U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

57–016 2010

EXAMINING THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS FIDUCIARY PROGRAM: 

HOW CAN VA BETTER PROTECT VULNERABLE 

VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILIES? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND 

MEMORIAL AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 22, 2010 

Serial No. 111–72 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

BOB FILNER, California, Chairman 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois 

THOMAS S.P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

JOHN H. ADLER, New Jersey 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

GLENN C. NYE, Virginia 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

MALCOM A. SHORTER, Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS 

JOHN J. HALL, New York, Chairman 

DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado, Ranking 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs are also published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to 

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting 

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process 

is further refined. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

April 22, 2010 

Page 

Examining the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Fiduciary Program: How 

Can VA Better Protect Vulnerable Veterans and Their Families? .................. 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Chairman John J. Hall ............................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement of Chairman Hall ........................................................... 42 

The Honorable Doug Lamborn, Ranking Republican Member ............................ 3 

Prepared statement of Congressman Lamborn .............................................. 43 

WITNESSES 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs: 

Belinda J. Finn, Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Evaluations, 

Office of Inspector General .............................................................................. 4 

Prepared statement of Ms. Finn .................................................................. 43 

Bradley G. Mayes, Director, Compensation and Pension Service, Veterans 

Benefits Administration ................................................................................... 31 

Prepared statement of Mr. Mayes ............................................................... 68 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Daniel Bertoni, Director, Education, 

Workforce, and Income Security ......................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement of Mr. Bertoni ................................................................. 48 

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO, and AFGE National Veterans Affairs Council, Katherine R. Pflanz, Field Examiner, Winston-Salem Veterans Affairs Regional Office ..................................................... 22 

Prepared statement of Ms. Pflanz ................................................................... 64 

American Legion, Jacob B. Gadd, Assistant Director for Program Management, Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission .................................. 18 

Prepared statement of Mr. Gadd .................................................................... 59 

Gold Star Wives of America, Inc., Vivianne Cisneros Wersel, Au.D., Chair, 

Government Relations Committee ...................................................................... 20 

Prepared statement of Dr. Wersel .................................................................. 62 

Vietnam Veterans of America, Richard F. Weidman, Executive Director for 

Policy and Government Affairs ........................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement of Mr. Weidman ............................................................. 56 

Wounded Warrior Project, Sarah Wade, Coordinator, Family Issues and Traumatic Brain Injury ............................................................................................... 16 

Prepared statement of Ms. Wade .................................................................... 57 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Post-Hearing Follow-up Letter and Response: 

Hon. John J. Hall, Chairman, Subcommittee on Disability Assistance 

and Memorial Affairs, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Hon. Eric 

K. Shinseki, Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, letter 

and attachment, dated May 13, 2010, and response letter, dated July 

23, 2010 .......................................................................................................... 70 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

EXAMINING THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS FIDUCIARY PROGRAM: 

HOW CAN VA BETTER PROTECT VULNERABLE 

VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILIES? 

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2010 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE

AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in Room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John J. Hall [Chairman 

of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Hall, Donnelly, Kirkpatrick, and 

Lamborn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HALL 

Mr. HALL. Good afternoon and welcome to the House Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs, Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and 

Memorial Affairs, hearing on Examining the U.S. Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA) Fiduciary Program, How Can VA Better Protect Vulnerable Veterans and Their Families? 

Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. 

[Pledge of Allegiance.] 

Thank you. My apologies for being late. I was on the phone trying to straighten out a problem for an individual in Darrell Issa’s 

district. A friend of mine called across country to help, and fortunately, Congressman Issa has staff who are capably taking care of 

the issue at this moment. 

We are here today just a day after we passed another comprehensive veterans’ health bill that supports veterans’ caregivers 

and enhances the veterans’ physical and mental well-being of 

America’s veterans. 

I was happy to support Chairman Filner in winning unanimous 

passage of this bipartisan legislation, S. 1963, the ‘‘Caregivers and 

Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2009.’’ This bill incorporates the recommendations of nearly 20 Members of Congress, 

Democrats and Republicans alike. 

Provisions in S. 1963 will provide training, education and counseling for caregivers of veterans of any era. In addition, the bill allows VA to recruit and retain nurses, home health aides and specialty care providers. It will help VA to better diagnose and treat 

those who suffer from the invisible wounds of war, the stigma assoVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:41 Dec 17, 2010 Jkt 057016 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\TEMP\57016.XXX 57016

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
2 

ciated with them, and many other factors that make effective treatment difficult. 

Specifically, the bill expands authority to fund services to treat 

wounded warriors suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder 

(PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), and other combat-related disorders which lead to homelessness and in some cases, suicide and 

criminal acts in some unfortunate instances by veterans who are 

suffering from these disorders. 

Our hearing today is entitled, ‘‘Examining the VA Fiduciary Program: How Can VA Better Protect Vulnerable Veterans and Their 

Families?’’ This hearing is intended to examine VA’s Fiduciary Program and assess how Congress and VA can work together to better 

protect veterans and dependents who are in need of fiduciary services. 

Since 1926 when Congress passed the World War Veterans Act, 

VA has been providing oversight of its benefits paid to those beneficiaries who are incapable of handling their own affairs due to injury, disease, or infirmities of age. 

Today, the Fiduciary Program that VA runs with authority contained in 38 U.S.C. 5502 is administered by VA regional offices 

(ROs) and their respective offices of regional counsel which interface directly with VA beneficiaries and State courts on guardianship and commitment matters. 

On average, impaired beneficiaries received approximately $14,400 in fiscal year 2008, about $4,200 more per year than the 

average for all VA compensation and pension beneficiaries. In fiscal 

year 2008, fiduciaries managed approximately $1.5 billion in VA 

benefits for more than 103,000 beneficiaries. Thus far, for fiscal 

year 2010, VA reports $396 million in benefits have been paid to 

more than 102,000 beneficiaries with a cumulative estate value of 

$3.1 billion. 

Recently, both the VA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the 

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued reports on 

VA’s Fiduciary Program. These reports underscored the benefits of 

the program, and there are many; but it also pointed to insufficient 

staffing, training, and other resources that hampered effective 

oversight of the Fiduciary Program. 

In the absence of adequate oversight and accountability, some fiduciaries have misused millions of dollars belonging to our veterans and their dependents. 

Let me take a moment to highlight some of the concerns about 

the Fiduciary Program that were raised by the OIG and GAO reports. From October 1998 to March 2010, the VA OIG’s Office of 

Investigations reports that it conducted 315 fiduciary fraud investigations resulting in 132 arrests and monetary recoveries of $7.2 

million in restitution, fines, penalties and administrative judgments. One of these cases involved the submission of false financial 

reports by a fiduciary who attempted to conceal her embezzlement 

of nearly $1 million from 33 disabled veterans whose accounts she 

managed. The funds embezzled by the fiduciary were reportedly 

used to support her gambling habit. 

It should be noted that these problems are not representative of 

all fiduciaries. The vast majority are doing an honorable and honest job of taking care of our veterans, who cannot handle their own 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
3 

affairs, many of whom are family members. However, the program 

is susceptible to abuse as a result of deficiencies noted by both OIG 

and GAO reports. Specifically, they found that first, the Veterans 

Benefits Administration (VBA) was not taking effective action to 

obtain seriously delinquent accountings. Second, VBA was not consistently verifying questionable expenses reported by fiduciaries. 

And, third, VBA was not adequately following up and reporting on 

allegations of misuse of beneficiary funds and estates. 

The VA OIG pointed out that VBA has also not been diligent in 

replacing problematic fiduciaries. In one case, a fiduciary was seriously delinquent in submitting multiple reports ranging from 134 

days to 215 days late. In addition, during that period, VBA received numerous complaints concerning that particular fiduciary’s 

performance. However, the VBA took no action to replace this particular fiduciary. 

On the other end of the spectrum, we will hear from veterans 

service organizations (VSOs) who complain that family members 

who serve as fiduciaries are neither supported financially nor 

through training by VBA to discharge their duties. Moreover, the 

VSOs suggest that while some professional fiduciaries are not subjected to enough oversight by the VBA, family member fiduciaries 

often feel they are viewed with suspicion and mistrust by the VBA, 

despite the sacrifices they make to care for relatives who are incapacitated veterans and/or beneficiaries. 

For example, the Wounded Warrior Project reports that VBA required a mother who served as a fiduciary for her mentally disabled veteran son to reimburse funds spent on toilet paper for their 

home. 

This hearing provides a forum to explore concerns across the 

spectrum regarding the Fiduciary Program, and I look forward to 

the testimony of our witnesses and insightful comments or questions from my colleagues on the Subcommittee. 

I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Lamborn for his 

opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Hall appears on p. 42.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LAMBORN 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome everyone 

to this hearing on the Department of Veterans Affairs Fiduciary 

Program. The Fiduciary Program provides oversight of VA benefits 

to beneficiaries who are incapable of managing their funds as a result of injury or disease. When the VA or a court determines that 

a veteran is incompetent to handle his or her finances, the Fiduciary Program establishes an appropriate benefits payment method, appoints a fiduciary to oversee his or her finances, and provides 

continued oversight services. Through periodic personal visits to 

the beneficiary’s residence, VA field examiners monitor the welfare 

and needs of the veteran. 

My Subcommittee colleagues and I want to ensure that VA’s Fiduciary Program is taking every measure and has the support necessary to fully safeguard beneficiaries’ assets. During the 108th 

Congress, Congress passed legislation that President Bush signed 

into law on December 10, 2004 (P.L. 108–454). The law included 

provisions to make improvements to increase fiduciary accountVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:41 Dec 17, 2010 Jkt 057016 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\TEMP\57016.XXX 57016

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
4 

ability and strengthen protections for the beneficiary. This included 

more thorough investigation of fiduciaries prior to them being appointed, and required VA to reissue benefits that were misused in 

cases where negligence was found. 

Today the Subcommittee would like to hear about the effectiveness of these provisions and whether further Congressional action 

is needed to ensure that our most vulnerable veterans are afforded 

the highest level of protection possible. I look forward to hearing 

from our witnesses today, and I want to thank you all for your participation. 

Unfortunately, I have to leave soon for the airport, but you will 

all be in good hands with our Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Lamborn appears on p. 

43.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. 

Votes are done. The good news is we will not be interrupted by 

votes as we sometimes are. Unfortunately, the Ranking Member 

and other Subcommittee Members may need to leave early. 

There are no other opening statements, so we will move right 

along to our first panel. I would like to welcome Belinda J. Finn, 

Assistant Inspector General For Audits and Evaluations, Office of 

Inspector General, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and Daniel Bertoni, Director, Education Workforce and Income Security 

with the Government Accountability Office. They are accompanied 

by Timothy Crowe, also with the VA Office of Inspector General. 

Welcome and thank you for being here today and for the work you 

do. 

Ms. Finn, and all of the witnesses, your statements, written 

statements are entered into the record. I would like to ask you to 

present a 5-minute version if you can. You are now recognized, Ms. 

Finn. 

STATEMENTS OF BELINDA J. FINN, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR 

GENERAL FOR AUDITS AND EVALUATIONS, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY TIMOTHY CROWE, DIRECTOR, 

AUDIT OPERATIONS DIVISION, ST. PETERSBURG, FL, OFFICE 

OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS; AND DANIEL BERTONI, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, 

WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY, U.S. GOVERNMENT 

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

STATEMENT OF BELINDA J. FINN 

Ms. FINN. Thank you, Chairman Hall and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to talk today about how 

the Department of Veterans Affairs can better protect vulnerable 

veterans and their families. 

With me today is Mr. Tim Crowe, Director of the Audit Operations Division in Bay Pines, Florida. VA annually provides benefits totaling more than $40 billion to 

over 3 million veterans and dependents. When a VA beneficiary 

cannot handle their own finances because of injury, disease or the 

infirmities of age, VBA or the courts appoint a fiduciary to receive 

monies and make necessary payments for the beneficiary’s living 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
5 

expenses. VBA reports that fiduciaries managed the finances of 

over 100,000 beneficiaries with cumulative estate values of over $3 

billion and those beneficiaries receive annual benefit payments of 

around $700 million. 

VBA employees at regional offices are responsible for overseeing 

the fiduciaries to ensure that the VA-derived income and estates 

are used solely for the care, support, welfare, and other needs of 

VA beneficiaries. 

From the OIG’s perspective as an oversight agency, we know 

firsthand that a dishonest fiduciary can misuse funds and how they 

might hide that misuse. We recently completed a review of the Fiduciary Program’s effectiveness in addressing potential misuse. We 

concluded that VBA lacks the elements of an effective management 

infrastructure to support the program. A previous audit in 2006 

had identified some of the same weaknesses. 

VBA’s case management system, the Fiduciary Beneficiary System, or FBS, has functional and data limitations that severely limit 

its usefulness as a tool to support program operations. For example, FBS stores only 2 months’ worth of data at any time and does 

not interface with other critical VBA systems. Further, the system 

cannot receive financial information electronically, and this means 

that program personnel must deal with manual reports and statements from fiduciaries and financial institutions. Late last year, 

however, VBA did start work to compare the current capabilities 

of the FBS system with their program needs. 

VBA also needs a staffing and workload model to guide resource 

allocations across the program. For example, we found that the 

number of beneficiaries managed by individual VBA staff ranged 

from under 200 to over 1,500. 

Finally, VBA needs to consistently assess the quality of operations at regional offices, provide more guidance to fiduciaries, and 

analyze the findings from program evaluations. 

The program management issues lead to oversight lapses that 

can affect the safety of beneficiary funds. We found that VBA is not 

always taking effective action to obtain delinquent reports that detail beneficiary assets, income, and expenses. It also does not always verify the questionable expenditures that are reported by fiduciaries. 

Veterans and dependents that need the services of a fiduciary depend on VA to oversee their financial well-being. We believe that 

the Fiduciary Program can better monitor the performance of fiduciaries with improved systems, staffing, and information on program operations. As an OIG, we will continue to work with VBA 

to improve the oversight of fiduciaries and ensure that vulnerable 

veterans and their families are protected. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here today 

and discuss these important issues. Mr. Crowe and I will be happy 

to answer any questions that you or the other Subcommittee Members may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Finn appears on p. 43.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Ms. Finn. 

Mr. Bertoni. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
6 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL BERTONI 

Mr. BERTONI. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, 

good afternoon. I am pleased to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs Fiduciary Program and how it can be improved to 

better serve veterans and their families. 

As you know, VA appoints fiduciaries to protect the funds of veterans who are unable to manage their own affairs. The fiduciary 

may be a spouse, other family member, or a private party that provide such services for a fee. Last year, fiduciaries served more than 

100,000 beneficiaries and managed over 4 percent of all benefits 

paid by VA. 

For years GAO, VA’s inspector general and others have expressed concern that the program is not fully safeguarding beneficiary assets. You asked us to discuss areas of continuing vulnerability and possible ways the program can be improved. My statement draws on a recent report assessing VA’s policies for safeguarding beneficiary assets, as well as challenges to program oversight and performance. 

In summary, we found that VA did not always take required actions or sufficiently document the records to protect beneficiaries. 

First, our analysis of case file data showed that VA did not always 

conduct initial visits within required time frames to assess a fiduciary’s suitability to manage VA benefits. 

Beyond their value as a key screening tool, timely initial visits 

are important because individuals often cannot begin receiving benefits until they are completed. Moreover, in 18 percent of the cases 

we reviewed, the VA was also late in completing required followup visits to monitor beneficiaries and fiduciaries, or lacked sufficient documentation for us to determine whether any action occurred at all. Similarly, while we estimated that about 39 percent 

of fiduciaries were late in submitting financial reports, program 

staff did not consistently follow-up to obtain required information 

or failed to document their actions. Many cases involved reports 

that were more than 120 days late and considered seriously delinquent under program rules. In the most egregious case, we found 

a fiduciary submitted financial reports almost 2 years late and only 

after VA initiated action to suspend payment. 

We also identified weaknesses and staff confusion around VA’s 

processes for ensuring that fiduciaries who oversee high-dollarvalue estates are properly bonded. Of the cases we reviewed that 

required a bond, 13 percent lacked documentation that one was 

purchased or that the requirement was appropriately waived. Some 

cases have estate values approaching $100,000 leaving beneficiaries exposed to substantial loss if funds were misused. We have 

recommended that VA take additional steps to ensure that staff 

better understand and execute program policies for file documentation, initial and follow-up visits, and bond acquisition. The agency 

concurred with our recommendations and is moving to revise key 

policies and enhance its oversight role. 

In addition to program compliance issues, we identified weaknesses in VA’s ability to monitor professional fiduciaries who manage substantial funds for multiple beneficiaries. Although VA is required to conduct on-site financial reviews of these fiduciaries, the 

agency did not use a unique identifier such as a Social Security 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
7 

number (SSN) or taxpayer identification number to identify and 

match them to all beneficiaries they may serve. Thus, the VA cannot be ensured that all required reviews are being conducted and 

beneficiary funds appropriately spent. However, per our recommendation, the VA recently noted that it plans to require staff 

to begin obtaining SSN or tax ID numbers for all professional fiduciaries. 

Finally, our report identified limitations in VA’s electronic fiduciary case management system and the training provided to fiduciary staff as two key challenges to improving program performance going forward. Specifically, we found that restricted data 

fields in the current system prohibit staff from systematically recording important case management information such as when 

multiple financial reports are due or tracking historical information 

on prior performance problems with fiduciaries. In so many other 

areas, this system falls short in terms of helping staff monitor their 

very complex workloads. 

In regard to training management and staff in the offices we visited, we observed that available training was insufficient to ensure 

that they had the necessary expertise to carry out their responsibilities. 

In two of the three locations we visited, most fiduciary staff and 

managers had less than 2 years of programmatic experience. Managers at these locations told us that staff inexperience and limited 

training has likely contributed to the problems we identified, including failure to properly monitor fiduciaries or document certain 

actions in beneficiary case files. 

We have issued recommendations in both of these areas, and VA 

is moving to address them. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I am happy to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bertoni appears on p. 48.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Bertoni. 

I will have one question of both of you, and then I will ask Mrs. 

Kirkpatrick if she would like to go first, and then Mr. Lamborn because they may have travel plans sooner than mine. Mr. Mayes’ 

prepared testimony on our third panel states that the GAO and 

OIG reports ‘‘confirm the validity of the VA’s current efforts.’’ 

Do you believe that VA is complying with the OIG and GAO’s 

recommendations? 

Ms. FINN. Our current effort found problems with how the Department had implemented our recommendations from 2006. Several of our recommendations were similar to what we had issued 

in 2006, and the Department’s efforts had not quite fixed the problem. 

For the current audit, though, of course they certainly took action during our audit on issues that we brought up. They have concurred with all of our recommendations, and the actions we see 

seem to indicate that they are moving forward on those recommendations. 

Mr. BERTONI. In the case of our report that we just issued at the 

end of February, and what we have is essentially concurrence with 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
8 

our recommendations and a litany of things that they have either 

planned or are underway. 

In some areas, I believe they have already taken action. I believe 

they are now requiring that professional fiduciaries are tracked via 

their Social Security number or tax identification number. I think 

that is very important. 

If you have a fiduciary who is perhaps less than honest and 

wants to game the system, under the old way they could list their 

name as John Smith. In another case, John Q. Smith and Johnny 

Smith. In that kind of situation they could have multiple beneficiaries and you wouldn’t know it. With a unique identifier like a 

Social Security number or tax number, you will be able to tie them 

all together and follow a financial trail. 

In other areas in the on-site reviews, we were concerned that 

there was no national quality assurance process. My understanding 

is that there is one now in place, or at least beginning. 

In several areas it looks like they have already begun to initiate 

action per our recommendations. In others, what they plan to do 

sounds like sound practice. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. I am sure when Mr. Mayes speaks, he will 

elaborate. 

Current efforts to move in the direction your reports have suggested is progress, and we like progress. We are not expecting perfection, but we are after progress here. 

Mrs. Kirkpatrick. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me go 

first. I do have to leave for a flight. 

I am very concerned about this program. Before I was elected to 

office, I did a lot of guardianships and conservatorships in my law 

practice, and then served for a period as a judge pro tem just reviewing guardianship and conservatorship accountings. As a judge, 

we have the power of the court to crack down and apply fairly swift 

sanctions. But I will tell you just the mere nature that you are 

combining resources that aren’t really having to be accounted for 

to me just raises a huge red flag. So I have a couple of questions 

for both of you. 

Ms. Finn, first of all, is there training for the fiduciaries? Are 

there specific rules and regulations within the VA as to what the 

money can be spent for and are the fiduciaries trained? 

Ms. FINN. Mr. Crowe will answer that. 

Mr. CROWE. I would characterize the training that is given when 

they are appointed as being limited to a listing of their responsibilities. One of the things we brought up in our report was that a Web 

portal that lists responsibilities, training aids, frequently asked 

questions and answers, might be helpful in this regard. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. That concerns me. I hope to see some improvement in the training. 

My personal experience in the area led me to believe that a lot 

of people don’t understand the nature of a fiduciary relationship. 

They think that money is their money and they can spend it any 

way they wish, and there really has to be tight control on that. 

Mr. Bertoni, I wanted to ask you, are there limitations on fiduciary fees? I want to tell you, there is a high-profile case in Arizona 

right now where a million dollars went to the fiduciaries and their 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
9 

attorneys leaving the ward almost bankrupt. Can you tell me, are 

there limitations on what the fiduciaries can charge themselves? 

Mr. BERTONI. Yes. Generally the fee is 4 percent of the annual 

benefit amount. There are exceptions to that, as well as exceptions 

when it is related to the courts. The courts often mandate higher 

fees. I believe VA is required to comply with the court’s dictates. 

So yes, they can go higher, and oftentimes it is due to a court-ordered fee. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. I noticed in some of the statements that were 

submitted that it appears in the Department of Veterans Affairs, 

someone can be appointed a fiduciary. In my county, we have public fiduciaries. That is one person with a staff, but that person can 

be appointed the fiduciary. Do we have something similar in the 

VA system? 

Ms. FINN. The VA appoints the fiduciary and many, many times 

it is a family member, in a lot of cases, not necessarily a professional fiduciary. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Are there professional fiduciaries within the 

VA who can serve in that capacity if the person doesn’t have a family member who can serve? 

