These methods were: law school clinic (law student with faculty advisor), staff attorney, paid private attorney, lay volunteer with paid attorney (court-appointed special advocate, CASA), and lay volunteer (unassisted CASA). Two examples of each method were examined at nine sites in six States. Data sources included interviews with judges, State's attorneys, and GAL program directors; child welfare and court records; and case studies of GAL activities derived from network interviews. The private attorney model was the weakest method of providing representation. Private attorneys generally did not develop independent assessments of the case or conduct adequate investigations, frequently failed to meet with the child before and aftercourt appearances, did not monitor cases, were ineffective in helping the child receive services, and failed to assist in placement decisions. Law students also generally did not perform well in the GAL role because of inexperience with both the child welfare and the legal systems. The two CASA models clearly excelled in serving the child's best interests. CASA's were highly rated by professional respondents. They conducted extensive investigations, monitored the cases closely for its duration, maintained an independent viewpoint, developed good relationships with clients, and were most effective in ensuring that the family and child receive services that could result in family reunification. Staff attorneys also were effective, particularly in legal activities and in services, case goals, and outcomes. However, they were weak in followup and maintaining contact with the child. List of figures and exhibits and table of contents for full report. See NCJ-114331 and NCJ-114332 for full report.