? Perhaps instead of (let’s say, Catholic Charities for example) importing immigrants from foreign countries to “help” them, charity organizations here in America focused on helping the people already here by addressing problems like this one?

“Following on the above plot hole, why don’t these people have loved ones (family, friends, church, neighbors, etc.) who are willing to take care of them?” Uh, because they don’t. And/or, their family and friends may not be up to the task for any number of reasons: not trustworthy, not intellectually capable, unwilling to do the work for free (it is a lot of work, and a lot of responsibility), and so on.

This comment is remarkably ignorant. There are people who cannot care for themselves – there can be no reasonable dispute about this. The commenter complains of “plot holes” while leaving a hole of his/her own, by failing to offer his/her own solution.

M, it’s not in “dispute” that these people need guardians. The question was simply WHY do they need them? Did they get hit in the head with shovels or is it caused by the natural aging process? Or something else entirely? I’m not asking for a graduate level college course on the topic, but at least a basic introduction to the facts in Nebraska (the most common reasons people need guardians, how many there are, an estimate of how many lack a needed guardian, etc.) would have added greatly to the reader’s understanding of the scenario.

The problem here was not that I “dispute” the facts, but that the article was more absorbed with anecdotal stories than the facts. They didn’t even talk about a single person who needs a guardian, they talked about the opinions of lawyers who are annoyed by the process. It’s just plain weird the viewpoint that Flatwater chooses to promote in some of these articles.

Leave a Reply