Ms. FINN. They are not employed by the VA. They register with 

VA but are not part of VA. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. My last question is I am very concerned about 

the lack of timely reporting and accounting and lack of documentation to support that. What kind of sanctions are there in the system if someone delays in reporting? 

Mr. BERTONI. In the financial area? 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Any kind of sanction. For instance, I would 

oftentimes remove a fiduciary who wasn’t compliant. I always took 

a pretty strict approach because they are really dealing with someone else’s money. So is there a process for removing them or fining 

them or some kind of sanction? 

Mr. BERTONI. Sure. In terms of the annual financial reports, I believe it is sort of a sequential process. If someone is late in filing, 

in the first 35 to 65 days, the VBA is required to reach out and 

remind them in various ways to submit reports. Once that gets up 

to be 90-plus days, then the VBA is required to reach out again 

and can in fact suspend benefits at that point. After 120 days, it 

becomes what is known ‘‘seriously delinquent’’ and then again the 

VBA can take more rigorous actions, which could be suspending 

the benefits and pursuing the funds. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. I hope we can do some more work on this. I 

do appreciate you appearing here today. The Chairman and I 

talked about wanting to do some additional oversight. I have a concern about the sanction of removing benefits hurts the veteran who 

needs the care. But we can keep talking. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Congresswoman Kirkpatrick. I hate to say 

it because it sounds like a joke, but we may have stumbled upon 

a fiduciary backlog. 

Mr. Lamborn. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of 

questions to build on the questions that Representative Kirkpatrick 

already asked. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
10 

As she noted, there is a State process. In Colorado, it is through 

the probate courts and the judge will grant someone’s application 

normally, sometimes appoint a guardian ad litem. Does the VA just 

accept what the State courts, whoever has been appointed by the 

State courts, or is there a parallel process? Just so I understand 

better. 

Ms. FINN. I can’t give you a specific answer on that right now 

mainly because our report didn’t focus on the appointment process. 

At this point in time, we focused more on the misuse of funds. 

Mr. BERTONI. We have done some work in guardianship in the 

court systems. Generally I believe they defer to the court in terms 

of the arrangement that was made, the fee collection agreement, 

and the entity that is going to be the guardian and/or the fiduciary. 

I believe their controls allow them to screen at a later point to 

determine whether that person still meets the bar in terms of being 

suitable for being a fiduciary. But I would defer the specifics to VA 

on that. 

Mr. LAMBORN. If I am not here to ask questions of the VA panelists, I will possibly use the option of submitting questions in writing. 

Along that line, and I know you may not know the answer to 

this, if there is a contest as happens occasionally with heirs or 

other interested parties, does the VA ever take sides and determine 

between contesting applicants? Do you ever get into disputes over 

who is the guardian? 

Mr. BERTONI. We have not done that level of work to answer that 

question. 

Ms. FINN. I think that is a VA question. 

Mr. LAMBORN. So that is not so much GAO matter of review. 

Okay, then I have some other technical questions. I will defer them 

to the VA. Thank you for being here and for the information you 

provided. 

I yield back. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. 

Ms. Finn, your OIG report indicates that the program is plagued 

by VBA’s inability to detect the misuse of incompetent beneficiary 

estates, insufficient staff follow-up on questionable or incomplete 

data in fiduciary annual accounting statements, and the failure of 

VBA to require documentation from fiduciaries to support expenses 

that are claimed. These challenges were identified in your 2006 

audit, and in your 2010, which audit show that these weaknesses 

still exist. What steps does the OIG plan to take to ensure that VA 

resolves these issues to protect the beneficiaries who are unable to 

protect themselves? 

Ms. FINN. We have a multifaceted approach right now. We are 

currently conducting a new audit where we are looking at the 

large, retroactive payments that are made to beneficiaries through 

a fiduciary. We are concentrating on those large payments over 

$10,000. 

We also work with our Office of Investigations on investigations 

as they take on fiduciary fraud. We are doing some work in our 

benefit inspections as we go into each regional office and we look 

at the Fiduciary Program across the board, not just misuse but we 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
11 

look at issues related to appointments and accountings and anything that comes to our attention in those regional offices. 

Finally, we will continue to follow-up on our recommendations 

and conduct future work in the program to look at other aspects 

that we may not have been able to address at this point. It is a 

pretty large program and we focused really on one aspect for this 

period of time. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. From a statistical sample of Fiduciary 

Program reports, the OIG anticipates that legal instruments examiners may not have adequately verified approximately $2.9 million 

in expenditures for 551 of 1,906 accountings. That is 29 percent of 

the accountings completed between April 1, 2009, and May 22, 

2009. Based on this 29 percent error rate, how many of the Nation’s 104,000 incompetent beneficiaries do you predict or estimate 

are at risk of fiduciary misuse? 

Ms. FINN. Our statistical sample was somewhat constrained by 

the fact that the system included only 2 month’s worth of data on 

accountings that were due and that is what we pulled our sample 

from. So we didn’t have a whole year’s worth of accountings, we 

just had 2 months of data. In the absence of data, we cannot do 

an estimate of possible impact to the program. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. That would be welcomed. 

OIG contends in the 2010 report that VBA was not taking effective action to obtain the delinquent financial accountings from fiduciaries. Your report was based upon visits to a number of regional 

offices. What in your observation distinguishes a regional office 

that is properly overseeing a Fiduciary Program from one that is 

having problems? 

Mr. CROWE. I think the lack of a strong national management 

oversight infrastructure of the program, which meant that there 

were great performance variances from regional office to regional 

office. The effectiveness of the program largely fell to the abilities 

of local staff and management. We saw great differences. 

Mr. HALL. That is good for us to know since having consistency, 

training, and standards that everyone is expected to meet and 

taught to meet, are goals I am sure we would all support. 

The OIG’s recent report notes that from fiscal year 2005 through 

2008, VBA has failed to include statistical information pertaining 

to misuse of funds by fiduciaries in the annual benefits report to 

Congress as required by title 38 U.S. Code section 5510. We know 

that the failure to provide this report to Congress impairs our ability to effectively provide oversight of the Fiduciary Program. How 

has this reporting failure in your opinion harmed veterans and 

other beneficiaries? And if so, what can we do to address this 

issue? 

Mr. CROWE. I think investigating allegations of misuse go to the 

heart of the mission of this program. I think we were surprised to 

find that their policies were not being followed largely because it 

appears that their performance in this area was not being measured by performance standards or any other measurements. And 

certainly some staff, I wouldn’t characterize everybody, but some 

staff talked about this as being a lower priority, and we considered 

it to be a very high priority. And some of the misuse actions that 

they had taken in investigating these allegations were either unVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:41 Dec 17, 2010 Jkt 057016 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\TEMP\57016.XXX 57016

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
12 

timely or not documented. Therefore, if they weren’t reported in 

their system, what was being reported to Congress would be understated by definition. 

When you get allegations of misuse from a beneficiary, from a 

family member or from a friend, I think these are very important 

leads that something is going wrong and a great way for them to 

find out. We were trying to emphasize to the VBA the importance 

of making sure that this becomes a higher priority among their 

staff. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Bertoni, in the GAO report to the Subcommittee, 

you observed that the Fiduciary Program is hindered by its electronic fiduciary case management system or FBS which some VA 

staff have called antiquated and cumbersome. I understand that 

this system prevents VBA from identifying all fiduciaries in the 

program since it may not be able to connect a Social Security number with a name, or it may have the same person’s name entered 

in different ways and perhaps the VA cannot tell the difference or 

identify the sameness of John Hall, John J. Hall, John Joseph Hall, 

et cetera. Are there better systems that could be used by VA that 

are being used by other agencies that you oversee that could replace FBS and what recommendations do you have regarding the 

FBS system? 

Mr. BERTONI. I can’t speak to specific systems, but I can speak 

to other Federal benefit programs, and to my knowledge, as I said, 

I have disability portfolios that entail the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), VA, and the Social Security Administration (SSA), 20 

other agencies, and within those 20 agencies, 200 Federal programs, and it is a rarity not to capture the full Social Security 

number as the control number. 

In this situation, you can have a fiduciary in California who runs 

a afoul of the rules and regulations and pulls up stakes and ends 

up in Oregon and changes his name slightly and you would never 

know that. If you had a unique identifier, you could catch that kind 

of activity. That is just one example. 

I don’t know what the system is. I do know that they are not capturing it now. I don’t think it is a matter of capability. I think we 

were told that they could capture the Social Security number under 

the existing system. But I would say that FBS is problematic. 

In our case, you asked why the Legal Instruments Examiners 

(LIEs) were missing so many of their accountings. Well, if the system only holds the most recent account due, then the four prior 

that the fiduciary didn’t submit drop off the radar screen. When we 

went out into the field, we found field examiners who had sticky 

notes on the wall to sort of remind them that this particular fiduciary was late in four accountings. The system wasn’t doing that. 

These folks were working in their own paper system outside the 

electronic system. 

So as far as the apparent lack of attention on the LIE’s part, I 

think much of that can be attributed to, number one, the system 

is not helping them. Second, the ratio of wards to staff. What I 

heard just a moment ago in terms of how many folks that these 

LIEs and field examiners are managing, that is alarming. At some 

point folks and tasks are going to fall through the cracks. If you 

look at the consolidated hub, I think the ratio is 800 wards per LIE 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
13 

and 400 wards per field examiner. I don’t know if that is appropriate, but at least they know what they want to achieve. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you for that information. Regarding the site 

visits that GAO conducted to three of the 43 program units, St. Petersburg, Cleveland and Salt Lake City, which is the location of the 

western hub, I understand that the western hub is a new initiative 

and your examination did not yield conclusive findings, but you 

predicted this consolidation effort has promised to standardize 

training procedures and implementation. How long do you think it 

will take before the western hub shows those results? 

Mr. BERTONI. GAO, in general, is on record for much of the consolidation of workloads and activities that are happening at VA. 

They are consolidating a lot of workloads across a lot of different 

activities, and conceptually that makes sense to us. When you can 

pull together that many States and that many field examiners, give 

them consistent training, give them an opportunity to specialize in 

what they do instead of being the generalist, jack of all trades, I 

think there are real opportunities to increase timeliness and accuracy and consistency of the workload. 

Our concern is that we heard some noise out there in terms of 

how the hub came about, perhaps it was rolled out when there 

weren’t enough support systems in place. How some of the cases 

that came in were not what I would say appropriately worked and 

they had to be reworked to make sure that the accountings were 

up to date. So I think there were some speed bumps in terms of 

implementation. We have asked that they do an evaluation to see 

lessons learned and what they could do different going forward. I 

believe that is underway or will be soon. 

As far as when it will be up to maximum productivity, I don’t 

know. But I am starting to see some data that they are starting 

to exceed national targets in terms of submissions of the reviews 

of the financial accountings. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. I have a couple of more questions for you 

and then we will give you some more in writing next week. I am 

going to try to get to our other panels here while we are all still 

awake and on solid food. But in your estimation, Ms. Finn or Mr. 

Bertoni, what misuse of beneficiary funds occurs more, that by fiduciaries who are related to beneficiaries or by professional, nonfamilial fiduciaries? 

Ms. FINN. It is hard to say what we don’t know, but I can tell 

you that our Office of Investigations has told me that more than 

half of their investigations are related to a family member. I find 

that very sad to speak of, especially on Bring Your Child to Work 

Day, but that is the case. 

Mr. HALL. Well, we are talking about a lot of money and human 

beings here, so I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that the temptation certainly exists. 

Mr. BERTONI. We couldn’t answer that specifically either. We 

haven’t done that work. But I do believe that when you have this 

level to date of management inattention, that that invites and can 

open the door to misuse. 

If you have structured oversight of the program, strong program 

integrity tools in place, I think that clamps down the temptation 

for abuse. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
14 

I did get a call this week from a citizen, I get these quite frequently, who was having trouble contacting VA in terms of getting 

a fiduciary. I tried to work through various scenarios for that person, and I kept going back to: Do you have a family member that 

could take this on? And that person had family members but did 

not feel that they could trust their funds with a family member. 

But that is all I know. 

Mr. HALL. Just a couple of more things. We have some reports 

from family members who are acting as fiduciaries who have been 

barred from using VA funds for living expenses. One question is 

have you an opinion about that and also do you think that VA 

should consider paying familial fiduciaries? 

Ms. FINN. I would hesitate to voice an opinion on that. I guess 

if I were in that situation, I would hope my child would do that 

without a salary. But I can see where the occasion could arise 

where it is a large undertaking to take care of someone who needs 

that level of attention. 

Mr. BERTONI. Again, I don’t have any work to bear any of this 

out, but I would say expenses should be associated with the care 

and well-being of the beneficiary. There are other programs, aide 

and attendants that can be sort of rolled into the equation to meet 

the supplementary needs of the beneficiary. But I have no opinion 

on whether living expenses should be part of it. 

Mr. HALL. My last question is do you have an opinion as to 

whether we should put a cap on the number of beneficiaries that 

one fiduciary may handle or whose affairs they may handle? 

Ms. FINN. It would seem to me to be a prudent undertaking to 

do because a professional fiduciary who is managing the funds of 

many beneficiaries has the greatest ability to move funds between 

fiduciaries and the most funds that are at risk. Certainly that is 

where we really need the controls to ensure that all of the funds 

for the many beneficiaries that may be under a fiduciary’s management are well accounted for. I don’t have a specific number that I 

would recommend, however. 

Mr. BERTONI. Is your question should we place a cap on the number of beneficiaries that professional fiduciaries can serve? 

Mr. HALL. Right. 

Mr. BERTONI. I would say, just as the point I made a few moments ago regarding the ratio of LIE to wards and field examiners 

to wards, I think at a certain point it becomes very difficult to 

manage the finances of folks when you have many, many beneficiaries to worry about. I don’t know what that is, but I think at 

some point you have to look at does this person have the capacity 

or entity have the capacity to serve the needs of the beneficiaries. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, sir. I would assume it would possibly vary 

depending on the degree of disability and impairment of the veteran beneficiary, but there is probably a limit to what any one person can do competently, even assuming total honestly. 

Mr. BERTONI. And it also depends on the capacity of the professional fiduciary. There are probably organizations and entities out 

there that have support staff in place that can sort of help with 

that. You really need to look at it on a case-by-case basis as to 

which entities might be able to handle more. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
15 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Bertoni, Ms. Finn, and Mr. 

Crowe. Your testimony has been very helpful. We will submit some 

more questions to you most likely. We thank you. You are excused, 

and now we welcome the second panel. 

Our witnesses are Richard Weidman, Executive Director for Policy and Government Affairs, Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA); 

Sarah Wade, Coordinator, Family Issues and Traumatic Brain Injury, Wounded Warrior Project (WWP); Jacob Gadd, Assistant Director for Program Management of the American Legion; Vivianne 

Cisneros Wersel, Gold Star Wives of America; and Katherine 

Pflanz, Field Examiner from the Winston-Salem VA Regional Office 

and American Federal of Government Employees (AFGE) representative. Welcome. Thank you for your patience. Again, it is 

good to see those of you who we have seen many times before. Your 

written statements are in the record. You are recognized for 5 minutes each, and then we will have some questions. 

We will start with Mr. Weidman. 

STATEMENTS OF RICHARD F. WEIDMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR POLICY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, VIETNAM 

VETERANS OF AMERICA; SARAH WADE, COORDINATOR, FAMILY ISSUES AND TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY, WOUNDED 

WARRIOR PROJECT; JACOB B. GADD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 

FOR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, VETERANS AFFAIRS AND REHABILITATION COMMISSION, AMERICAN LEGION; VIVIANNE 

CISNEROS WERSEL, AU.D., CHAIR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS 

COMMITTEE, GOLD STAR WIVES OF AMERICA, INC.; AND 

KATHERINE R. PFLANZ, FIELD EXAMINER, WINSTON-SALEM 

VETERANS AFFAIRS REGIONAL OFFICE, ON BEHALF OF 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, 

AFL–CIO, AND AFGE NATIONAL VETERANS AFFAIRS COUNCIL 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. WEIDMAN 

Mr. WEIDMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity for 

Vietnam Veterans of America to present some thoughts about the 

fiduciary reports that you all are considering today, one by the OIG 

and one by GAO and looking at the overall problem. 

One thing is clear from both anecdotal experience that we have 

as an organization both directly and through our local leadership 

around the company as well as our service representatives in that 

things in this program have been not good for a very long period 

of time, mostly because it hasn’t been paid attention to. 

So first and foremost, after reading both of these reports, there 

is not a good solid program. The axiom that is always useful to remember is that a unit does well is that which a commander checks 

well. And because this thing is not set up well, you can’t even 

check well what is happening with each and every veteran. 

My second concern has to do with standards for the fiduciaries 

as well as training, and this is something that needs to be done. 

Three, we are very troubled that most of the 2006 recommendations were not followed and implemented or at least a number of 

them were not. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
16 

And the next observation that we have really has to do with care. 

Both of these reports focused on the fiduciary and the financial obligation that VA has to make sure that taxpayer dollars go to the 

intended recipient for his or her benefit and don’t end up elsewhere. And that is an important function. But equally important 

is that these are folks in pretty rough shape, these 103,000 folks. 

They need medical care on an ongoing basis. They need lots of 

things on an ongoing basis, not the least of which is to make sure 

that they eat right. 

We, frankly, are not all that concerned where it is a spouse, 

which is true in a number of cases. We are concerned with those 

who have many, or perhaps even hundreds, in their caseload because that element of making sure that people get the medical care 

that they need when they need it, we believe, is a key part of this 

program. And of course, we have the exposure of billions of dollars 

potentially. 

It is almost akin when you don’t have a system to check and fol- low-up to the genius idea of sending $10 billion in cash into the 

war zone into Iraq and then being surprised that more than 70 percent of it couldn’t be accounted for. It is almost that foolhardy that 

you don’t have checks and balances in this system that really make 

a great deal of sense. But it is easily done and we would urge Mr. 

Mayes and his folks that produce information technology (IT) that 

can give you that capability and start constructing a parallel system virtually immediately. 

We believe that some of the progress that has been made recently on the compensation and pension (C&P) system and a 

change in attitude on the part of VBA leadership towards those of 

us who are partners with them, and major stakeholders, is something that means that we can move towards solving the C&P problems within the next year and a half or 2 years. We need the same 

sort of attention and the same collegiality, if you will, and the same 

openness of attitude toward new solutions and working with stakeholders at the State, national as well as at the local level in order 

to solve the problems of the fiduciaries. 

With that, I will conclude my statement. I look forward to any 

questions you may have, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weidman appears on p. 56.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Weidman. Ms. Wade. 

STATEMENT OF SARAH WADE 

Ms. WADE. Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Lamborn and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting Wounded Warrior 

Project to testify on VA’s Fiduciary Program. Through our work 

with severely wounded veterans and their family caregivers, many 

of whom are fiduciaries, Wounded Warrior Project has a unique 

perspective on this program. As a caregiver myself of a severely 

wounded veteran of both Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and 

Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) who sustained a severe traumatic 

brain injury, and as someone who has worked with many caregivers of severely wounded warriors, I believe I can provide helpful 

insight. 

WWP appreciates the critical mission and vital work performed 

by the VA’s Fiduciary Program, but we are gravely concerned that 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
17 

in managing the program, VA fails to take account of the unique 

circumstances of family members who are devoting themselves to 

the full-time care of severely wounded warriors and who also serve 

as their fiduciaries. Many have given up careers and depleted their 

own savings to care for these wounded warriors. Family members 

who have made these kinds of sacrifices hardly pose a risk of misusing the veterans’ benefits. 

WWP recognizes the need for the VA Fiduciary Program and for 

appropriate oversight, and we appreciate the Government Accountability Office’s helpful report on the need to strengthen the program and improve compliance with fiduciary policies. Importantly, 

those policies recognize that all fiduciary cases do not require the 

same degree of attention and supervision and that field examiners 

should consider the unique circumstances of each individual case. 

Unfortunately, we see wide variability in how the judgment is exercised. 

The many caregivers of wounded warriors, who are my friends 

and with whom I have worked over the years, have put their own 

lives on hold to be caregivers. Typically they have chosen to give 

up or independently suspend their own career plans and made 

other financial sacrifices. I can assure you of one thing regarding 

those who have been appointed fiduciaries: their dedication to their 

wounded spouses or children did not change by virtue of taking on 

responsibilities of a fiduciary, yet VBA’s fiduciary oversight seldom 

recognizes the sacrifice of those who are also caregivers. Too often 

these family members encounter a VBA oversight system marked 

by rigidity, intrusiveness and unreasonable decision-making. 

Let me illustrate by way of a few examples. A VBA field examiner imposing a summer vacation expenditure limit for a profoundly wounded warrior, his wife and two children; a mother caregiver having to explain to a VBA examiner why she allowed her 

wounded warrior son to spend ‘‘too much money’’ on Christmas 

gifts; the spouse caregiver of a traumatically brain injured veteran 

having to get permission from their VBA field officer to purchase 

a couch for their home. 

As Chairman Hall mentioned in opening remarks, a devoted 

mother caregiver was required to pay back money for toilet paper 

purchased for the home. A family being questioned about expenditures for gasoline that was used in transportation of the wounded 

veteran; several instances of mothers who are full-time caregivers 

being required to pay rent to the wounded veteran rather than residing in their home for ‘‘free.’’ A field examiner denying a mother 

caregiver’s request to place the now-wheelchair bound veteran’s 8- 

year-old high mileage truck that she uses to transport him in a 

rural, snowy area; a mother caregiver having to relinquish her role 

as a fiduciary because she had had to declare bankruptcy after 

leaving the workforce to care for her wounded warrior son. 

Let me assure you from personal knowledge that these families 

do not deserve to be treated this way. Not every case is mishandled, but these aren’t isolated problems. Moreover, caregivers 

experience stark variability in VA’s oversight across the country. 

The impression frankly is of a program marked by arbitrary and 

capricious decision-making. It should be recognized that family 

caregivers typically reside with the veteran and may no longer 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
18 

have their own income. We see no reason to preclude such families 

from applying part of their loved’s one benefits to help maintain a 

household that they share. VA Fiduciary Program policies should 

make that abundantly clear. 

But even more fundamentally, a devoted family member who 

provides daily care for a severely wounded veteran should not be 

treated as the object of suspicion, either in terms of rigid management of the budget or intrusive home visits simply because the individual serves as the veteran’s fiduciaries. We believe these families are owed a presumption of honesty and should be treated with 

dignity. 

Over the past year, WWP has discussed these concerns with VBA 

officials and offered to work with them, even arranging for them 

to meet a family caregiver fiduciary to appreciate better this family’s experience, but we have yet to see any change in policy or 

practice. Clearly both are needed. 

In addition, VA must provide more training. Its own staff needs 

training, but VA should also better clarify to family members their 

responsibilities when they agree to serve as a fiduciary. 

Finally, it is noteworthy that caregivers of wounded warriors are 

well known to VA. Each has worked closely with a Federal Recovery Coordinator and/or other case manages in connection with the 

veteran’s care. In the isolated instance in which there is some indication of a problem concerning a caregiver, case workers in the Veterans Health Administration become aware of it. From the caregiver’s perspective, VA is a single entity and they have every reason to believe VA knows they are reliable and have integrity, so 

imagine how confusing it is for a caregiver who has worked closely 

and developed relationships of trust with other VA staff to encounter VBA personnel whose fiduciary requirements convey fundamental mistrust. It doesn’t seem too much to expect that VBA and 

other arms of the Department work more closely to share information relating to caregiver fiduciaries rather than requiring these 

dedicated individuals to prove themselves yet again. 

Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with the Subcommittee to address these concerns regarding the VA’s Fiduciary 

Program. 

This concludes our testimony. I would be pleased to address any 

questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wade appears on p. 57.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Gadd. 

STATEMENT OF JACOB B. GADD 

Mr. GADD. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to provide the American Legion’s 

views on the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Fiduciary Program. 

Without effective oversight, coordination, and management, our 

Nation’s veterans with mental health illnesses or diseases will continue to experience delays and financial hardships in accessing 

their earned benefits. 

Title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, section 13, provides the 

guidance for VA to manage the Fiduciary Program. VA is charged 

with the point of fiduciary to manage and handle the veterans comVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:41 Dec 17, 2010 Jkt 057016 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\TEMP\57016.XXX 57016

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
19 

pensation and pension benefits if a veteran is deemed mentally incompetent. 

A recent OIG report found that Veterans Benefits Administration 

lacks elements of an effective management infrastructure to monitor program performance, utilize staff, and oversee fiduciary activities. Furthermore, the Government Accountability Office recommended VA strengthen the Fiduciary Program monitoring policies, improve staff compliance, and consolidate the 14 western Fiduciary Program units. 

While VA is, indeed, moving forward with the fiduciary hub in 

Salt Lake City and taking actions to rectify the problems as noted 

by OIG and GAO in their reports and through testimony today, the 

American Legion still continues to have several concerns. These 

concerns include the difficulty and delay in processing the appointed fiduciary, the VA’s centralization model, and then, three, 

feedback from American Legion State service officers and the Pension Management Center (PMC) staff. 

First, in researching the number of forms, accompanying delay in 

processing, and the stress that it places on veterans and their 

beneficiaries, that is monumental. In fact, as noted in my written 

testimony, there are 21 different VA forms required to appoint a 

fiduciary. 

Second, the American Legion has been concerned about VA’s centralization policies and that VSOs are not being included in these 

processes. The American Legion continues to urge VA to provide internal access phone numbers for accredited VSO representatives. 

VA commented on this recommendation, stating that, ‘‘Providing 

direct internal telephone access would require the redirection of resources currently dedicated to disability claims processing.’’ This is 

the same communication problem that VA and VSOs are experiencing with the Fiduciary Program. 

At the Pension Management Centers, the American Legion has 

three national staff in Minneapolis, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee 

that have all shared the same concern, and that is improving the 

coordination between the regional offices, the pension centers, and 

the fiduciary hubs. 

For example, a service officer files for benefits for a veteran in 

August of 2009. The rating decision is then completed in February 

2010, proposing incompetency. In March, the letter is sent to the 

veteran in regards to this incompetency and the veteran waives the 

due process, which enables VA to act on the claim prior to waiting 

the 65 days. The award letter then goes back to the veteran, the 

first payment, in May, but those retroactive benefits are withheld 

until the guardianship unit can make their visit. 

So, after all this process is complete, the Pension Management 

Center then sends VA the form to the hub back in Salt Lake City. 

The hub then would notify the guardianship unit. And, once the 

field exam was completed, it was sent back to the Pension Management Center. 

So, as you can tell from all of this explanation, it is a very cumbersome and lengthy process, and the coordination between these 

offices can definitely be improved. 

In addition, our service officer in one of the Pension Management 

Centers helped schedule a fiduciary field exam because the veteran 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
20 

had been waiting for 4 years to access his benefits. And that field 

exam agent went out to his home on a Sunday for that particular 

exam. And I just want to note that this is unconscionable, that a 

veteran’s claim can be delayed for this period of time, and that our 

Nation’s veterans and their beneficiaries deserve better. 

And the American Legion’s focus with our testimony was on the 

front end of this process and how we need to improve, as we heard 

today, on the centralization, working with the IT component. And, 

in that regard, the American Legion has several recommendations: 

First, that a full-time employee be funded and authorized within 

each RO and PMC. Second, that Congress authorize and fund 

VBA’s IT budget to develop that integrated IT software package 

that we have heard today. 

Third, the Legion recommends that Congress ensure VSO representatives are given an internal access phone number so we can 

improve the communication between VSO and VA. Fourth, that 

Congress direct VA to create a national fiduciary toll-free number 

for their family members and the general public so that they can 

get that information for that fiduciary. 

Fifth, that Congress direct VA to allow fiduciaries to sign the paperwork in advance so that a temporary fiduciary can be appointed, 

and it might shorten that delay that they are currently experiencing. And, lastly, that VA establish a VA voluntary service pilot 

program which may be able to train volunteers on how to become 

VA fiduciary volunteers. 

So, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the American Legion sincerely appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony today. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gadd appears on p. 59.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Gadd. 

Dr. Wersel. 

STATEMENT OF VIVIANNE CISNEROS WERSEL, AU.D. 

Dr. WERSEL. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

I am pleased to be here today and to testify on behalf of Gold Star 

Wives. 

My name is Vivianne Wersel, Chair of the Government Relations 

Committee. I am the widow of Lieutenant Colonel Rich Wersel, Jr., 

United States Marine Corps, who died suddenly on February 4, 

2005, a week after returning from his second tour of duty in Iraq. 

We begin by thanking this Subcommittee and our Government 

for providing essential services necessary to help us through our 

loss and grief. Many services are being done well and in a caring 

and helpful way. We must stress the importance of staying vigilant 

so no one grieving the loss of a loved one will endure any indignities or forfeit benefits due to the lack of knowledge. Therefore, we 

need consistent and relevant assistance at the time of death and 

for some period of time thereafter. 

Gold Star Wives was unaware of the VA Fiduciary Program until 

requested to testify at this hearing. Even one of our most seasoned 

Government relations members, Mrs. Edith Smith, stated she was 

unaware of the Fiduciary Program. And this, in itself, posed a concern about the lack of information for eligible beneficiaries. ‘‘Fiduciaries’’ is not a word in our vocabulary; yet, it should be. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
21 

We are concerned with the lack of publicity about the program 

and the information available to eligible beneficiaries. There is no 

mention of the Fiduciary Program in the VA Handbook for Veterans, Dependents, and Survivors. We need prior knowledge in 

order to obtain specific information on the VA Web site. 

Furthermore, this subject has neither been discussed in prior testimonies that included Gold Star Wives, nor has it been a topic of 

discussion with the VA/DoD Survivor Forum quarterly meetings. 

Lack of information and participation does not promote optimal 

care for surviving families. 

In preparation for this hearing, we discovered some Gold Star 

Wives were their spouses’ fiduciary before their military spouses 

died. Some required an annual bonding fee as the designated fiduciaries. Why do spouses have to pay significant fees to be bonded? 

In 2002, Petty Officer Second Class Anthony Palmer collapsed 

while playing basketball. He was kept alive via medical devices. 

When the respirator was removed, he unexpectedly continued living; however, he was totally incapacitated. He was then medically 

retired, but when he died 2 years later, his VA disability compensation suddenly stopped. His wife and two children were suddenly 

left without support. What role did the VA Fiduciary Program play 

for his family? 

When the Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) was assigned by name to Mrs. Palmer’s two small children, she had to 

pay several thousand dollars for civilian court guardianship. Why 

is this required when she is the biological parent of two small children? She is one of the many young widows with children who are 

experiencing this problem. Why is the Fiduciary Program not used 

for SGLI, which is administered by the VA? 

Mrs. Dora Aja married her college sweetheart in 1953. His heart 

attack in 1976 eventually left him totally incapacitated. She had to 

be bonded to be a fiduciary, at the cost of $250 annually. When she 

relocated to be closer to her family, she had to receive permission 

from the VA and Defense Finance and Accounting Service to purchase a home. In addition, she must submit, yearly, a spreadsheet 

of all her expenses. 

Are spouses provided with the tools they need to monitor the administration required of them annually? Mrs. Aja stated, ‘‘I have 

cared for him and loved him for over 50 years, and the Government 

treats me like a juvenile. It is a good thing that my husband is not 

aware of what is happening because he would be angry.’’ She is 

neither a widow nor a veteran, nor is she treated as the dedicated 

military spouse that she is, even though she is soon to be a Gold 

Star Wife. 

On another note, there are approximately 35,000 surviving 

spouses and adults who are incapacitated and have fiduciaries. 

Who takes the lead when the surviving spouse becomes incapacitated? If the surviving spouse was not a fiduciary for the veteran 

spouse, they may not know anything about the program and, by extension, neither would their children. 

Our main concerns with this program is the lack of publicity and 

available information for our surviving spouses. It is imperative 

that pertinent information about the Fiduciary Program be made 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
22 

available to eligible beneficiaries to provide meaningful support for 

present and future surviving spouses. 

Please refer to our questions and concerns in our written testimony. We thank you all for all your past support and look forward 

to working with you to help improve this program. I will be happy 

to answer any questions you may have, and I thank you very 

much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Wersel appears on p. 62.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much, Doctor. 

Ms. Pflanz. 

STATEMENT OF KATHERINE R. PFLANZ 

Ms. PFLANZ. Chairman Hall and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of AFGE and the 

National Council in order to share the perspective of the field examiner and other employees of the fiduciary unit. 

The fiduciary unit may be a very small part of the VA, but it involves tremendous responsibilities. We are the unseen workers who 

are tasked with ensuring that VA benefits are protected. Field examiners are in the field 100 percent of the time. I, for example, live 

220 miles from my regional office and over 100 miles from any 

other field examiners. We count on the legal instrument examiners 

for assistance and guidance. They are our eyes and ears for the 

protection of beneficiaries but also for our personal safety. 

Field examiners meet the fiduciary, who has been rated incompetent by VA or adjudicated incompetent by the court, face to face. 

We often live in the same community. We see them in the grocery 

stores. We meet their families, sit in their homes, and are provided 

a unique insight into their lives. We see them at their best, worst, 

on and off medications, mad at the VA, happy to have a visitor, 

and usually armed with many questions. We are tasked with gathering personal information, from finances to incontinence. 

Field examiners are investigators, social workers, auditors, medical personnel, financial advisers, information resource specialists 

for local, State, and Federal benefits. We work under very demanding production standards while striving for high quality. 

With a growing number of beneficiaries needing the service and 

oversight of the fiduciary activity, lack of experience, training, and 

guidance makes this task difficult to accomplish. 

When I was a VSR, veterans service representative, I got formal 

training by subject-matter experts as instructors. This training 

gave me the opportunity to ask questions, meet coworkers from 

other regional offices, work on mock cases, learn to conduct interviews, and work in live cases. 

In the fiduciary unit, formal training is not available. The only 

hands-on training provided is by observing other field examiners 

for a short time. Although useful, it does not provide enough exposure to the wide variety of cases and situations. We really need a 

comparable challenge course for the field examiners. 

Frontline supervisors, known as coaches, also need more training. Supervisors throughout the regional office rotate between stations or teams, but the fiduciary station requires a very different 

skill and knowledge other than these different teams. Too often, supervisors who do gain experience in the fiduciary unit are rotated. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
23 

We also really need more field examiners. The workload keeps 

increasing, and we cannot meet timeliness, and our quality also 

suffers. 

We also need better tools to do our job. Often, we have to share 

cars, which hurts timeliness. The report generator, which is what 

we use to write our report, is only for one of the many types of reports that we have to prepare. The current production expectations 

are unrealistic. 

The standards make an assumption that every case is alike, even 

though it varies so much from case to case on how long it takes 

to gather the data required to properly assess the beneficiary’s 

need, protect funds, assess possible benefits, and answer any questions the family may have. We are sometimes forced to choose to 

either not make our production goal or make errors or secretly 

work longer hours and risk facing the consequences. 

Giving the frontline employees a voice in the design and testing 

of fiduciary tools would both save time and improve quality. Me 

and my colleagues who work in the hub pilot in the West are also 

very frustrated because they had no say in the design of the pilot 

project. This model does not work, and AFGE and VA Council urge 

you to discontinue it. The pilot deprives veterans of the personal 

touch they need. It is depriving employees out on the road, who are 

trying to protect the veterans, from full support they need to do 

their jobs. 

The Salt Lake City hub covers 13 States with 13 different sets 

of State laws. There are a lot of morale problems. Field examiners 

are not getting the backup they need. I have been told that the San 

Diego hub also has big problems. Again, we urge you to listen to 

the fiduciary unit employees who do the job on the front lines. 

I want to close by saying: A bad day as a field examiner still 

beats a good day in the office any day. I feel this position is the 

most rewarding, emotionally and physically challenging, humbling, 

and enlightening position in the VA. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pflanz appears on p. 64.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much for your testimony, Ms. Pflanz. 

And thank you all. I am sorry I had to leave the room for a 

minute there, but I do have written statements from everyone. 

I wanted to start with Ms. Wade and ask you: In your testimony, 

you suggest that VBA staff does not recognize the unique circumstances of family members who are fiduciaries and who have 

devoted themselves to the care, sometimes full-time care, of severely wounded veterans, nor does it provide the support needed 

for these caregivers. 

What specific steps would you recommend that VBA take to better recognize the sacrifices of family members who oversee the financial affairs of our veteran beneficiaries? 

Ms. WADE. I think, first, it is important to distinguish between 

what kind of family members we are discussing here. I know in 

your previous question you asked about the number of family members that were investigated. And we are not talking about just any 

family member that suddenly came out of the woodwork after this 

veteran started receiving their benefits from the VA. The people I 

am talking about are ones that oftentimes handled that individVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:41 Dec 17, 2010 Jkt 057016 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\TEMP\57016.XXX 57016

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
24 

ual’s money through multiple deployments when they were still on 

active duty and that is who they entrusted with their money. A lot 

of these people were asked to be the power of attorney of that 

servicemember before they were injured. 

Also, these are family members that have likely been at the bedside since day one of that veterans injury and done this at their 

own financial sacrifice. I know, in my own situation, when my husband was injured, I quit school and left my job to do it. I think 

these are people that have sorted themselves out, have proven 

themselves. Many are also court-appointed guardians, fiduciaries 

recognized by Social Security or just a power of attorney. 

But I think what we are talking about here is trusting these people by virtue of the fact that they have already proven themselves. 

And sometimes what that means is that—for instance, in the example I used of several moms that live with their veteran and take 

care of them, I don’t think they are living there for free; I think 

they are earning their living. I don’t think that it is that uncommon for family members to house another family member in a time 

of need. I know my own family has done it under numerous circumstances. 

So I think recognizing that these funds that are being used to 

take care of the household are for the veteran’s well-being, that it 

allows that person to be there to care for them, it allows that veteran to stay out of institutional care and to have quality of life. 

I also think that it is very intrusive to have a complete stranger 

who is a Government employee decide how that person’s budget 

gets spent when they didn’t know that person before they were injured. I think a good example would be one of the ones I stated, 

of a family—a wife and her husband and two children, who were 

given a spending limit for what they could use for a vacation. 

I think it is important to include that I went on an alternative 

ski trip with that very family this winter, and the mother-in-law 

had to come, too, because there was no way the mom could take 

care of both her husband and the two children. And, heaven forbid 

she had gotten injured skiing or something, someone would have 

to take her place. So we are talking about quite a few people traveling. 

But my husband loved to travel before he was injured. And I 

think that how someone spends their money and chooses their financial priorities are oftentimes based on quality of life. We have 

made some financial adjustments in our lives. We went from a 

three-bedroom house to a two-bedroom house. We have one car. We 

sold the car that I dearly loved before he was injured to get something less expensive with better gas mileage that would require 

less expensive maintenance. We don’t eat out as much. But we do 

still have a special account, actually, that we contribute to monthly 

to pay for recreation and trips. 

So I think that some leniency needs to be afforded to these families. But, also, I really think that if these family members are able 

to pay the bills and they are not putting this veteran into debt, 

then I think how they spend their money for fun and quality of life 

shouldn’t be a stranger’s business. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Ms. Wade. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
25 

I would just like to say—and I am sure the rest of the Subcommittee and full Committee Members would concur—that we 

thank you and admire you and the other caregivers, fiduciaries or 

not, who take care of their husbands or wives or sons or daughters 

who have been injured serving this country and made a sacrifice 

that affects the entire family so gravely and seriously and requires 

the changes and the sacrifices that you described. 

Ms. WADE. We appreciate your support of the bill yesterday, sir. 

Mr. HALL. I thank you for coming here and giving us such moving examples of what I would assume are isolated and misguided 

actions that can be corrected. I don’t believe that the VA staff are 

intentionally trying to make life harder for you, when it is already 

difficult. 

The job of this Subcommittee and that of the Congress in general 

is to perform oversight. And we are going to do that with this program, to try to improve it in ways that you and others are suggesting. 

Mr. Gadd, in your statement you indicate that the process for approving a fiduciary is long and tedious. Could you suggest some 

ways that that process could be improved, please? 

Mr. GADD. Sure. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The American Legion’s primary concern was the delay in processing the fiduciaries. We indicate in our written testimony several 

different reasons why, whether it be the number of forms or the 

lack of communication between the RO, the Pension Management 

Center, and the guardianship unit that are actually scheduling 

these visits. 

And some of the ways that we suggested improving this was a 

comprehensive approach, such as training, IT software package, 

and having there be alerts or reminders to make sure that that 

process keeps continuing, and just more communication with the 

veterans service organizations. We walk together with the VA to 

try to help veterans and their beneficiaries. 

And so, again, we just focus, really, on the delay and on the front 

end. And we felt that if we addressed those problems and the 

length in time that these veterans and their beneficiaries are having to wait, that the program could be improved. 

And we also indicated, that a VA volunteer program—VA has the 

Department of Veterans Affairs Voluntary Service Program—that 

they could train and do a better job of standardizing the training 

for this program. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Gadd, you suggest that there is a disconnect between the public and the Fiduciary Program. If a public contact 

number was provided and widely publicized, do you think this 

would help to alleviate some of the commonly asked questions that 

both veterans and their families need answered? 

Mr. GADD. Yes, sir, the American Legion feels that way. Part of 

our testimony today was a recommendation to have a 1–800 national call number for this. As many of the panelists today have indicated, the public doesn’t know enough about this program. Some 

may have questions on what the program actually does or how to 

get in touch with someone if you have a question. So that 1–800 

number, maybe if it was run out of the Salt Lake City hub, will 

go a long way in improving that communication. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
26 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Gadd, in your testimony you mentioned that one 

or more full-time employees should be dedicated exclusively to this 

program in each designated regional office. How many full-time 

employees do you think would be necessary to fully staff the Fiduciary Program in each RO? 

Mr. GADD. Well, the American Legion would contend that we 

would need one additional full-time equivalent (FTE) in each regional office to improve the Fiduciary Program. But, as we have 

heard from the panelists today and from OIG and GAO, we might 

also need an additional FTE looking at the compliance side, to 

manage and make sure that those funds are being allocated and 

used to the intention that they were supposed to be. 

So a number of 200 comes to mind with the regional offices, and 

then the hub out in Salt Lake City. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. 

Mr. Weidman, thank you again for coming before this Subcommittee. I was wondering what your organization’s experience 

has been in interfacing with the Fiduciary Program field examiners 

or legal instrument examiners. Do these VBA staffers demonstrate 

the level of professionalism and diligence that you believe is necessary for adequate oversight of the program? 

Mr. WEIDMAN. When I talked earlier about complaints from the 

field, almost every one of them has to do with the multiples, if you 

will, those who have many. And it is usually an attorney in a firm 

that is ostensibly a law firm but is much more like law firms that 

are really bill collectors, if you will. 

So that has been our major concern. And trying to get something 

done about those, we have not been particularly successful anywhere. The majority of those have been in the western States, as 

I think of it now. But also, here in this area, we have had problems 

also. 

And the question is, lack of a clear chain of command and who 

does what. You can always call the OIG if you know to call the 

OIG. The lack of information, which was talked about very eloquently by the Gold Star Wives here today. People don’t know 

about the Fiduciary Program, but they don’t know about any VA 

program. VA’s outreach is something that this Committee has 

again and again and again discussed. The VA lacks public education and public outreach to let veterans and their families know 

what they have earned by virtue of military service. And the Fiduciary Program is just another example of that. 

Mr. HALL. Would you suggest that greater training for fiduciaries 

would help to curb the cases of misuse of funds that we have heard 

about today? 

Mr. WEIDMAN. Well, it is partly that, and it is also the selection 

of the fiduciaries themselves. 

I mentioned earlier that we are not particularly concerned, because we had never had complaints, that I can recall, about a 

spouse misusing the moneys and not taking care of the vet. And 

all of our complaints have been about the multiples. 

But there clearly has to be some kind of differentiation between 

the spouse where the marriage was intact prior to the individual 

becoming disabled and those multiples. You shouldn’t be treating 

them the same. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
27 

I would say, when people asked about a living allowance separate and above the 4 percent, hopefully a lot of that will be taken 

care of with the caregivers bill, which passed the House yesterday—and I think almost unanimously on the part of the veterans 

organizations, will, knock on wood, pass the Senate easily—and 

that and a much better coordination with the VA chain when it 

comes to making sure people get their care. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Weidman. And may your words go 

straight to the Senate’s ears. We have 290 bills that we have 

passed in the House waiting for Senate action. This one might 

jump to the head of the line and hopefully pass before Memorial 

Day. 

Dr. Wersel, in your testimony, you note the lack of information 

published by the VA about the Fiduciary Program and the fact that 

your organization was unfamiliar with the Program due in part 

that the omission of any mention of it in the VA Handbook for Veterans, Dependents, and Survivors. 

How are spouses caring for VA beneficiaries harmed by this scarcity of information? How much of an impact is that having on the 

families, that they don’t know about the Fiduciary Program? 

Dr. WERSEL. When you don’t have the information—and we are 

looking at the—say, for instance, I am the surviving spouse. I have 

funds coming in to my account automatically. In the event something should happen to me catastrophically, am I prepared to know 

what will happen? I have children that are young, and one is over 

18. It is just protecting—being able—that the funds are going to be 

protected to care for my family still. 

My children are not—I still have to have them go through college. If I was alive and if I was not incapacitated, as a mother I 

still would be providing a lot of support for my children. I would 

hate the fact that my children, who would be my fiduciary, would 

have to be limited in what they could spend and what they could 

not spend. On the other hand, accountability is important. 

But, still, I think the lack of knowledge to any program is compromising to our optimal well-being, just knowing, in the event 

something should catastrophically happen to us. 

Mr. HALL. Dr. Wersel, you also note that one spouse was required to seek permission from the VBA to purchase a home to be 

closer to family, that she was also required to be bonded. 

Dr. WERSEL. Yes. She is in California. And they were living in 

northern California, and her family was in southern California. 

And it was really challenging for her to be up at the VA where he 

was, or at the care facility where he was, and she wanted to be 

closer to family. And when she said, okay, to get to California, they 

had to approve. She had to ask for permission to move to San 

Diego. 

I don’t know if it is the State requirement that is asking her to 

be bonded, but we were told that she is required to pay $250 a year 

to be bonded. Because, at the time, it was decided that she did not 

have the correct criteria to not be bonded. But she does pay $250 

a year to be bonded as fiduciary of her husband. And part of the 

insult is that, you know, they went through college together; she 

has been with him all these years, and now she is being monitored 

carefully. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
28 

Mr. HALL. I understand that and I sympathize with it. I think 

all of us do. And I think most Americans would feel that this is, 

on the face of it, illogical, onerous and insulting, particularly for a 

family member who goes back many years and went to school with 

a veteran who is now incapacitated, like cases that Ms. Wade mentioned, had a power of attorney, was handling the finances while 

the spouse was serving overseas before the injury occurred and so 

on. 

But the question is, do you recommend any level of scrutiny and 

accountability that would be acceptable to family members to prevent misuse of funds. 

Dr. WERSEL. At what level. 

Mr. HALL. Yes, the question is, what level? 

Dr. WERSEL. At what level. I think Ms. Wade said it well. It is 

the fact that someone who has a vested relationship with that 

servicemember or with that survivor is that spouse, someone who 

has cared for that person unconditionally, that should not be scrutinized in that level. That is where we have issues with the wife 

who is still caring for the person who said, ‘‘Here is your power of 

attorney, and I am naming you as the person in my power of attorney.’’ The servicemember chose, and legally chose, to have this person care for them in the event that there was a traumatic event 

or a catastrophic event. So that was chosen. 

To have the Government come in and say, we want to monitor 

where you live, how you live, how you spend—and in our relationship, very much like her husband, we did a vacation every year, 

every single year. Now, unfortunately, my husband is not alive, but 

I would be insulted if someone wanted to know why we chose the 

vacation we chose this year. And it is something we tried to keep 

the tradition going. If it was something we did in the past, you continue. It never should be questioned. It is that close family member 

that has invested the time with that servicemember. 

So if you are thinking about levels, I think that the next of kin 

should probably not be scrutinized as much as someone who doesn’t 

have that connection or perhaps wasn’t named legally before there 

was a death—I mean, a catastrophic event that left them incapacitated. 

Am I getting there? 

Mr. HALL. Oh, you are, yes. 

Dr. WERSEL. Okay. Good. 

Mr. HALL. I appreciate your suggestion. And I want to thank you 

also. 

Dr. WERSEL. There is one thing that we talked about, that first 

question, and I think I didn’t touch upon it correctly. You know, 

in the event of one of our children, if they became incapacitated 

and there were special needs, can you all come in and say, we don’t 

want the mother to be the fiduciary? Can VA pick and choose who 

they will choose to be the—do we have any control of that? 

Mr. HALL. I am sure Mr. Mayes can answer that in the next 

panel when the time comes. 

Dr. WERSEL. Okay. That is a concern. 

And those are the questions we have. The main concern is, when 

you are a surviving spouse or a survivor, sometimes what you don’t 

know is okay, but then when you discover there are programs out 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
29 

there, you want to be prepared, you want your ducks in a row. We 

need to know what would happen in the event of a catastrophic 

event that would happen to me tomorrow. 

Mr. WEIDMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I just offer one comment? 

Mr. HALL. Yes, Mr. Weidman. 

Mr. WEIDMAN. That comment is, one size clearly does not fit all. 

And Brad Mayes and his competent pension staff are bound to act 

according to the law as interpreted by the General Counsel. This 

is the place in statute—and I would encourage and suggest that we 

encourage the administration to work with this Committee to fashion language so that they have the latitude to treat situations differently—to a distant nephew, who the individual was not close to 

who may end up being the guardian of an elderly vet, is not the 

same as a spouse of 50 years. And right now the law doesn’t provide for Brad’s people being able to use their discretion to what 

makes sense. And that is why it would be my suggestion that you 

look at, how do you still have accountability yet have the latitude 

not to insult the people who have become fiduciary who have that 

kind of relationship? 

Mr. HALL. Right. Thank you, Mr. Weidman. Or a parent would 

probably fall in the same category of closeness to the individual, in 

my opinion. But we will follow up with our next panel with that. 

Ms. Pflanz, in your testimony you stated that field examiners 

often lack adequate training. What training would you recommend? 

And how often should field examiners receive updated training or 

refresher training to ensure that they remain current with all Federal Fiduciary Program policy and procedures? 

Ms. PFLANZ. I think that field examiners, before they go out, 

should get the same kind of training as the veterans service representatives do in the challenge program that they have. And I also 

think that they should—as field examiners, we should be retrained 

every 2 years, you know, enhance our training. We deal with so 

many different levels, different regulations, State laws, Federal 

laws, and things change. So I think every 2 years would keep us 

at the best we can be to provide a service to those who need us the 

most. 

Mr. HALL. That is similar to lawyers doing continuing legal education or other professions where there have to be yearly or biyearly updates and education. 

And in your statement, also, you recommend getting rid of the 

western fiduciary hub, contending that it has adversely affected 

training, case management, and tracking. Could you give us any 

more details on the problems of the hub in your opinion, and indicate any specific examples of how a case was mishandled by staff 

in the western hub or how the case could have been better handled 

if it was located in another office? 

Ms. PFLANZ. Personally, I am a field examiner out of the Winston-Salem office, and we have—you know, ours are in-house. But 

I know that my coworkers in-field are having a hard time getting 

service from a different regional office. It is totally in a different 

State. They don’t know the local in-State benefits that we, as field 

examiners, are required to also speak about. 

And we have a timeliness issue, which affects our production, on 

being able to get it to a totally different State, our reports, so that 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
30 

if any actions need to be done, you know, it can be done in a timely 

manner. We count on the mail system, and it is just not working. 

With better training and then more tools, be automated, and vehicles—our regional offices, we are there. Our frontline supervisors 

are in the State. With better training, we would be able to provide 

a much better service, you know. Just as this lady had said, you 

know, to get the word out there. We also talk about State benefits, 

local benefits. And one hub handling 13 different States with 13 

different rules or different benefits is cumbersome. 

Mr. HALL. I understand that and appreciate that comment. 

You also have mentioned that you would like Congress to improve the lines of communication between the VA Fiduciary Program and other Federal agencies, and you note in your testimony 

a joint program between VBA and Social Security Administration. 

Could you elaborate on this program? And what are the pros and 

cons of establishing similar joint programs between VBA and other 

Federal and State agencies? 

Ms. PFLANZ. As a field examiner, when I go out, there is—and 

we see misuse. It is not always just on the VA benefits. Normally, 

that person also has control of our beneficiary’s Social Security, 

military retirement, personal retirement. As field examiners, we 

can only take so much action. There is no follow-up. We don’t send 

our reports to Social Security, you know, saying, ‘‘Hey, there is a 

problem.’’ Social Security, if they have somebody that is rated, you 

know, as incompetent or a fiduciary that is not doing what they are 

supposed to do, there is no feedback, no warning to me on the road, 

you know, out there working. You know, it is trial and error on 

both parts of a system that could work. 

Mr. HALL. So interagency communication would help both? 

Ms. PFLANZ. Tremendously for everybody, especially our beneficiaries. 

Mr. HALL. From the AFGE point of view, I gather you would like 

to see a total revamp of the program that would allow field examiners to have more input, better training, better equipment, cell 

phones, et cetera, improved policies and procedures. 

Which is the most urgent of these changes? Or how would you 

have prioritized them? And what other changes might you recommend based on what you have heard today? 

Ms. PFLANZ. Our senior field examiners, they have been on the 

road, they have dealt with several situations, and they should be 

the voice to writing policies and procedures. That would be my 

number-one thing, would be to get them, who have the experience 

to change because they have been there, they have gone through 

it. And they have met people who don’t understand the programs. 

And they are more experienced than I on how to make it work, 

what we can do to make us more productive. 

We need tools. We need—like, they were talking about with the 

report generator, it is a great start, but it only provides one report 

that I as a field examiner am required to write. Our FBS program 

only gives our coaches a very limited scope or reports because it is 

for only 60 days. That also needs to be addressed. We need vehicles. We are where the rubber meets the road. 

Mr. HALL. Well, I want to thank you, Ms. Pflanz, Dr. Wersel, Mr. 

Gadd, Ms. Wade, Mr. Weidman. Thank you all for your testimony. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
31 

Thank you for the perspective and the dedication and insight that 

you have brought us today, and for your patience. As usual, these 

hearings can take a long time, and we want to thank you. 

We may have some follow-up questions for you in writing, which 

we will send to you. But, for now, I just want to say thanks, and 

you are now excused. And have a great rest of your day. We will 

try to do our best to solve some of these problems. 

We will ask panel three to join us: Gary Chesterton, Chief of 

VBA’s Fiduciary Program staff; Bradley G. Mayes, Director of Compensation and Pension Service for the Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; with Diana Rubens, 

Associate Under Secretary for Field Operations of VBA, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Mr. Mayes, the floor is yours, sir. 

STATEMENTS OF BRADLEY G. MAYES, DIRECTOR, COMPENSATION AND PENSION SERVICE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY DIANA M. RUBENS, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY 

UNDER SECRETARY FOR FIELD OPERATIONS, VETERANS 

BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; AND GARY CHESTERTON, CHIEF, FIDUCIARY STAFF, COMPENSATION AND PENSION SERVICE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Mr. MAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to appear 

before you today to speak of the initiatives under way to enhance 

the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Fiduciary Program. 

I am accompanied by Ms. Diana Rubens, as you mentioned, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Field Operations, and Mr. Gary 

Chesterton, Chief Fiduciary Staff for Compensation and Pension 

Service. I don’t know if I could handle two of him, but he is doing 

a lot of great stuff for us. 

The Fiduciary Program oversees VA benefits paid to those veterans and beneficiaries who, because of injury, disease, or the infirmities of age, are unable to manage their financial affairs. VA currently supervises more than 108,000 VA beneficiaries, with cumulative estates exceeding $3 billion. These veterans and their widows and children are among our most vulnerable clients. 

First, let me say that VA takes very seriously the recommendations made by the Government Accountability Office and VA’s Office of Inspector General and is working to implement recommendations made in their recent reports as well as other important measures that we believe will further strengthen our program. 

I would like to briefly highlight some of the strides VA has made 

within the last 18 months which are contributing to improved service delivery and oversight of benefits to this group of veterans and 

beneficiaries. 

In September 2008, a new Chief of the Fiduciary Staff, Gary, 

who is sitting to my left, was recruited to spearhead our reform efforts in this program. Shortly thereafter, we selected a new Assistant Director for Veterans Services, who has overall responsibility 

in this program area. And these individuals bring many years of 

technical and management experience to bear on our efforts to 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
32 

strengthen the program and the service delivery for these veterans 

and beneficiaries. 

In addition to these leadership changes, we have doubled the size 

of the staff responsible for fiduciary policies and procedures and we 

have reassigned quality assurance case reviews to our national 

quality assurance staff, located in Nashville, Tennessee. 

We are taking steps to clarify existing procedural guidance. The 

operations manual for fiduciary activities is undergoing a complete 

revision. Several policy changes are already in place to increase 

protections, to include changes in bonding requirements and documentation requirements for certain categories of both budgeted and 

unbudgeted expenses. And this guidance was contained in Compensation and Pension Service Fast Letters that have been issued 

to the field within the last year. 

VA has deployed several measures to improve oversight of investigations into allegations of misuse of beneficiary funds. In cases 

where a misuse allegation has occurred, policy is now in place that 

requires regional office fiduciary activities to provide VA’s Central 

Office all documentation pertaining to the investigation of these allegations. 

To improve operational efficiencies, VA consolidated the management of 14 fiduciary activities within the western area under the 

fiduciary hub pilot program located at the regional office in Salt 

Lake City, Utah. Analysis of the pilot, along with recommendations, will be completed by September 30th of this year and will address program strengths, weaknesses, and lessons learned, and 

make recommendations on the feasibility of expansion of the hub 

concept. 

The hub is the only fiduciary activity operating in a paperless environment, which has served its unique configuration well. The hub 

also created a misuse team which specializes in these types of investigations. 

The hub is unique in that it has integrated Microsoft MapPoint 

software in the scheduling of field exams within the hub’s jurisdiction. Utilizing this technology has reduced overall travel times and 

increased the effectiveness of our field examiners. 

These are examples of improvements that have been realized 

with this consolidation. 

We also recognize the need to improve the information technology systems available to our field fiduciary personnel in the administration of this program. The current electronic case management system, the Fiduciary Beneficiary System, poses some limitations with historical data, as you heard, interfacing with other systems currently employed by VA, and workload management and fiduciary oversight. We have initiated steps to replace the system. 

We are developing a request for information to solicit interest from 

the private sector in an alternative electronic case management 

system. 

In conclusion, I want to affirm the commitment of VA to serve 

and protect our most vulnerable population of veterans and beneficiaries. The interest expressed in our program by the Office of Inspector General, the GAO, and this Committee is a testament to 

the very important task we have at hand. VA is committed to take 

every step necessary to ensure that we fulfill our obligations to proVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:41 Dec 17, 2010 Jkt 057016 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\TEMP\57016.XXX 57016

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
33 

tect this special segment of veterans and beneficiaries whom we 

serve. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. And I would 

be glad to address any questions or comments regarding my testimony here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mayes appears on p. 68.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Mayes. 

I know the report isn’t due until September on the pilot western 

hub. But have you heard anything? Do you have any response to 

the earlier critique about 13 different States’ differing regulations 

causing a problem for work being done from that hub? 

Mr. MAYES. I am going to defer that question to Ms. Rubens, who 

has management responsibility for the hub. 

[The following was subsequently received from the VA:] 

The analysis of the Western Area Fiduciary Hub has been completed, and 

the draft report is expected to be finalized by the end of the calendar year. 

VA will share the report with the Subcommittee at that time. 

Ms. RUBENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will tell you that I was the western area director when we decided we needed to look at how we do this better within the constraints that we live with today. 

One of the things we recognized right off was we would be bringing together an amalgam of different States, different court systems, different rules. We work closely with the folks from General 

Counsel and the local regional counsels in an effort to develop the 

training program that we would need to incorporate for the legal 

instruments examiners that would be living in Salt Lake. We continue to review that in an effort to ensure we have made that connection the way we need to. 

At the same time, I would say to you that the field examiners 

all remained out based. They need to be in the communities where 

the veterans are. And so we continue to have that local relationship 

then with our regional council and the local courts in an effort to 

ensure we are aware of changes that might come about in individual States and can inform the folks in the hub of any of those 

changes. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Ms. Rubens. 

Mr. Mayes, given the persistence of the problems OIG identified 

in the 2006 study and again in the 2010 report, could you elaborate 

on the steps VBA intends to take to address these issues that have 

lingered in the Fiduciary Program? 

Mr. MAYES. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I will break this along two lines 

of discussion. 

One has to do with ensuring that funds are appropriately utilized 

on behalf of a beneficiary who we have determined can’t manage 

their affairs for whatever reason. We have instituted new bonding 

requirements. We are checking to make sure that bonds are in 

place every time we do an accounting and that they are current. 

We are insisting on pre-approval for any unbudgeted expenses in 

excess of $1,000. We have set a national standard on that. We have 

a requirement that budget expenses that exceed 15 percent more 

than what we have in the fund usage agreement, require receipts, 

if we can’t determine at the time of the annual accounting what 

those monies were spent on. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
34 

Another thing that we are doing is, during our annual accountings, we are requiring bank statements that show all transactions 

during the accounting period. Previously, the requirement simply 

required evidence that funds were in the account. And we were 

concerned that, in particular, fiduciaries who were managing multiple beneficiaries might have been moving monies around, and 

then they were appearing at the time of the accounting and there 

was no evidence, from our point of view, that those monies weren’t 

in that particular fiduciary’s account for the entire period. 

So we have done a lot of things along those lines. Any time there 

is an allegation of misuse, we are going to review the documentation that either led to a formal misuse determination—in other 

words, there was some merit to the misuse allegation, we investigated it, and we did a formal determination. We are going to review that. But even in cases where we determined that there isn’t 

merit to the allegation, we want to see those. So there is much 

more oversight that we are putting in place. 

And the second thing that we are doing is we are focusing on the 

training. The previous panels hit this pretty hard, and we agree. 

That is one of the things that the Government Accountability Office 

said, was we really need to focus on the training. 

Gary and his staff have been out to nine stations. We are scheduled to visit 20 more stations. They have developed a training program to deliver in person to the field examiners and the legal instruments examiners in these regional offices. So we are hitting the 

road, basically. I have given him more staff, and we are going to 

hit the road and make sure that everybody is up to speed. 

Mr. HALL. Well, that is good to hear. 

I am happy to hear you say that FBS is going to be replaced. Do 

you have a timeline in mind for that, in terms of the proposals 

coming back and one being chosen? 

Mr. MAYES. We have been working with subject-matter experts 

to help us identify the requirements, and we are working closely 

with field representatives, with folks in Ms. Ruben’s chain of command, to come in. 

Mr. MAYES. We need, as I think someone on an earlier panel 

said, we need those subject matter experts to help us identify the 

requirements. 

We intend to put a request for information (RFI) out on the 

street to solicit interest from the private sector. This is a workload 

management tool that we need to build, to replace. So we would 

like to engage the private sector community to see if maybe there 

is something that we can use off the shelf and not rely on in-house 

development. I believe that we can have that RFI on the street 

within a matter of weeks. 

Mr. HALL. There might be reason to make sure that it is compatible with VA’s new electronic system that will be handling claim, 

in general, which also is supposed to be compatible with DoD so 

that there will be a continuous stream of compatibility. There will 

be, of course, veterans who move from being self-sufficient to being 

incapacitated and perhaps being in the Fiduciary Program, and it 

might be helpful to have all three of these systems talk to each 

other. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
35 

I also wanted to you ask regarding FBS, during the interim now 

while this search for the new system is going on, is it possible to 

somehow tweak it so it can accept say the last four numbers of the 

Social Security number? I just called one of the unions that I belong to because they sent me a letter about something, and they 

wanted to know which John Hall they were talking to. It is a fairly 

common name. They are a national organization, and the first person I got on the phone asked for the last four digits of my Social, 

and I gave it and they pulled up the right account. As the reports 

mentioned, that would be a quick and easy fix. Hopefully that is 

an attainable improvement. 

Mr. MAYES. Mr. Chairman, we actually have the capability to collect a tax ID number in our system. We have mandated that at this 

point, that we collect a tax ID number. 

The key, and Mr. Bertoni made reference to this, the key is to 

make sure that we can associate every veteran or beneficiary that 

is in this program with their fiduciary because there are certain requirements that we have with respect to oversight, especially in 

those cases where you have a fiduciary handling multiple beneficiaries and certain liabilities that incur as a result of legislation. 

So now that is a requirement, whether it be an individual Federal fiduciary or a professional fiduciary who is handling multiple 

beneficiaries. 

Mr. HALL. When did that requirement go into effect? 

Mr. MAYES. That requirement just went into effect this past 

week in a policy letter that went out. 

Mr. HALL. That is good. OIG also noted deficiencies in staffing 

and workload models for the program. For example, decisions regarding staffing are left to the judgment of individual RO directors. 

As a result, the OIG contends that a wide variation exists in the 

number of beneficiaries managed by different individual legal instrument examiners. It is a pretty wide variation, from the hundreds to well over a thousand. What steps are being taken to remedy this problem, and how long do you think it will take to get to 

a more uniform level? 

Mr. MAYES. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make one point 

because I heard that from members of the previous panel. You 

know, when we are talking about field exams, the circumstances 

with which we perform these field exams vary across jurisdictions. 

If you are located, for example, in Montana, you may have to drive 

literally hundreds of miles to conduct a single field exam as opposed to maybe Chicago where while you are not traveling so far, 

you are in rush hour traffic as compared to Topeka, Kansas, where 

going 10 miles, you are there in 10 minutes. So I don’t think we 

can say that the requirements in Montana would be exactly the 

same as they would in Kansas vis-a`-vis a metropolitan area in the 

east. 

But we have some work to do here. When we set up the western 

area, Ms. Rubens was very involved in helping us figure out what 

is the proper allocation of resources. 

Ms. RUBENS. I can address that. One of the challenges, of course, 

is as we look at the resources we have and how we ensure that 

they are effectively and efficiently spread across the organization, 

there is an overarching resource allocation model for the service 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
36 

centers across the country that looks at not only receipts in terms 

of work, but it looks at qualities and production and timeliness and 

all of those things as we look at how do we make sure that we distribute resources in a way that allows them to be used effectively. 

When we established the western area hub, one of the things 

that we started out with was looking at how many incompetent 

veterans and guardians that we had out there and appointees, as 

well as each individual office, breaking that down, how many legal 

instruments examiners did they have. Quite frankly, part of my 

concern was I didn’t think we were doing the job as well as we 

needed to. My hope was to help build a cadre of legal instruments 

examiners that would not be left behind. If there were only two 

and one retired, we have some redundancy built in so we can absorb any of those changes that might come unexpectedly. 

We have worked hard to ensure that initial staffing model which 

aggregated those legal instruments examiners into Salt Lake, as 

well as maintain those field examiners out there, to ensure that we 

can still get out and do all those field exams. 

It is part of an ongoing review that I regularly talk with the nowwestern area director about in terms of how are we doing in performance, are we meeting our obligation to appoint those fiduciaries in a timely manner for those initial appointments as well 

as getting those follow-ups done. 

Currently we are going to work with the service to conduct that 

overview of how is it going? Is the fiduciary hub a concept that we 

are ready to advocate as an organization and spread across the 

country? That is a key. At the moment I will tell you we continue 

to evaluate the surges in field exams that need to be accomplished 

when we lose field examiners. 

We have worked with the service employees. AFGE was part of 

a group last year that looked at what are the performance standards for our field examiners, and redesigned those in an effort to 

address the issues Brad raised when it comes to the different locations that you have. I believe in Salt Lake we have the right ratio. 

As I look at those numbers of 400 per field examiner, and I think 

the 745 per LIE in Salt Lake are manageable. We have made some 

tremendous strides in the accountings and in the work we are 

doing. We have made some tremendous strides in ensuring that seriously overdue accountings are acted upon timely, that we are appointing successor fiduciaries when that is required. But we will 

have an overarching review to ensure that we have those ratios 

proper, that we have the right training and the right standards before we make any adjustments about how do we go forward, if that 

is the decision. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. 

We have all heard and know that, thanks to faster, better medical care on the battlefield, that more of our servicemen and women 

are surviving today in OIF, OEF than previously in Vietnam, for 

instance. There is a much higher ratio of injured that survive, but 

much more serious injuries for many of them, debilitating injuries. 

Have you seen an increase percentage-wise in terms of the recent 

veterans, post-2001 veterans relative to the overall veterans’ population who need the services of a fiduciary? Or does it still track 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
37 

with the veterans’ populations based on the age groups and conflicts in which veterans served? 

Mr. MAYES. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask Mr. Chesterton to 

go ahead and take that question. 

Mr. CHESTERTON. Yes, sir. We have actually recently looked at 

that and we wanted to see if there was an increase proportionally 

as to the total population. What we found is proportionally it is 

growing exactly the same as the total beneficiaries. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. That is interesting. I am sure that age 

probably accounts. 

Mr. MAYES. I was going to say, lots of time that is what happens. 

Mr. HALL. It is the great leveler. As a friend of mine wrote, Time, 

the conqueror. 

Can you tell us or if you don’t have the information, supply it to 

the Subcommittee later, which RO offices experience the highest 

volume of cases involving the misuse of beneficiary funds? 

Mr. MAYES. We will have to take that one for the record, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The VA subsequently provided the following information:] 

Since FY 2005, when P.L. 108–454 put the requirements in for misuse, the 

following States had the most misuse allegations/determinations: Georgia 

(Atlanta RO), California (now being processed by Salt Lake City RO), and 

Alabama (Montgomery RO). 

Mr. HALL. How many cases has the VA discovered on the scale 

of that one involving the fiduciary who embezzled nearly a million 

dollars to support her gambling habit as we understand? Is that an 

isolated incident or are there other cases of that scale? 

Mr. MAYES. Mr. Chairman, I would like to give you an accurate 

answer on that because I think you are asking are there other 

cases of fraud in excess of a million dollars? 

Mr. HALL. Or in that ballpark? 

Mr. MAYES. It is isolated, I will tell you that. It is certainly isolated, but let me take that question for the record and I will give 

you an accurate answer. 

[The VA subsequently provided the following information:] 

Since enactment of P.L. 108–454, three cases have involved embezzlement 

of approximately $1.0 million. The three cases were in California, Minnesota, and Texas. 

Mr. HALL. When does the VA plan to launch the new Internet 

portal for VA fiduciaries? What information is currently available 

on the Web site for families and others who are interested in securing the appointment of a fiduciary to care for their beneficiaries, 

and what will be up on the new portal when it goes up? 

Mr. MAYES. Right now we have actually provided, I have seen it, 

an E-benefits portal. The E-benefits portal is leveraging the authentication that exists already within the Department of Defense. 

So as an active duty service person separates, they move into VA. 

They can be in the system and access information that is up in this 

portal. In its infant stages, what we are deploying up on the portal 

are parts of our applications that might give an individual for example information on the status of their claim. Did VA receive a 

piece of evidence, for example, and that information will be available to an accredited representative. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
38 

In the Fiduciary Program, I suppose that we would provide access to a family member if they can represent the claimant before 

the VA. So in that respect, they would be able to access the information to see what is transpiring in the claims process. 

Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what we would put 

out there. In other words, when we set up a fiduciary for a veteran 

or a beneficiary, really the interaction is on a very personal level 

because we are out there conducting a field exam. We do followup beneficiary exams, and sometimes there is interaction when we 

are doing the annual accountings. We did take a note about a 1– 

800 number, I think was the suggestion, some place for someone 

to go if they have questions about how they can utilize those benefits and that is something that we will also take back. Maybe we 

can put that information up and have it be accessible through the 

Web as well, but I don’t know that it would be in that Web portal 

because that is designed for the individual to access their report. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. Regarding the OIG report which noted 

that from FY 2005 through 2008, VBA has not included statistical 

information pertaining to misuse of funds as required by title 38, 

U.S. Code, section 5510. When can we expect VBA to provide this 

information? 

Mr. MAYES. There is some information on misuse in the 2009 and 

2010 annual benefits reports. I believe the piece we are missing is 

what we saw in the OIG report. I believe that the statute also requires that we report in the Annual Benefits Report (ABR) the results of the cases that are referred to the OIG. So now that we 

have that, we will include that in the ABR. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. Present company excepted, and not to 

raise questions about the honesty of family members, but in your 

experience and the statistics that you have, what is VBA’s opinion 

or view of professional versus familial fiduciaries and the misuse 

of funds that occurs? 

Mr. MAYES. For us, we want the most effective, least restrictive 

fiduciary. That’s what we care about. We care that the fiduciary is 

willing to serve in that capacity. We care that the fiduciary is willing to adhere to our legal requirements. We care that they have the 

beneficiary’s best interests at heart, and we require that they meet 

certain credit and criminal history requirements. That is what is 

important to us. 

Now, I would suggest that in most cases the most effective, least 

restrictive avenue for achieving what is best for the beneficiary is 

appointing a family member who is willing to act in that capacity 

as a fiduciary. In fact, that is what we find in most cases. In a majority of cases, we have family members acting in that capacity. 

Unfortunately, in some cases we have seen that family members 

misuse those funds. So it is not about family member versus professional fiduciary, it is about who is going to discharge that responsibility most effectively. That is what the VA cares about. 

Mr. HALL. Regarding some of the testimony before that we 

heard, what is your opinion about the possibility of providing VA 

funds to pay for living expenses that are shared by the beneficiary 

and the caregiver fiduciary and should we consider providing compensation to familial fiduciaries? 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
39 

Mr. MAYES. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am glad you asked that question. When we pay fees, when we authorize fees to a professional 

fiduciary, those fees come out of the benefits to the beneficiary. So 

it is not like there is this extra fee that is paid. We are authorizing 

an amount that has a cap on it by law for a professional fiduciary 

to manage the Federal funds to make sure that the beneficiary is 

taken care of. So when we have a family member that is utilizing 

the veteran’s monies, funds, benefits, based on the disability or disabilities they incurred in the service, it is perfectly reasonable for 

the family fiduciary to use those funds for taking care of their family member. 

I think the question here is the level of oversight. I was listening 

to the earlier panels. I know that sometimes it may seem intrusive 

when we come in and we are trying to find out who is going to be 

the most effective, least restrictive fiduciary, and we ask to sit 

down with the family member and go through a fund usage agreement. 

But the reality is we don’t require bonds for spouse. We don’t require an annual accounting requirement for a spouse. That typically is a 3-year follow-up followed by another 3-year follow-up. We 

do require pre-approval for certain expenses that are expenses over 

a thousand dollars that aren’t part of a fund usage agreement, and 

we do require that those funds be utilized to take care of the beneficiary. 

So the requirements are a little less restrictive for the spouse. 

And I understand how it might be perceived as being onerous, but 

we have to balance that with the responsibility to ensure that the 

beneficiary is being taken care of. 

Mr. HALL. That is sensible. I am wondering if you think that 

there is enough consistency from one RO to another in terms of 

those thing you just talked about, the degree of oversight and the 

degree of questions asked and standards met and going through 

records. What we have heard is that there seems to be some offices 

that are more zealous or cautious or questioning or challenging, 

even, to family members in this position than others. So how can 

we get everybody on the same page and have the same level of 

scrutiny? 

Mr. MAYES. I think we have some work to do here. No question. 

I know Ms. Rubens, that is one thing that she presses me on as 

program manager. We have to have clear guidance and clear policy. 

I will tell you that we are in the process of revising our procedures. 

And we are bringing in some very experienced people from the field 

to do that. We are about 90 percent complete. So we have to have 

that clear policy out there. 

But I think even more importantly, we have to get out there with 

these field examiners and these legal instruments examiners, and 

that is why I brought Gary in and Christine Alford, the Assistant 

Director over this shop, and added staff. We have to get out there 

and train. We do have legal instruments examiners and field examiners with a couple of years’ experience. We have gone to nine stations. We are on tap to go to 20 more. We are going to hit every 

station. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
40 

So clarify the policies and procedures, streamline those where we 

can, and then we have to train. I agree that we have some work 

to do. 

Ms. Rubens, did you want to add anything to that? 

Ms. RUBENS. Yes, I do want to add one thing, Brad. The other 

thing we are going to do, while you all are going to be going out 

and hitting the road and training, you are also going to be bringing 

in folks from across the country to do an overarching training program to ensure that as these new policies have come out over the 

last year, we have a chance to visit them together, make sure that 

there is a clear understanding, and work towards that consistency 

that you address. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. I am sure our families and relatives who 

are acting as fiduciaries will appreciate that. I think we all agree 

there needs to be a level of oversight to ensure against abuses. And 

if there is sort of the same standard that everyone is expected to 

meet, then no one will feel picked on. 

Going back to professional fiduciaries, the compensation is 

capped at 4 percent, as I understand it, and yet there is no fixed 

limit to the number of beneficiaries that one fiduciary can manage. 

In one case, a fiduciary oversees the affairs of over 500 beneficiaries; is this a problem in your opinion? Do you have concerns 

with the number of beneficiaries one fiduciary can handle; or would 

you say that it depends on their staff and the circumstances? 

Mr. MAYES. I think that certainly some professional organizations are more capable of handling greater volume than others. I 

think it behooves the VA, and it was mentioned earlier, it behooves 

us to get out there and recruit more organizations that perform 

this type of work, get out there and inform them of the fact that 

this program exists and encourage them to engage us on behalf of 

our Nation’s veterans. 

In fact, Gary and I were just talking about that, and I would like 

for him to share with you some of the things that we have done 

to make some of our professional organizations aware of this program. 

Mr. CHESTERTON. In the previous year, we have started as a staff 

to go out to conferences such as National Guardianship Association. 

We are visiting and speaking at conferences for the National Association of Elderly Law Attorneys. We are also trying to work with 

AARP to go to their national convention. Our general counsel has 

gone to the national probate court judges conference, all in an effort to provide this outreach, provide this information, and to recruit qualified fiduciaries nationwide. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much. One more question and then 

we will submit some more questions for the record. And I want to 

thank you for your listening skills and all of you for the work that 

you are doing because I know we all have the same goal here. We 

are simultaneously dealing with, VA is dealing with, and the Congress is trying to help VA deal with a broad spectrum of problems 

and come up with solutions all at the same time, and it is affecting 

people in real-time in their lives as things are happening that matter very much to an individual or their family. And they matter to 

us as a country, too. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
41 

But we realize that this is a big agency with a lot of irons in the 

fire and changes being asked for and developed at the same time 

the work is going on day to day. So we are aware of the challenge 

that you all face. We want to help in any way we can. 

I would say to the representatives of the service organizations 

who spoke before, and to the Inspector General and the GAO, we 

are all in a chain of oversight helping each other hopefully get to 

the best possible solution. 

With that, my final question to you Mr. Mayes, can fees that are 

paid to fiduciaries, particularly family members who act at fiduciaries, be bonded, to be deducted from the beneficiary’s account, or 

must a fiduciary pay out of pocket for those fees? And can fiduciaries seek reimbursement from the VA for fees that are paid to 

secure bonding? 

Mr. MAYES. I am going to let Mr. Chesterton answer that question. He is our expert in that area. 

Mr. CHESTERTON. Whenever a fiduciary is required to provide a 

bond, that all comes out of a beneficiary’s funds. Any fees generally 

associated with the maintenance of the beneficiary’s estate come 

from the beneficiary’s funds. The fiduciary is not normally required 

to pay out of pocket at all. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chesterton, and Mr. Mayes and Ms. 

Rubens for your patience, testimony, and the work you are doing. 

I will be submitting on behalf of the Subcommittee some further 

questions. We will allow 5 days as usual for Members or witnesses 

to revise and extend their remarks. 

And just as the Gold Star Wives were largely unaware of the existence of this program, I think much of America is probably unaware of it. But it is very important to those who are in it and who 

need the services of the Fiduciary Program, and it is part of the 

contract, part of our honoring our commitment to the men and 

women who served this country and are in the position of needing 

this kind of help as a result. 

So we are looking forward to working with you to help improve 

the program and reduce the opportunities or the instances of misuse or abuse of funds to the lowest level possible and at the same 

time streamline the process for those families who are either doing 

it themselves or bringing in a professional, we are here to help as 

well as to do oversight. 

Once again, I believe I speak for all of the Members of Congress 

in expressing gratitude first of all to the veterans for their service; 

and second, to the families and fiduciaries for their continuing sacrifice, and finally to all of the organizations represented here and 

you from the VA and from the VBA who are working on this day 

to day. Thanks for your testimony. Thank you in advance for answering the questions that we are going to send to you in writing, 

and you are now excused. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:38 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
(42) 

A P P E N D I X 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John J. Hall, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 

Good Afternoon. 

Would everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance? 

Flags are located at the front and back of the room. 

I welcome you all here today, just a day after we passed another comprehensive 

veterans’ health bill aimed at supporting veterans’ caregivers as well as enhancing 

veterans’ physical and mental wellbeing. I was honored to support this bill, S. 1963, 

The Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2009. This legislation 

combines the recommendations of nearly 20 Members of Congress—Democrats and 

Republicans alike. Provisions in S. 1963 will provide training, education, and counseling for caregivers of veterans of any era. In addition, the bill allows VA to recruit 

and retain nurses, home health aides, and specialty care providers. Finally, this 

measure will help VA better diagnose and treat those who suffer from the invisible 

wounds of war, the stigma associated with them, and many other factors that make 

effective treatment difficult. Specifically, S. 1963 expands authority to fund services 

to treat wounded warriors suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 

traumatic brain injury (TBI), and other combat-related disorders, which lead to 

homelessness and, in some cases, suicides and criminal acts by veterans. 

Our hearing today is entitled ‘‘Examining the VA Fiduciary Program: How Can 

VA Better Protect Vulnerable Veterans and their Families?’’ This hearing is intended 

to examine VA’s fiduciary program and assess how Congress and VA can work together to better protect veterans and dependents that are in need of fiduciary services. 

Since 1926 when Congress passed the World War Veterans Act, VA has been providing oversight of its benefits paid to those beneficiaries who were incapable of 

handling their own affairs due to injury, disease, or infirmities of age. Today, the 

VA Fiduciary Program operates under authority contained in 38 U.S.C. § 5502(a)(1). 

The program is administered by VA Regional Offices and their respective Offices of 

Regional Counsel, which interface directly with VA beneficiaries and State courts 

in guardianship and commitment matters. 

On average, impaired beneficiaries received approximately $14,400 in fiscal year 

2008, about $4,200 more per year than the average for all VA compensation and 

pension beneficiaries. In fiscal year 2008, fiduciaries managed approximately $1.5 

billion in VA benefits for more than 103,000 beneficiaries. Thus far, for FY 2010, 

VA reports $696 million in benefits have been paid to more than 102,000 beneficiaries with a cumulative estate value of $3.1 billion. 

Recently, both VA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the GAO issued reports 

on VA’s fiduciary program. These reports underscored the benefits of this program, 

but pointed to insufficient staffing, training, and other resources that hamper the 

effective oversight of the fiduciary program. In the absence of adequate oversight 

and accountability, some fiduciaries have misused millions of dollars belonging to 

our veterans and their dependents. 

Let me take a moment to highlight some of the concerns about the Fiduciary Program raised by the VA OIG and GAO reports. From October 1998 to March 2010, 

the VA OIG’s Office of Investigations reports that it conducted 315 fiduciary fraud 

investigations, resulting in 132 arrests and monetary recoveries of $7.4 million in 

restitution, fines, penalties, and administrative judgments. One of these cases involved the submission of false financial reports by a fiduciary who attempted to conceal her embezzlement of nearly $1 million from 33 disabled veterans whose accounts she managed. The funds embezzled by the fiduciary were reportedly used to 

support her gambling habit. 

It should be noted that these problems are not representative of all fiduciaries. 

However, the fiduciary program is susceptible to abuse as a result of deficiencies 

noted by both the VA OIG and GAO reports. Specifically, both the VA OIG and GAO 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
43 

found: (1) VBA was not taking effective action to obtain seriously delinquent accountings; (2) VBA was not consistently verifying questionable expenses reported by 

fiduciaries; and (3) VBA was not adequately following up and reporting on allegations of misuse of beneficiary funds and estates. The VA OIG pointed out that VBA 

has also not been diligent in replacing problematic fiduciaries. In one case, a fiduciary was seriously delinquent in submitting multiple reports, ranging from 134 to 

215 days late. In addition, during that period, VBA had received numerous complaints concerning that fiduciary’s performance. However, the VBA took no action 

to replace this fiduciary. 

On the other end of the spectrum, we will hear from VSOs who complain that 

family-members who serve as fiduciaries are neither supported financially nor 

through training by VBA to discharge their duties. Moreover, the VSOs suggest that 

while it appears that some professional fiduciaries are not subjected to as much 

VBA oversight, family-member fiduciaries are viewed with suspicion and mistrust 

by VBA, despite the sacrifices that they make to care for incapacitated veterans 

and/or beneficiaries. For example, the Wounded Warrior Project reports that VBA 

required a mother who served as a fiduciary for her mentally disabled veteran son 

to reimburse funds spent on toilet paper for the home. 

This hearing provides a forum to explore these concerns with the VA Fiduciary 

Program. With that, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and insightful 

comments and questions from my colleagues on the Subcommittee. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Doug Lamborn, Ranking Republican Member, 

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, 

And welcome everyone, to this hearing on the Department of Veterans Affairs fiduciary program. 

The fiduciary program provides oversight of VA benefits to beneficiaries who are 

incapable of managing their funds as a result of injury or disease. 

When the VA or a court determines that a veteran is incompetent to handle his 

or her finances, the fiduciary program: 

• establishes an appropriate benefits payment method, • appoints a fiduciary to oversee his or her finances, • and provides continued oversight services. 

Through periodic personal visits to the beneficiary’s residence, VA Field Examiners monitor the welfare and needs of the veteran. 

My Subcommittee colleagues and I want to ensure that VA’s fiduciary program 

is taking every measure and has the support necessary to fully safeguard beneficiaries’ assets. 

During the 108th Congress, we passed legislation that President Bush signed into 

Public Law 108–454 on December 10, 2004. 

The provision made improvements to increase fiduciary accountability and 

strengthen protections for the beneficiary. 

This included more thorough investigations of fiduciaries prior to them being appointed and required VA to reissue benefits that were misused in cases where negligence was found. 

Today the Subcommittee would like a report on the effectiveness of these provisions and whether further Congressional action is needed to ensure that our most 

vulnerable veterans are afforded the highest level of protection possible. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I thank you all for your 

participation. 

Thank you, I yield back. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Belinda J. Finn, Assistant Inspector General for 

Audits and Evaluations, Office of Inspector General, 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

INTRODUCTION 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to discuss how the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) can better protect beneficiaries needing the care of a fiduciary and specifically, the recent report from the 

Office of Inspector General (OIG), Veterans Benefits Administration—Audit of the FiVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:41 Dec 17, 2010 Jkt 057016 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 E:\TEMP\57016.XXX 57016

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
44 

duciary Programs’ Effectiveness in Addressing Potential Misuse of Beneficiary 

Funds. Accompanying me is Mr. Timothy Crowe, Director of the OIG’s Audit Operations Division in St. Petersburg, Florida. 

Our 2010 audit showed that many of the program weaknesses persist since we 

last audited the program in 2006. In fact, some planned actions provided by the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) in response to our 2006 report, Audit of Veterans Benefits Administration Fiduciary Program Operations, were not completed or 

did not fully address our concerns about the protection of the estates of incompetent 

beneficiaries. We continue to be concerned that VA regional offices (VAROs) are not 

effectively employing some of the primary strategies and tools to uncover and address potential misuse of these beneficiaries’ funds. 

BACKGROUND 

Federal fiduciaries are appointed by VA under authority contained in Title 38, 

United States Code, Section 5502(a)(1), Payments to and Supervision of Fiduciaries. 

The fiduciary may be the spouse of a veteran; a chief officer of a VA or non-VA institution in which a veteran is receiving care; a legal custodian; or another responsible 

person. These beneficiaries are VA’s most vulnerable constituencies. In the fiscal 

year (FY) 2010 budget submission, VA reported approximately $696 million in benefits payments to more than 102,000 beneficiaries with a cumulative estate value of 

$3.1 billion. 

A State court can appoint a fiduciary whose duties and authority are established 

by Federal statute. In all cases, VA is responsible for ensuring that the VA-derived 

income and estates of incompetent beneficiaries are used solely for the care, support, 

welfare, and needs of those beneficiaries. The VBA administers this program at 

VAROs and the respective Regional Counsel offices. 

VBA Field Examiners and Legal Instruments Examiners (LIEs) are charged with 

monitoring the needs of Fiduciary Program beneficiaries and the protection of VBAderived funds. VBA Field Examiners determine and appoint fiduciaries for incompetent and/or legally disabled VA beneficiaries, establish and authorize the use of 

VA benefits and assets, and provide ongoing case management services through 

scheduled and unscheduled follow-up visits. During visits to the beneficiaries, Field 

Examiners assess the competence, adjustment, and personal welfare of the beneficiary; review fund usage, method of payment, and the performance of the fiduciary; 

develop information affecting entitlement to current or additional benefits; and ensure that the beneficiary’s dependents, if any, are adequately provided for with the 

funds available. 

LIEs share the responsibility with supervisors and Field Examiners for making 

administrative and quasi-legal determinations involving the overall supervision of 

beneficiary estates and the protection of rights to benefits. LIEs oversee the management of the financial affairs of an incompetent beneficiary through activities 

such as securing and analyzing annual accountings filed by fiduciaries. Accountings 

are the fiduciary’s written report on the management of a beneficiary’s income and 

estate and must include a beginning balance, itemization of income and expenses, 

and a statement of funds remaining at the end of the accounting period. The LIEs 

analysis of accountings is a critical component in monitoring fiduciary performance 

because it is where questionable expenses can be detected at the earliest stage. In 

addition, LIEs are to ensure that a required Surety Bond is in place in an amount 

adequate to protect the existing VA estate as well as anticipated VA income for the 

ensuing accounting period. Accounting periods are normally 1 year but can be 

lengthened up to 3 years in certain circumstances. 

When the Fiduciary Program does not adequately supervise appointed fiduciaries, 

incompetent beneficiary estates are subject to misuse. For example, a joint Federal 

and State investigation in Minnesota disclosed that a fiduciary submitted false accountings in an effort to conceal the embezzlement of nearly $1 million from 33 disabled veterans while acting as their appointed fiduciary. The defendant admitted to 

taking funds from the veterans’ bank accounts to support a gambling habit and to 

submitting false accountings to VA and agreed to make restitution to VA, the Social 

Security Administration, and a bonding company that reimbursed the veterans for 

their losses. Earlier this year, the fiduciary was sentenced to 55 months’ incarceration after pleading guilty to making a false statement to VA. 

Historically, incompetent beneficiary estates have been at risk of misappropriation 

by fiduciaries. The OIG reviews program performance through investigations, audits 

of the program, and inspections of fiduciary program operations and individual 

VAROs. From October 1998 to March 2010, the OIG’s Office of Investigations conducted 315 fiduciary fraud investigations, resulting in 132 arrests and monetary recoveries of $7.4 million in restitution, fines, penalties, and administrative judgments. Our oversight efforts have shown that Fiduciary staff have not always folVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:41 Dec 17, 2010 Jkt 057016 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 E:\TEMP\57016.XXX 57016

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
45 

lowed VBA policy when processing fiduciary claims or providing oversight of fiduciary activities. 

OIG Audit Results 

In 2006 and 2010, we issued audit reports on the Fiduciary Program. The 2006 

report contained seven recommendations to improve Fiduciary Program operations. 

Suggested improvements included ensuring staff challenge fiduciary accountings 

and focus on key fraud indicators; determining appropriate case load levels and 

staffing requirements; developing a training program to enhance skills needed to effectively conduct fiduciary oversight; and ensuring the accuracy of data reported in 

the Fiduciary-Beneficiary System (FBS), VBA’s case management system used by 

the Program to support an array of functions necessary for day-to-day operations. 

Our 2010 audit found that VBA still needs to improve its management infrastructure in the areas of information systems, staffing models, and management oversight to support the Fiduciary Program. 

Ineffective Support of Operations 

FBS has functional and data limitations that have severely affected management’s ability to use the system as a tool to support program operations effectively. VBA has not implemented upgrades to FBS to address system weaknesses identified both internally and by the OIG in previous reports. However, 

in October 2009, VBA initiated a study to analyze FBS functionality and to determine whether the system should be modified or replaced to meet the Program’s needs. VBA needs a system that can: 

• Capture data necessary to target funds at risk of misuse by fiduciaries. FBS 

does not maintain a list of fiduciaries replaced due to misuse and does not 

record accounting information such as VA and non-VA benefits, fiduciary 

expenditures on behalf of beneficiaries, financial institutions account balances, and Surety Bond values. 

• Contain reliable and accurate data for decision-making and external reporting. For example, FBS currently limits the user to a single entry for the 

estate value, which according to VA policy, should include both VA and 

non-VA funds. Since VA and non-VA assets are not recorded separately in 

FBS, Fiduciary Program management cannot use FBS data to identify VA 

estates that may require protection. In addition, FBS tracks fiduciaries by 

name, not a unique identifier, such as Social Security number or tax identification number. This makes it difficult to match a fiduciary to all their 

beneficiaries since the fiduciary’s name is not always entered into the system in a consistent manner. 

• Interface with other Compensation and Pension Information Technology 

systems, such as the Veterans Service Network (VETSNET), an application 

used to support VBA claims processing. Consequently, FBS cannot automatically notify Fiduciary Program staff of competency determinations or 

an impending large retroactive payment caused by a change in a beneficiary’s service connected status. 

• Provide an automated interface for external entities, such as fiduciaries, 

beneficiaries, or financial institutions. This system shortcoming precludes 

electronic submission of key data. Therefore, FBS cannot accept or process 

electronically submitted accounting information from fiduciaries or access 

financial institutions to secure account balance and transaction information. Instead, fiduciaries must manually prepare and mail accountings to 

VBA annually and staff must manually review the data provided, check for 

math errors, and reconcile income, expense, and estate balances to financial 

institution data. 

Lack of Staffing and Workload Models 

Our recent report also noted that VBA lacks a staffing and workload model for 

use by VAROs and Fiduciary Program management. Instead, decisions regarding Fiduciary Program staffing are left to the judgment of individual VARO Directors. As a result, a wide variation exists in the number of beneficiaries managed by individual LIEs, ranging from 188 to 1,576 beneficiaries per LIE. We 

found that the active involvement of local Fiduciary Program management in 

supervising the program was a decisive factor of whether the Fiduciary Program staff took timely and appropriate action to secure delinquent accountings. 

The Fiduciary Program Headquarters component also indicated that it lacks 

sufficient resources to address some program deficiencies. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
46 

We previously identified this issue in our 2006 audit. In response to that report, 

VBA said it would complete a work measurement study and convene a work 

group to examine Fiduciary Program staffing at the regional office level and 

make recommendations regarding caseloads. However, VBA’s 2007 Fiduciary 

and Field Examination Pilot Implementation Team Report indicated that historical guidelines relating fiduciary activity resources to beneficiaries were long 

ago abandoned and considered obsolete by program staff and field management. 

Insufficient Guidance to Fiduciaries 

VBA does not provide online information related to fiduciary matters such as 

guides for best practices, frequently asked questions, training, or other tools to 

assist fiduciaries. Some coaches and LIEs believe the majority of VARO followup for additional information and clarification is due to new fiduciaries not 

being fully knowledgeable of their duties, responsibilities, and program requirements. The availability of online resources to assist fiduciaries could potentially 

reduce requests to VBA for assistance and increase compliance with Fiduciary 

Program requirements. 

Inconsistent Quality Assessment 

VBA is not consistently conducting activities that could potentially increase the 

effectiveness of the Fiduciary Program. VBA’s Systematic Technical Accuracy 

Review (STAR) and Site Visit programs both review fiduciary program activities 

to ensure fiduciary staff comply with VBA policies and procedures in areas such 

as timeliness, payee designation, fund usage, and FBS accuracy. The Fiduciary 

Program does not analyze or trend STAR errors and Site Visit Program findings 

nor identify and disseminate best practices employed in the field. For example, 

some VAROs provide newly appointed fiduciaries with locally developed guidance. The literature discusses topics ranging from fund usage to reporting requirements and includes local VARO contact for the fiduciary activity. 

Lack of Staff Training 

Finally, training staff in this complex program is a continuing problem. Centralized training for Fiduciary Program managers has only occurred three times 

since 1987 and not at all since 2004. Centralized training for LIEs has only occurred twice for LIEs since 1991. According to VBA, Field Examiners and LIEs 

must complete a total of 80 hours of training each year. Of the 80 hours, 60 

should be related to VBA-suggested topics while the remaining 20 are at the 

discretion of the VAROs. In response to our 2006 audit, VBA said it was developing a new training curriculum for LIEs, but has yet to develop a standardized 

curriculum for new LIEs. During the recent audit, program management indicated that, during FY 2010, VBA would implement standardized training for 

LIEs, conduct the first of recurring managers training conferences, and deploy 

training teams to provide 40 hours of standardized training to Field Examiners, 

LIEs, and managers at each VARO. 

In 2006, we reported that suspected misuse of incompetent beneficiary estates 

went undetected because VARO staff did not follow up on questionable or incomplete data in fiduciary annual accounting statements and did not require documentation to support claimed expenses. The following examples from our 2010 audit 

show that many of the program weaknesses persist today. 

VBA was not taking effective action to obtain seriously delinquent accountings. 

Seriously delinquent accountings refers to those which are at least 120 days 

past due. Under specified circumstances, VBA policy requires fiduciaries to submit periodic accountings listing beneficiary assets, income, and expenses. We 

found that LIEs did not consistently pursue receipt of seriously delinquent accountings from fiduciaries. At 5 of 6 VAROs visited, 44 percent of the accountings drawn from a random sample became delinquent up to 710 days. Further, 

at 3 of these 5 VAROs, timely and appropriate actions were not taken to secure 

63 percent of the sampled delinquent accountings. As a result, we concluded 

that VBA was not managing the financial risks associated with the aggregate 

estate value of 17 beneficiaries totaling over $1.5 million nor were appropriate 

procedures followed to minimize the potential risks related to untimely accountings. 

VBA was not consistently verifying questionable expenses reported by fiduciaries. 

We identified qualitative weaknesses in the LIE review of expenditures of beneficiary funds by fiduciaries. LIEs consistently failed to take effective action to 

verify questionable expenses totaling $166,787 for 33 of the 137 accountings reviewed. For example, an LIE approved an accounting statement related to one 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
47 

beneficiary’s estate that showed house and automobile expenses totaling 

$17,364 without supporting documents or receipts, and did not challenge the expense. Based on our statistical sample of accountings reviewed, we projected 

that LIEs may not have adequately verified approximately $2.9 million in expenditures for 551 (29 percent) of 1,906 accountings completed between April 

1, 2009, and May 22, 2009. Recent policy changes implemented by VBA have 

strengthened fiduciary accounting requirements. However, VBA lacks an agency-wide policy requiring receipts or other documentation to substantiate 

unbudgeted and budgeted expenditures that exceed a pre-designated threshold. 

This has resulted in VAROs and individual staff applying different standards 

when verifying questionable expenses submitted by fiduciaries. Until VBA 

standardizes the accounting review process to the extent practical and minimizes the subjectivity in determining what constitutes a questionable expense, 

it lacks reasonable assurance that unusual or inappropriate expenditures are 

identified and verified to ensure funds were expended appropriately. 

VBA was not consistently replacing fiduciaries when appropriate. At two VAROs 

visited, we found a fiduciary with numerous late accountings while managing 

multiple beneficiary estates. Actions were not in process to replace these fiduciaries, in spite of these performance deficiencies. For example, at one VARO, 

a fiduciary was seriously delinquent in submitting four accountings ranging 

from 134 to 215 days late during the period 2004–2009. In addition, the VARO 

received multiple complaints from veterans regarding the fiduciary’s performance during this same period. However, the VARO had not taken any actions 

to replace this fiduciary. When VBA fails to take appropriate actions in a timely 

manner to replace fiduciaries that are responsible for multiple delinquent accountings, the potential for misuse or inappropriate diversion of beneficiary 

funds is increased. 

VBA was not adequately following up and reporting on allegations of misuse of 

beneficiary funds and estates. Misuse allegations of beneficiary funds may come 

to VBA as complaints from the beneficiary, their friends and relatives, or other 

interested parties. VBA policy requires staff to review, and if necessary, investigate allegations of misuse of benefits against a fiduciary within specified time 

frames. We found that 4 of 6 VAROs did not consistently process misuse actions 

timely or appropriately in 22 (96 percent) of 23 cases reviewed. Two VAROs did 

not report any misuse activity during the period January 2008–March 2009. 

However, our audit identified four cases of suspected misuse of funds at one 

VARO and one case at the other VARO that should have been processed and 

recorded according to VBA policy. Furthermore, for FYs 2005 through 2008, 

VBA did not include statistical information pertaining to misuse of funds by fiduciaries in the Annual Benefits Report to Congress as required by Title 38, 

United States Code, Section 5510. The required information includes: 

• The number of cases in which the fiduciary was changed because of a finding that benefits had been misused and how such cases of misuse of benefits were addressed by the Secretary. 

• The final disposition of such cases of misuse of benefits, including the number and dollar amount of any benefits reissued to beneficiaries. 

• The number of fiduciary cases referred to the Office of Inspector General 

and their disposition. 

• The total amount of money recovered by the Government in cases arising 

from the misuse of benefits by a fiduciary. 

In our 2010 report, we recommended that VBA provide a robust database to support program operations and develop a staffing workload model to guide resource 

allocation decisions. We also recommended that VBA develop and disseminate policies and procedures to improve the analysis of annual accountings filed by fiduciaries that can result in investigating and reporting allegations of misuse; provide 

more guidance to fiduciaries; ensure regular periodic accountings of the financial activities administered by fiduciaries; and ensure VAROs conduct local quality assessments of fiduciary operations. The Acting Under Secretary for Benefits agreed with 

our findings and provided target dates to complete planned actions that address our 

recommendations. We consider VBA’s planned actions responsive to our concerns 

and will follow up on their implementation. 

OIG Inspection of VARO Fiduciary Program Operations 

Our ongoing Benefits Inspection Program is an initiative to ensure our Nation’s 

veterans receive timely and accurate benefits and services. Since April 2009, the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
48 

OIG’s Benefits Inspection Division inspected fiduciary procedures to ensure staff 

provided proper oversight of incompetent beneficiaries at four VAROs. We found Fiduciary staff did not consistently follow VBA policy when processing fiduciary claims 

or providing oversight of fiduciary activities. Our analysis of 115 Personal Guardianship Folders found that 42 (37 percent) contained errors that affected or had the 

potential to affect beneficiaries benefits. 

Some examples of steps Fiduciary Program staff did not always perform include: 

• Complete credit checks for potential fiduciaries. 

• Document the verification of beneficiaries’ funds controlled by the fiduciary. 

• Complete agreements with Fiduciaries to ensure how beneficiaries’ funds 

are to be spent. 

• Verify annual Fiduciary accountings for accuracy. For example, a beneficiary’s estate should have been increased by $200,000 as the result of a 

property sale. Staff noted the beneficiary had assets of $66.82 after the sale 

of this property and did not question the disposition of funds resulting from 

the sale of the property. Consequently, VBA staff lacked assurance that 

these funds were spent appropriately and solely for the welfare of the beneficiary. 

We will continue to review and report on VARO performance in managing the fiduciary and field examination activity in future OIG benefit inspections. 

CONCLUSION 

VBA needs an effective Fiduciary Program in place to ensure consistent and effective monitoring of fiduciaries and beneficiary funds and estates. Effective oversight 

is necessary to the stewardship of beneficiaries’ financial affairs. During the course 

of our audit, Fiduciary Program management at VBA Headquarters made positive 

changes to the program such as requiring fiduciaries to submit monthly bank statements with annual accountings. We believe that more improvements are necessary 

to ensure the integrity of this program and the services it provides to vulnerable 

veterans and their families. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues. 

We would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other Members of the 

Subcommittee may have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Daniel Bertoni, Director, Education, Workforce, and 

Income Security Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office 

VA’S FIDUCIARY PROGRAM: VA Plans to Improve Program Compliance 

and Policies, but Sustained Management Attention is Needed 

GAO Highlights 

Why GAO Did This Study 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) pays billions of dollars in compensation 

and pension benefits to disabled veterans and their dependents. For those beneficiaries who are unable to manage their own affairs, VA appoints a third party, 

called a fiduciary, to manage their VA funds. Congress, VA’s Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) and GAO have noted that VA does not always have, or adhere to, 

effective policies for selecting and monitoring fiduciaries and therefore, does not 

fully safeguard the assets of beneficiaries in the Fiduciary Program. 

GAO was asked to discuss the Fiduciary Program and possible ways that it could 

be improved to better serve veterans, their families, and survivors. This statement 

is based on GAO’s February 2010 report (GAO–10–241), which examined (1) VA 

policies and procedures for monitoring fiduciaries and safeguarding beneficiary assets and (2) challenges VA faces in improving program performance and oversight. 

To conduct that work, GAO reviewed program policies and relevant federal laws and 

regulations, analyzed a nationally representative random sample of case files, interviewed Central Office managers and staff, and conducted three site visits to Fiduciary Program offices, which accounted for 25 percent of program beneficiaries. 

What GAO Found 

Inconsistent staff compliance with some Fiduciary Program policies and weaknesses in others hinder VA’s ability to effectively safeguard beneficiary assets; however, per GAO’s recommendations, VA plans to take steps to improve the program. 

GAO found that VA did not always take required actions to monitor fiduciaries 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
49 

1 VA regulations state that the agency may appoint fiduciaries for beneficiaries and beneficiaries’ dependents who are mentally ill (incompetent) or under legal disability by reason of 

minority or court action. 38 CFR § 13.55. 

within established time frames or document in the beneficiary’s case file that these 

actions were taken. Inconsistent staff compliance occurred in four areas: (1) initial 

visits to beneficiaries and fiduciaries, (2) follow-up visits to beneficiaries and fiduciaries, (3) follow up to obtain annual financial reports, and (4) oversight of surety 

bonds. For example, in about 18 percent of the cases GAO reviewed, VA was late 

in conducting required follow-up visits to monitor fiduciaries or did not provide sufficient documentation to show whether these visits were conducted. Similarly, while 

GAO estimated that about 39 percent of fiduciaries did not submit required annual 

financial reports on time, VA staff did not consistently follow-up with fiduciaries or 

failed to document actions that were taken. In addition to compliance issues, VA’s 

policies for conducting on-site reviews of professional fiduciaries who manage funds 

for multiple beneficiaries do not ensure that these fiduciaries are effectively identified and monitored. For example, the agency’s case management system uses the 

fiduciary’s name—which may be entered inconsistently—to match them to beneficiaries, rather than requiring a unique identifier, such as a Social Security number. As a result, VA cannot always identify the fiduciaries that need to be reviewed. 

Moreover, VA does not have a nationwide quality review process to ensure that onsite reviews are conducted properly and consistently. Per GAO’s February 2010 report recommendations, VA agreed to revise its Fiduciary Program policies in an effort to enhance its oversight role, increase staff understanding and staff compliance, 

and better safeguard beneficiary assets. 

Two key challenges hinder VA’s ability to improve Fiduciary Program performance and oversight, but VA has plans to address these challenges. First, managers 

and staff said that limitations with VA’s electronic fiduciary case management system hinder their ability to capture key information. Per GAO’s recommendation, VA 

has established a work group to evaluate alternative system modifications to meet 

the program’s case management needs. Second, managers and staff indicated that 

training may not be sufficient to ensure that they have the expertise to properly 

carry out program responsibilities, as many of them had less than 2 years of program experience. In its response to GAO’s recommendations, VA stated that it 

would begin providing additional standardized training for managers and staff this 

year. VA is also piloting a consolidated Fiduciary Program unit covering 14 VA regional offices to improve program performance and oversight. VA encountered a 

number of challenges during the pilot’s implementation and has not yet evaluated 

it, but per our recommendation, plans to do so by September of this year. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on how the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Fiduciary Program can better protect vulnerable veterans and 

their families. Each year, the VA pays billions of dollars in compensation and pension benefits to disabled veterans and their dependents. For those who are unable 

to manage their own affairs,1 VA appoints a third party, called a fiduciary, to help 

manage and protect the beneficiary’s funds. A fiduciary can be a spouse or other 

family member, or an entity such as a law firm, hospital, or nursing home. In fiscal 

year 2008, fiduciaries provided services for more than 103,000 beneficiaries, and 

managed nearly 4 percent of the $38.6 billion in compensation and pension benefits 

VA paid out in that year. Moreover, the average annual benefit amount for beneficiaries in this program was approximately $14,400 in fiscal year 2008, which is 

about $4,200 more per year than the average for all VA compensation and pension 

beneficiaries. 

Over the years, both Congress and VA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) have 

expressed concern that VA’s Fiduciary Program is not fully safeguarding beneficiaries’ assets. Areas of concern included delays in conducting visits to select fiduciaries and insufficient monitoring of VA fund usage by fiduciaries on behalf of 

beneficiaries. You asked us to discuss such issues and possible ways that the Fiduciary Program could be improved to better serve veterans, their families, and survivors. My statement draws on our recent report which examined (1) VA policies 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
50 

2GAO, VA’s Fiduciary Program: Improved Compliance and Policies Could Better Safeguard 

Veterans’ Benefits, GAO–10–241 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 2010). 3We analyzed a sample of case files from a population of about 103,700 adult beneficiaries. 

This excluded beneficiaries whom VA monitored with alternate methods (such as those who 

managed their own funds for a probationary period and those who VA monitored through letters 

or phone calls in lieu of some personal visits), as well as those who had negative estate values. 

All percentage estimates in this testimony have a margin of error of plus or minus 10 percentage points or less, unless otherwise noted. For additional information on our stratified random 

sample of cases, file review methodology and the reliability of data from the Fiduciary Beneficiary System (FBS), please see Appendix 1 in GAO–10–241. 4GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD–00–21.3.1 

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

and procedures for monitoring fiduciaries and safeguarding beneficiary assets and 

(2) challenges VA faces in improving program performance and oversight.2

Our work included reviewing program policies and relevant federal laws and regulations, analyzing a nationally representative random sample of 205 case files3 and 

visiting three Fiduciary Program units located in VA regional offices—St. Petersburg, Florida; Cleveland, Ohio; and Salt Lake City, Utah—where we interviewed 

managers and staff about program policies, procedures, and internal controls.4

These units accounted for 25 percent of the program’s beneficiaries. During these 

visits, we also conducted file reviews of cases where either VA suspected that fiduciaries were inappropriately using beneficiary funds or fiduciaries were seriously 

late in submitting annual financial reports documenting how beneficiary funds were 

spent. We also reviewed 12 VA on-site reviews which are examinations of financial 

records of fiduciaries who oversee multiple beneficiaries, whom we refer to as professional fiduciaries. Finally, we interviewed Central Office officials and staff as well 

as Veterans’ Service Organizations about the performance of the program. We conducted this performance audit from December 2008 to February 2010, in accordance 

with generally accepted Government auditing standards. Those standards require 

that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background 

Many individuals receiving monthly compensation and pension benefits from the 

VA have mental impairments that can prevent them from managing their finances. 

These conditions may result from injury, disease, or infirmities of age. The VA Fiduciary Program matches beneficiaries who are unable to manage their financial affairs with a fiduciary, giving preference to spouses. If VA is unable to locate a qualified spouse who is willing to serve in this capacity, an individual or other entity, 

such as a lawyer or nursing home, will be appointed. VA appointed fiduciaries who 

are not dependents or close family members can collect a fee for their services (generally up to 4 percent of a beneficiary’s annual benefit amount) and can oversee 

multiple beneficiaries. Whether a fiduciary is a family member or a professional, the 

responsibilities are generally the same and may include receiving the beneficiary’s 

VA benefits, paying the beneficiary’s expenses, maintaining the beneficiary’s budget, 

and generally seeing to the financial well-being—and, in some cases, the physical 

well-being—of the beneficiary. Finally, if a court has determined that a beneficiary 

is unable to handle his or her own affairs and appoints its own fiduciary, VA must 

assess the performance of that fiduciary to determine if he or she is suitable for 

managing VA benefits given the needs and welfare of the beneficiary. If VA decides 

to use the court-appointed fiduciary, the agency generally defers to certain rules set 

by the court, such as those pertaining to the fee amount that the fiduciary can 

charge for his or her services. 

Fiduciary Program policies and procedures are developed by Fiduciary Program 

Central Office staff under the Office of Policy and Program Management within the 

Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). Individual Fiduciary Program units are 

generally colocated in VA regional offices that also oversee other VBA programs. 

One major exception to this is the Western Area Fiduciary Hub, where Fiduciary 

Program units and files from 14 western VA regional offices were merged into a single unit colocated in the VA regional office in Salt Lake City, Utah, beginning in 

January 2008. 

Inconsistent Compliance with Some Policies and Weaknesses in Others 

Hinder VA’s Ability to Safeguard Beneficiary Assets 

Our February 2010 report noted that VA Fiduciary Program staff did not always 

take required actions within established time frames or document in the case files 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
51 

5 VA implemented recommendations from the VA OIG’s June 2006 report on the Fiduciary 

Program (Report No. 05–01931–158) by July 1, 2006. Recommendations involved VA’s efforts to 

conduct visits, obtain and review fiduciary financial reports, and obtain fiduciary bonds. As 

such, we chose this as the start date of our analysis. The concluding date of June 9, 2009, is 

the date by which we requested all files be sent to us. 6We could not determine if VA met its nationwide performance goal of conducting at least 

90 percent of initial visits on time because the number of cases in our sample for which we could 

assess initial visit timeliness between July 1, 2006 and June 9, 2009 was too small to project 

our results to the population. 7 In the remaining 19 cases, the files included documentation that an initial visit occurred; 

however, we were unable to assess the timeliness of these visits because documents lacked the 

date stamps needed to determine when the visits were requested and/or completed. Lack of date 

stamps could indicate that the photocopies of the files that VA provided us were of poor quality 

or that the documents in the original files were never stamped with one or both of the necessary 

dates needed to assess timeliness. 8 In some cases, such as when the fiduciary is a spouse or when the beneficiary is institutionalized, some of the subsequent visits may be substituted by letters or phone calls. 9 An additional estimated 6 percent of case files contained the report documenting that the 

visit had occurred, but lacked the date stamp necessary to assess timeliness. 

that the required actions were taken. Below are four areas where program staff did 

not always comply with program policies and, per our recommendations, how VA 

plans to address them. 

Initial Visits to Beneficiaries and Fiduciaries. VA policy states that initial 

visits to appoint fiduciaries are to be conducted within 45 days of a request for a 

fiduciary, and VA’s performance goal is to conduct at least 90 percent of these visits 

on time. Conducting timely initial visits is important because beneficiaries cannot 

begin receiving VA benefits until they are completed. 

We sampled and reviewed 67 case files in which initial visits were supposed to 

be conducted between July 1, 2006, and June 9, 2009,5 and found that 37 visits were 

conducted within the 45-day time frame, and 10 were from 3 to 39 days late.6 For 

one case, the file lacked documentation that an initial visit was made at all.7 Managers and staff in some offices we visited said compliance with the timeliness policy 

for initial visits was improving, but was still a concern. They attributed some compliance issues to a continued lack of staff and resources. 

Follow-Up Visits to Beneficiaries and Fiduciaries. Once the fiduciary is selected, staff conduct periodic follow-up visits to re-evaluate the beneficiary’s condition and to determine if funds have been properly used and protected. The first routine follow-up visit generally takes place 1 year after a fiduciary is selected, and 

subsequent visits typically take place every 1 to 3 years thereafter.8 According to 

VA managers, it is VA’s policy that follow-up visits to fiduciaries are to be conducted 

within 120 days of the scheduled date, and the on-time goal for these visits is also 

90 percent. Timely follow-up visits are important to determine the continued suitability of the fiduciary and to protect beneficiaries from potential misuse of their 

funds. 

Based on a nationwide sample of VA beneficiaries that had been assigned a fiduciary, we estimated that approximately 61,000 adult beneficiaries were supposed to 

have had at least one follow-up visit between July 1, 2006, and June 9, 2009. We 

estimated that 76 percent of these visits occurred within the 120-day time frame. 

In about 18 percent of the cases, however, VA did not conduct these required followup visits on time or provided insufficient documentation to show whether these visits were conducted at all. For the cases that were untimely (12 percent), they were 

between 1 to 216 days late. In the most extreme example among the cases with insufficient documentation to show whether visits were conducted (6 percent), the follow-up visit was overdue by 16 months.9 Similar to initial visits, program managers 

and staff noted that compliance with the 120-day time frame for follow-up visits can 

be challenging due in part to a lack of staff and time. Program managers said that 

conducting visits in a timely manner may be especially challenging in regional offices with only one or two Fiduciary Program staff who may also have responsibilities outside of the Fiduciary Program. In addition, managers and staff noted that 

conducting timely visits can be challenging in areas where staff must drive long distances to see beneficiaries and fiduciaries. 

Annual Financial Reports. VA policy generally requires staff to obtain yearly 

financial reports and bank statements from some fiduciaries to determine how beneficiary funds were used. When fiduciaries do not submit their financial reports on 

time, staff are required to follow-up with them and document such actions in the 

beneficiaries’ files. Staff can follow-up with letters, telephone calls, or face-to-face 

contacts. VA policy requires staff to conduct the first of such follow-up actions when 

fiduciary financial reports are 35 to 65 days late and again when they are 90 days 

late. At that time, they may inform the fiduciary of the possible repercussions of 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
52 

10The margin of error was approximately plus or minus 12 percent. 11The margin of error was approximately plus or minus 13 percent. 12 It was not possible to determine if or when the remaining 14 percent of the financial reports 

were submitted, due to poor file documentation, including lack of date stamps. The margin of 

error was approximately plus or minus 11 percent. 13The number of cases in our sample where financial reports were submitted more than 65 

days late was too small to project our results to the population. 14The number of cases in our sample requiring a bond was too small to project our results 

to the population. 15 Central Office managers explained that fiduciaries need a bond for each individual beneficiary unless the fiduciary is a government or nonprofit entity, in which case a blanket bond 

covering all of their beneficiaries would be acceptable. 

a failure to comply, which may include legal actions, a referral to the OIG, or other 

actions. After 120 days, the financial reports are considered ‘‘seriously delinquent,’’ 

and appropriate action is to be taken. Failure to take aggressive action to secure 

timely financial reports may result in a finding of negligence, which will require VA 

to re-issue any misused benefits. 

Based on our nationwide sample, we estimate that fiduciaries for about 33,000 

beneficiaries were required to submit such reports between July 1, 2006, and June 

9, 2009. Of these, 39 percent 10 were submitted between 1 and 140 days late and 

47 percent 11 were submitted on time.12 In addition our sample and site visit file 

reviews showed that follow-up contact was frequently not done or not documented 

by program staff. Of the 30 case files in our sample where financial reports were 

submitted more than 65 days late, 19 case files either lacked documentation of any 

follow-up actions or showed that such actions were not taken within required time 

frames.13

Moreover, we found additional instances of inadequate staff follow-up on seriously 

delinquent financial reports during file reviews conducted at the three regional offices we visited. We reviewed 20 such cases, and found only 1 where the initial follow-up contact was taken within the required 65 days. For the other 19 cases, contact was either between 3 days and 11 months late or there was not adequate documentation to determine if or when such contact had occurred. In one case, a fiduciary’s financial report was submitted more than 2 years later than the original due 

date, and only after VA initiated action to suspend payment. In another case, a financial report due in June 2006 was not submitted until nearly 2 years later. The 

file did not indicate that any follow-up actions had occurred, although the case is 

now being investigated for possible misuse of funds. Staff in all regional offices we 

visited said that they sometimes did not take follow-up actions or failed to document 

actions they did take, in part, because they lacked the time or believed that some 

actions did not warrant documentation. 

Surety Bonds. VA generally requires staff to obtain a surety bond from fidu- ciaries overseeing estates with a value of $20,000 or more that is attributable to VA 

funds. A bond ensures that the beneficiary’s estate will be reimbursed in the event 

of fiduciary mismanagement or abuse of beneficiary funds. Our nationwide sample 

showed that program staff sometimes failed to obtain proof that a fiduciary purchased a bond, when required, or did not adequately document in the beneficiary 

case files that the bond requirement was waived.14 Of the 52 case files in our sample for which fiduciaries were required to purchase a bond, 8 case files lacked adequate documentation to indicate whether a bond was purchased or that the bond 

requirement was waived because the fiduciary met conditions for an exception. 

Some of the 8 cases involved substantial benefit amounts. For example, 2 cases 

which contained no documentation that bonds were purchased had VA estate values 

of approximately $82,000 and $62,000—leaving these beneficiaries and VA vulnerable to a substantial loss if funds were misused. Some staff in regional offices we 

visited said that they were often uncertain about what types of bonds are required 

for certain types of fiduciaries, and this was confirmed by our site visit file reviews. 

For example, in one case, a Fiduciary Program staff member was told by a fiduciary 

who was an attorney that an individual bond was unnecessary because the fiduciary 

had a ‘‘blanket’’ bond that covered all VA responsibilities. Although this staff member documented in the case file that he was unsure if this was correct, he took the 

fiduciary’s word that an additional bond was not required. However, we were told 

by managers and staff that a blanket bond was most likely not acceptable in this 

case, and the staff person should have required the fiduciary to obtain an individual 

bond.15

In regard to the above findings, we recommended that VA ensure that staff understand and carry out policies regarding file documentation, follow-up with fiduciaries 

for late financial reports, and bond acquisition. VA concurred and, in its comments 

to our report, outlined several planned actions. For example, VA stated that it 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
53 

16On-site reviews were required by the Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act of 2004; VA developed its on-site review policy in 2005, and began conducting these reviews in 2006. 17 Both regional office managers and Central Office managers and staff regularly review a set 

number of beneficiary case files on either a monthly or yearly basis. 18 Internal controls should generally be designed to ensure that ongoing monitoring occurs in 

the course of normal operations, including regular management and supervisory activities, comparisons, reconciliations, and other actions people take in performing their duties. See GAO/ 

AIMD–00–21.3.1. 

would roll out additional training for staff in March of this year and expects to hold 

a manager’s training conference later in the year. The agency also intends to revise 

the program’s policy manual this year to clarify existing guidance, establish new 

policies and procedures, and enhance oversight of fiduciary activities. 

In addition to compliance issues, we identified weaknesses in VA’s policy for conducting periodic on-site reviews of professional fiduciaries who manage funds for 

multiple beneficiaries. Cumulatively, such benefits can be a substantial amount of 

money. On-site reviews examine the financial records across all beneficiaries that 

a professional fiduciary manages to detect discrepancies among accounts, which may 

not be detected by examining annual financial reports for a single beneficiary. We 

found two weaknesses associated with the on-site review policy VA developed.16

First, while VA is required to conduct periodic on-site reviews for professional fiduciaries who oversee more than 20 beneficiaries with combined benefits totaling 

$50,000 or more, the agency can not ensure that all fiduciaries who need these reviews are identified. To generate a list of fiduciaries meeting these criteria, each Fiduciary Program unit uses VA’s electronic case management system to link or 

match a fiduciary to all of their beneficiaries. This computer match is based on a 

fiduciary’s name, rather than a unique identifier, such as the fiduciary’s Social Security number (SSN) or tax identification number (TIN). However, if fiduciary names 

are entered inconsistently into the system, a fiduciary for which an on-site review 

is required may not be identified. While VA’s case management system includes a 

field for unique fiduciary identifiers, VA policy does not require this information for 

all fiduciaries. Central Office staff acknowledged that requiring a unique identifier 

would decrease VA’s chances of making mistakes in identifying fiduciaries with multiple beneficiaries who require reviews. In response to our recommendation, VA 

plans to begin requiring that all fiduciaries supply unique identifiers (such as SSNs 

or TINs) to better track fiduciaries who manage multiple beneficiaries. 

We also found that VA lacks a nationwide quality review process to ensure that 

on-site reviews are conducted properly and consistently. While VA has quality review processes to ensure that actions—such as conducting initial visits and obtaining financial reports and bonds—are carried out in accordance with VA policies, 

Central Office managers acknowledged that VA lacks a similar process for on-site 

reviews.17 Having such a process is not only a key internal control, but it is also 

important for ensuring that on-site reviews are conducted properly and consistently 

across all Fiduciary Program units nationwide.18 Our examination of 12 files from 

the three regional offices we visited revealed deficiencies in these exams which could 

be detected through a national quality review process. Four of the files we examined 

lacked key case selection information, preventing managers from determining 

whether they were selected according to VA policy—which states that cases associated with beneficiary complaints or a history of late or questionable financial reports should receive priority. In addition, although VA policy requires that at least 

25 percent of a fiduciary’s beneficiary case files (or up to 25 case files) be examined 

during the on-site reviews, we found that this threshold was not met in four instances. At the time of our review, Central Office staff tracked whether on-site reviews were completed; but, not whether they were conducted in accordance with policy. In response to our recommendation, VA noted that they recently began reviewing all completed on-site reviews to ensure that they conform to program policy and 

procedures. 

System Limitations and Insufficient Training Hamper Program Performance and Oversight; However, VA Is Taking Steps That May Help 

We identified two key challenges that limit VA’s ability to improve Fiduciary Program performance and oversight. First, VA’s electronic fiduciary case management 

system does not provide sufficient information to managers and staff about their 

cases, and it is cumbersome to use. Second, some managers and staff may not have 

received sufficient training to ensure that they have the necessary expertise to effectively monitor individual fiduciaries and oversee the program. VA is taking steps 

to build expertise about the case management system and the program itself by developing additional standardized training and piloting a consolidated Fiduciary Program unit covering 14 western VA regional offices. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
54 

19 VA, Fiduciary and Field Examination Pilot Implementation Team Report, (Washington, 

D.C. Nov. 5, 2007). 20One common reason managers gave for high staff turnover was that Fiduciary Program positions tend to have low pay grade ceilings, so if staff want to advance beyond these ceilings, 

they must leave the Fiduciary Program. We attempted to obtain VA data on staff turnover to 

determine both the Fiduciary Program turnover rate and how it compares to other programs, 

but we were told that such data was not readily available. 21The third office, discussed in the next section, was the office which consolidated staff from 

the fiduciary units in 14 western regional offices. 

VA’s Electronic Fiduciary Case Management System. The Fiduciary Beneficiary System (FBS), VA’s electronic fiduciary case management system, does not 

provide sufficient data to effectively manage the Fiduciary Program. Although it 

does provide some useful information on individual case files, pending workloads, 

and program performance, several system limitations hamper its ability to maintain 

accurate and timely data and provide management with quality information about 

the program. 

FBS data fields are configured to track a fixed number of pending activities, 

which can limit the accuracy and completeness of information in the system. Staff 

and managers in the three regional offices we visited said they often need to track 

more upcoming actions than FBS permits. For example, staff noted that FBS accepts only one due date for upcoming financial reports, even though multiple financial reports may be due simultaneously if one or more is late. In such cases, the 

due date for the most recent overdue report overrides the older due date, even if 

the older financial report has not yet been submitted. To compensate for this FBS 

limitation, staff may track pending actions manually outside of the system or keep 

personal notes as reminder. 

In addition, some managers find that FBS management reports are not always 

easy to generate or helpful in overseeing the program. For example, one manager 

told us that monitoring staff performance was difficult because the system does not 

generate a single report that shows all upcoming work that staff need to conduct 

over a certain period of time. Instead, several reports need to be generated and 

cross-referenced, which can be cumbersome. In addition, FBS does not store historical information beyond 30 days which would allow managers to examine past issues 

with fiduciaries or staff performance. For example, managers in two regional offices 

said that in order to look at historical information on seriously delinquent financial 

reports, they would have to manually examine monthly paper printouts generated 

in prior months by FBS, which can be time consuming. A 2007 internal VA report 

also stated that FBS requires extensive knowledge to use, which inhibits effective 

oversight and management at all levels of the program.19 Central Office managers 

acknowledged the shortcomings of FBS and in response to our recommendations 

said that they would create a work group to determine the feasibility of enhancing 

FBS or developing a new case management system. 

VA’s Fiduciary Program Training. Managers and staff in all three regional offices we visited said the Fiduciary Program is complex and requires a great deal 

of specialized knowledge to effectively monitor fiduciaries and provide program oversight. Although the Fiduciary Program has a policy manual to guide staff in carrying out their responsibilities, managers and staff said there are many nuances 

and exceptions that take time to master, particularly since each fiduciary and beneficiary situation may be different. In addition to these program complexities, managers in all of the regional offices we visited said that high staff turnover has contributed to a large number of inexperienced managers and staff in their Fiduciary 

Program units who need training.20 For example, in two of the three regional offices 

we visited, only about one-third of staff (15 out of 47) had more than 2 years of experience in the program.21 During our site visits we were told that limited training 

for managers and staff may have contributed to various program problems, including failures to properly monitor fiduciaries or document certain actions in beneficiary case files. 

VA has provided some training to ensure that Fiduciary Program managers and 

staff are proficient in carrying out their responsibilities, and some regional offices 

have developed their own training. VA provides a standardized computer-based 

training program for new staff who conduct visits to beneficiaries and fiduciaries 

and for those needing a refresher. Central Office managers and staff also said that 

they hold monthly teleconferences and conduct periodic visits to individual Fiduciary Program units to discuss selected topics. In addition, managers and staff in 

all three regional offices we visited said that they conduct their own weekly or biweekly training sessions on selected topics, such as how to determine whether bonds 

are required, and what kinds of situations constitute misuse. However, they noted 

that individual training occurs primarily on the job, and the effectiveness and conVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:41 Dec 17, 2010 Jkt 057016 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 E:\TEMP\57016.XXX 57016

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
55 

sistency of such training depends on the expertise of staff conducting the training. 

Central Office managers acknowledged that standardized training would be beneficial and stated that they are increasing training for managers and staff beginning 

this year. 

VA’s Consolidation of Western Fiduciary Program Units. From January to 

September 2008, VA consolidated Fiduciary Program unit managers, staff, and files 

from 14 western VA regional offices into a single location in Salt Lake City, Utah— 

referred to as the Western Area Fiduciary Hub—to improve program performance 

and oversight. VA officials expect the hub to result in increased staff expertise, more 

consistent training, better leveraging of staff resources, and increased program efficiencies. For example, the hub created specific management positions for the Fiduciary Program and divided staff into teams to focus on specific actions and responsibilities in an effort to build program expertise, including expertise with FBS. In 

addition, the hub provides opportunities to train more staff at once, which could 

help to further build staff expertise and potentially increase the consistency of training. The hub also eliminated jurisdictional boundaries that prevented staff from conducting visits that were geographically close, but outside of their assigned area of 

responsibility, which VA expects will help balance workloads among staff and reduce travel time. Additionally, the hub moved from a paper based to an electronic 

case file system, called Virtual VA, in an attempt to more efficiently transfer information between Salt Lake City hub staff and the staff conducting visits in other offices. 

While some VA managers and staff in the hub believe consolidation can help improve Fiduciary Program performance, they described some challenges that have impeded effective implementation of the pilot project. The hub’s managers explained 

that there had been multiple changes in management and that implementation 

began before appropriate planning and resources were in place. For these reasons, 

hub managers did not consider the hub to be fully functional until January 2009, 

which was approximately 1 year after it opened. During our July 2009 visit to the 

hub, managers and staff mentioned such unforeseen difficulties as: (1) inconsistent 

access was granted into Virtual VA; (2) paper documents were being scanned into 

the wrong electronic beneficiary case file and (3) substantial amounts of time were 

being spent updating old cases that had been improperly maintained by the previous Fiduciary Program units. For some improperly maintained cases, staff had not 

taken required actions to address seriously delinquent financial reporting and potential misuse of funds had gone unidentified for significant periods of time. This 

required hub staff to perform necessary follow-up actions, in addition to completing 

incoming new work. Managers and staff noted that they have gained valuable insight and knowledge in implementing the hub that could help inform future office 

consolidations. 

At the time of our review, the hub was still undergoing multiple changes and had 

not yet been evaluated, thus it was unclear whether consolidation of Fiduciary Program units has improved program performance and oversight. In response to our 

recommendation that the Central Office evaluate the performance of the hub, VA 

responded that it anticipates completing such an evaluation by September 2010. 

Conclusions 

One of VA’s most vulnerable populations—beneficiaries who are unable to manage 

their own financial affairs—rely on VA’s Fiduciary Program to ensure that their 

benefits are safeguarded. To better serve beneficiaries and protect their benefits, VA 

has taken or plans to take a number of actions intended to increase staff understanding and compliance with polices as well as enhance program oversight. Revising program policies and procedures, increasing training, evaluating alternatives to 

the program’s case management system, and evaluating the Western Area Fiduciary 

Hub are important steps. However, in order for these actions to successfully address 

the longstanding shortcomings we and others have identified, VA management must 

pay sufficient attention to this program, including exercising adequate oversight of 

its staff. Absent sustained management guidance and staff compliance, beneficiaries 

may remain vulnerable to the consequences of fiduciaries misusing their funds. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

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

in the United States. The published product 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. 

f 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
56 

Prepared Statement of Richard F. Weidman, Executive Director for 

Policy and Government Affairs, Vietnam Veterans of America 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to appear here 

today to share our concerns and thoughts regarding concerns as to how the Veterans 

Benefits Administration is managing the Fiduciary program. This program is designed to protect some of our most vulnerable veterans. Unfortunately it appears 

that the program as currently operated falls far short of accomplishing that goal. 

The basis of our comments today are based on the Inspector General’s Report (IG) 

09–1999–120, dated Match 31, 2010, and on the General Accountability Office Report GAO–10–241, dated February of 2010, as well as anecdotal evidence gleaned 

from our local leaders and service representatives around the Nation. 

First and foremost it is clear that there is no coherent plan for getting a handle 

on the parameters of this problem. VA simply does not know who is responsible for 

each veteran involved. Many of these veterans have major impairments because of 

schizophrenia or other condition that means that they are unable to properly care 

for themselves to the point that someone else needs to take charge of their financial 

affairs for their protection and well being. Seen from this perspective, they are the 

protectors of these veterans. Yet VA apparently does not know exactly who is responsible for each veteran, and is not doing even a reasonable job of monitoring to 

ensure that each and every veteran is properly cared for in regard to their safety 

and general well being. The first step is getting a handle on who is the fiduciary 

for each and every veteran involved in the program. 

Second, it would appear that there are not clear guidelines on who should be a 

fiduciary, i.e., meaningful minimum standards and determination of eligibility for 

same. It is clear that such standards and certification are needed, hopefully without 

creating a needlessly bureaucratic mass of red tape. It also appears that there is 

a need for training and quality assurance mechanisms that would be appropriate. 

Third, what is perhaps most distressing about the IG report referred to above is 

the lack of follow through and implementation of many (most?) of the recommendations in the IG Report from 2006 had not been actually implemented as pledged by 

the Veterans Benefits Administration in their Agency response to that 2006 report. 

Fourth, because the majority of the more than 100,000 veterans who have fiduciary agents are in poor mental and/or physiological health, there should be regular 

communication between Veterans Health Administration (VHA) personnel and whoever is acting as fiduciary agent/guardian. Unless we missed it, monitoring of health 

condition does not even appear to be one of the key factors in any evaluation of this 

program. Is the living situation for the veteran appropriate or not, given his/her disabilities? Is he/she getting to regular appointments at VHA? 

Fifth, the aggregate amount of monthly income is very significant for the veterans 

in this program. The size of the aggregate estate of these veterans combined is at 

least several billion dollars. Any time there is that kind of money there had better 

be accountability mechanisms to ensure that it is being used for the intended purpose(s). To not have clear guidelines and consistent monitoring only invites misuse 

and misappropriation of these funds. There appears to be so little in the way of effective tracking and oversight of this program that VA does not have any idea if 

the funds are being used correctly. This is akin to shipping $10 billion in cash into 

the war zone in Iraq and then acting surprised that they could only account for less 

than a third of the money. It is not a prudent or wise thing to do. 

Sixth, the GAO report is much more complete and thoughtful than the IG report, 

and is clearer as to the problems, although both overlooked one key thing that may 

in fact be widespread. We hear anecdotal cases about attorneys or others who are 

acting as agents/guardians for many veterans whom they have never met except 

over the telephone. It seems pretty clear to us that these people are getting more 

than the 4 percent of funds being handled in the name of the veteran. In fact the 

record keeping at the VBA does not appear to even be to the level where this can 

even be monitored or detected. Looked at from both a fiscal point of view as well 

as a human point of view, this must change. 

To not make a significant effort to put such a system in place as quickly as possible (in real time, not traditional VA time) would be irresponsible, and leave many 

of our most vulnerable veterans subject to abuse and theft of resources that is rightfully theirs. 

To essentially almost start over is the theme of much of what this Committee has 

heard in testimony the last few years about the Compensation & Pension system 

for adjudication of claims. VVA suggests that this is essentially the case with this 

program. There is finally progress toward straightening out the C&P system because VA has admitted that they have a problem, and is now recognizing that the 

VBA must treat the Veterans Service Organizations (VSO) as well as state and local 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
57 

partners as true equal partners in this process of reform. We suggest that the same 

holds true for the fiduciary program at VA. 

Rightly or wrongly the VA has received much criticism for the problems in the 

C&P system, to the point that many consider it a scandal that we have come to the 

sorry situation we all find ourselves with that system. I would suggest that this program is a major scandal just waiting to happen. 

The welfare of the individual veterans who are least able to fend for him/herself 

should be enough to drive immediate reform. Added to that primary responsibility 

is the need to properly account for taxpayer dollars, and the VA and Congressional 

responsibility to ensure those funds are being used correctly for the welfare of the 

intended recipients. 

Thank you for this opportunity to present our views here today. I will be happy 

to answer any questions. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Sarah Wade, Coordinator, Family Issues and 

Traumatic Brain Injury, Wounded Warrior Project 

Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Lamborn, and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for inviting Wounded Warrior Project to testify on VA’s Fiduciary Program. Through our long work with severely-wounded veterans and their family caregivers, many of whom are fiduciaries, Wounded Warrior Project brings a unique understanding to the operation, and shortcomings, of VA’s Fiduciary Program. As a 

caregiver myself of a severely wounded veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom who sustained severe traumatic brain injury, and as one who has worked with many other 

caregivers of severely wounded warriors, I believe I can offer a helpful perspective. 

WWP appreciates the important responsibility vested in VA’s Fiduciary Program 

to safeguard the benefits of veterans who are unable to manage their own affairs. 

That program unquestionably has a critical mission and performs vital work. But 

we are gravely concerned that in managing the program, VA does not take account 

of, or even recognize, the unique circumstances of family members who have devoted 

themselves to the full-time care of severely wounded veterans, and who also serve 

as their fiduciaries. Parents and spouses who have made great sacrifices—often giving up careers and depleting savings—to care for their loved ones hardly pose a risk 

of misusing the veteran’s benefits, and in fact should be free to apply part of their 

loved one’s benefits to help maintain a household that they share. We welcome this 

opportunity to document the critical need for VA to revise its policy and practice 

with respect to caregiver-fiduciaries who have demonstrated their dedication to the 

veteran’s well-being. Adoption of the recommendations we will be discussing would 

end the often shameful and arbitrary treatment that too many families have endured. 

Let me reiterate. WWP recognizes that the risks the VA fiduciary program is designed to counter are certainly real, and appropriate oversight is needed. In that 

regard, we appreciate the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) emphasis in its 

February report on the importance of improving VBA compliance with Fiduciary 

Program policies. 

Importantly, those policies recognize that all fiduciary cases do not require the 

same degree of attention and supervision, and that field examiners should consider 

the unique circumstances of each case. Unfortunately, there appears to be wide variability in examiners’ exercise of that judgment with respect to many of the fiduciaries with whom WWP works— family members who are not only fiduciaries for 

severely wounded veterans, but also their full-time caregivers. 

GAO makes an important observation in stating that VA’s fiduciary case management system does not provide sufficient information to managers and staff about 

their cases. That statement highlights that VA is not sufficiently aware of, and not 

sufficiently attuned to, the unique circumstances of these caregiver-fiduciaries. 

The many, many caregivers of wounded warriors whom I’ve known and with 

whom I’ve worked over the years have made great personal sacrifices to provide 

daily care to their loved ones. They’ve chosen to give up, or indefinitely suspend, 

careers or career plans. These family members have put their own lives ‘‘on hold’’ 

to be caregivers. Many have been appointed fiduciaries. I can assure you that their 

love and dedication to their wounded spouses and children did not change in any 

way by virtue of taking on new responsibilities as a fiduciary. 

Yet, in dealing with caregivers who serve as fiduciaries, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) too often fails to recognize their sacrifice. Instead, parents and 

spouses who over time have surely proven their dedication to their loved one, too 

often encounter a VBA system marked by its rigidity, intrusiveness, and 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
58 

unreasonableness when it conducts oversight of those caregivers in their role as the 

veteran’s fiduciary. 

Let me illustrate my point by way of examples: 

• A VBA field examiner imposing a summer-vacation expenditure limit for a profoundly wounded warrior, his wife and two children; • A mother/caregiver having to explain to a VBA examiner why she allowed her 

wounded-warrior son to spend ‘‘too much’’ money on Christmas gifts; • The spouse/caregiver of a traumatically brain-injured veteran having to get permission from a VBA field examiner to purchase a couch; • A devoted mother-caregiver to her minimally-conscious son being required to 

pay back money for toilet paper purchased for the home with the veteran’s 

funds; • A family’s being questioned about expenditures for gasoline when the wounded 

warrior does not drive or own a car, but the fuel was used to transport the veteran; • Several instances of mothers, who are full-time caregivers to wounded veterans, 

being required to pay rent to the veteran rather than residing in the home for 

‘‘free;’’ • A field examiner denying a mother-caregiver’s request to replace the (nowwheelchair bound) veteran’s 8 year-old high-mileage truck that she uses to 

transport him in a rural, snowy part of the country; and • A mother-caregiver having to relinquish her role as a fiduciary because she had 

had to declare bankruptcy after leaving her job to care for her wounded warrior 

son. 

Let me assure you—from personal knowledge—that these families do not deserve 

to be treated in the demeaning, petty and hurtful manner reflected in these examples. At the same time, we would acknowledge that VBA examiners have not universally been as unreasonable as these examples suggest. Yet these specific illustrations are not isolated problems, or remote outliers. Further compounding these problems is that as these caregivers have looked to one another for clarity in understanding the often-inexplicable workings of VA programs, what becomes apparent 

is the stark variability in VA oversight across the system. The impression, frankly, 

is of a program marked by arbitrary and capricious decision-making. 

It should be recognized that a family member or members residing with the veteran may have no income—and may well have depleted some of their own assets— 

to become the veteran’s caregiver. We see no basis whatsoever for precluding such 

families from drawing on the veteran’s benefits to pay for the family’s living expenses! VA Fiduciary Program policy should make that abundantly clear. But even 

more fundamentally, a devoted family member who provides daily care for a severely wounded veteran should not be treated as an object of VA suspicion—either 

in terms of rigid management of their budgeting or intrusive home visits—simply 

because the individual serves as the veteran’s fiduciary. We believe these families 

are owed a presumption of honesty, and should be treated with dignity. 

Over the past year we have discussed these concerns with officials in the Veterans 

Benefits Administration, offered to work with them on these issues, and arranged 

for them to meet with a family caregiver-fiduciary to appreciate better these families’ experiences under the program with the hope that necessary modifications 

could be made. But more than half a year since first raising these concerns with 

VA, it remains unclear whether promised remedial revisions to Fiduciary Program 

policies will ever come to fruition. 

Separate from the issues of inconsistent oversight and arbitrary requirements, VA 

has acknowledged a need for more training, consistent with GAO’s findings. WWP 

strongly agrees. But VA must not only provide more training for its fiduciary program staff, it should better inform family members of their responsibilities in agreeing to serve as fiduciaries. These steps would be helpful, but certainly would not 

go far enough. VBA must substantially revise its policy and practice to reflect far 

greater balance and understanding as it relates to caregiver-fiduciaries whose sacrifices have surely demonstrated that they do not pose significant risk. 

Given the resource and staffing problems GAO described in reporting on the Fiduciary Program, it is particularly difficult to understand devoting resources to close 

scrutiny of family caregiver-fiduciaries who have proven themselves over time. 

Indeed, the caregivers are well known to VA. Each has worked closely with a Federal Recovery Coordinator and/or case-managers in connection with their veteran’s 

care. In the isolated instance in which there is some indication of a problem concerning a caregiver, caseworkers in the Veterans Health Administration, and often 

care-coordinators in other VA offices, become aware of it. From the caregivers’ perspective, ‘‘VA’’ is a single entity, and they have every reason to believe VA knows 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
59 

they are reliable and have integrity. So imagine how confusing it is for a caregiver 

who has worked closely, and developed relationships of trust, with other VA staff 

to encounter VBA personnel whose fiduciary-requirements convey fundamental mistrust. It does not seem too much to ask that VBA and other arms of the Department 

work more closely together to share information relating to caregiver-fiduciaries, 

rather than requiring these dedicated individuals to prove themselves yet again. 

In short, Mr. Chairman, devoted family members who have clearly made great 

sacrifices to care for their loved ones hardly pose a risk of misusing the veteran’s 

benefits. VA Fiduciary Program policies and practices must be revised to draw distinctions among categories of fiduciaries. A devoted family member who provides 

consistent, high-quality daily care for a severely wounded veteran should not be 

treated as an object of VA suspicion simply because the individual serves as the veteran’s fiduciary. We believe these families are owed a presumption of honesty, and 

should not be subjected to rigid budgeting and ongoing intrusive scrutiny without 

substantial cause. Finally, VA must work to achieve more uniform standards and 

greater consistency in its application of fiduciary oversight policy. 

Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with the Subcommittee staff in addressing these concerns regarding the VA’s Fiduciary Program. 

That concludes our testimony. I’d be pleased to address any questions you may 

have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Jacob B. Gadd, Assistant Director for 

Program Management, Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation 

Commission, American Legion 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide The American Legion’s views on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Fiduciary Program and improvements VA can 

make in providing quality health care and benefits for those veterans with mental 

health injuries or disease. As a majority of World War II and Korea veterans are 

aging, improvements to the VA’s Fiduciary Program is needed to ensure they receive 

their benefits in a timely manner. Additionally, veterans that are filing claims for 

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) as well as 

other geriatric illnesses such as Alzheimer’s or Dementia may require use of a Fiduciary and without effective oversight, coordination and management, these veterans 

will continue to experience delays and/or financial hardship in accessing their 

earned benefits. 

Title 38, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Sections 13.1 to 13.111 provides the 

guidance for VA to manage the Fiduciary Program. VA defines a fiduciary as a person or an institution responsible for managing money or property for another and 

exercising a standard of care imposed by law or contract in such management activity. VA is charged with appointing a fiduciary to manage and handle the veteran’s 

VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) benefits, if a veteran is deemed mentally incompetent. 

A recent VA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report, Audit of the Fiduciary 

Program’s Effectiveness in Addressing Potential Misuse of Beneficiary Funds, found 

that the ‘‘Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) lacks elements of an effective 

management infrastructure to monitor program performance, effectively utilize 

staff, and oversee fiduciary activities.’’ In addition, in VA’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 

Performance and Accountability Report, VA achieved an 82 percent result out of an 

88 percent goal, due to challenges with reorganization of workflow and the training 

of 20 new Legal Instruments Examiners. FY 2009 was the first year that all fiduciary activities for regional offices in the Western Area were consolidated to the 

Western Area Pilot Fiduciary Hub in Salt Lake City. Additionally, VA transitioned 

all fiduciary activities to paperless processing in an effort to increase its targeted 

goal for the next fiscal year. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) also released a report in February 

2010, ‘‘Improved Compliance and Policies Could Better Safeguard Veterans’ Benefits,’’ which recommended VA ‘‘strengthen Fiduciary Program policies for monitoring 

fiduciaries, improve staff compliance with program policies, evaluate alternative approaches to meet electronic case management system needs and evaluate the effectiveness of consolidating 14 western Fiduciary Program units.’’ VA has consolidated 

the Fiduciary Program to ensure that these policies are streamlined and have better 

centralization of management. 

While VA is moving forward with the Fiduciary Hub in Salt Lake City and is taking actions to rectify their Fiduciary Program problems, based on the recommendaVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:41 Dec 17, 2010 Jkt 057016 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 E:\TEMP\57016.XXX 57016

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
60 

tions from OIG and GAO. The American Legion, however, continues to have several 

concerns. These concerns include the difficulty and delay in processing the appointed fiduciary, VA’s national centralization model and feedback from American 

Legion Department (State) Service Officers and Pension Management Center staff. 

In researching fiduciary forms required by VA Regional Offices, the number of 

forms, the accompanying delay in processing and the stress it places on veterans 

and their family members is monumental. In fact, as noted in the chart below from 

VA Pamphlet 21–05–1: Federal Fiduciary Program Pocket Folder, 21 different VA 

forms are required to appoint a fiduciary. 

1. VA Form 21–0509: Notice of Fiduciary Commission 

2. VA Form 21–0520: Certificate of Commissions Approval 

3. VA Form 21–555a: Designation of Payee 

4. VA Form 21–555: Certificate of Legal Capacity to Receive and Disburse 

Benefits 

5. VA Form 21–592: Request for Appointment of a Fiduciary, Custodian or 

Guardian 

6. VA Form 21–0792: Fiduciary Statement in Support of Appointment 

7. VA Form 21–3045: Estate Action Record 

8. VA Form 21–3190: Minor Beneficiary Field Examination Request and Report 

9. VA Form 21–3537a: Field Examination Request 

10. VA Form 21–3537b: Field Examination Report 

11. VA Form 21–4703: Fiduciary Agreement 

12. VA Form 21–4706: Court Appointed Fiduciary’s Accounting 

13. VA Form 21–4706b: Federal Fiduciary Account 

14. VA Form 21–4706c: Court Appointed Fiduciary’s Accounting 

15. VA Form 21–4707: Estate Summary 

16. VA Form 21–4709: Certificate as to Assets 

17. VA Form 21–4716a: Adult Beneficiary Field Examination Request and Report 

18. VA Form 21–4718: Account Book 

19. VA Form 21–4718a: Certificate of Balance on Deposit and Authorization to 

Disclose Financial Records 

20. VA Form 21–8473: Withdrawal Agreement 

21. VA Pamphlet 21–05–1: Federal Fiduciary Program Pocket Folder 

Second, The American Legion has been concerned about VA’s centralization policies and that Veterans’ Service Organizations (VSOs) are not included in these processes. For example, when VBA consolidated general inquiry telephone calls from individual regional offices to eight national call centers (NCCs), claimants, beneficiaries and VSOs, who had general questions concerning VA benefits programs, 

were routed to one of the eight call centers, rather than being able to call the local 

Regional Office (RO). The American Legion continues to urge VA to provide internal 

access phone numbers for accredited VSO representatives, so the representative 

could bypass the consolidated call centers and contact the RO directly in order to 

access information in a timelier manner to provide better service to their clients. 

VA commented on this recommendation stating, ‘‘providing direct internal telephone 

access to VSO representatives at each Regional Office (RO) would require the redirection of resources currently dedicated to disability claims processing.’’ 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, The American Legion recommends authorizing personnel solely to administer the Fiduciary Program to ensure this program remains their priority and expertise. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
61 

VA has successfully demonstrated that the Consolidated Patient Account Centers 

(CPACs) model has helped mitigate problems with veterans’ third-party insurances 

being improperly billed. The American Legion understands the importance of collecting data at VA’s national level so that trends can be analyzed in order to develop 

best practices. The only recommendation The American Legion has is that this Subcommittee is to exercise oversight over VA’s centralization plans. We urge this Subcommittee to monitor the progress to ensure that VSOs are given internal access 

phone numbers to better represent their clients. 

The American Legion has approximately 2,000 accredited Department (State) 

Service Officers and County Veterans’ Service Officers (CVSO) nationwide that help 

veterans file claims for VA benefits. Several of these service officers have witnessed 

firsthand some of the difficulties experienced with the Fiduciary Program. For example, a service officer reiterated the concern that, ‘‘it’s difficult for veterans to contact anyone in the Fiduciary Hub because they do not have a ‘public contact’ number 

dedicated solely to fiduciary issues and the general VA public contact line can only 

provide limited information.’’ Other service officers commented that the ROs and 

Pension Centers are not always notifying the Hub by way of the VA Form 21–592 

(Request for Appointment of a Fiduciary, Custodian or Guardian) that an appointment of a fiduciary is required until someone such as a VSO makes an inquiry. 

The third problem American Legion Service officers have encountered with the 

Salt Lake City Hub was that the center inherited a huge backlog when they consolidated 14 Western Fiduciary Program units in January, 2008. In most cases, the center has improved, to 45 days, the backlog of initial visits to appoint fiduciaries. However, the large backlog of follow-up visits (over 120 days) remains. The Salt Lake 

City Hub currently is authorized 112 positions, 56 of which are field examiners. Although the center is considered to be fully staffed, the current staffing level does 

not appear to be sufficient in light of the backlog that still needs to be addressed. 

Additionally, The American Legion has national representatives at the three Pension Management Centers (PMCs) in Minneapolis, Philadelphia and Milwaukee. 

American Legion representatives at these locations have unanimously voiced their 

concerns in one area—improving the coordination between the Regional Offices of 

jurisdiction, Pension Centers and Fudiciary Hubs. For example, one of our service 

officers helped a veteran file for benefits in August 2009 and the rating decision was 

completed on February 2010 proposing incompetency. On March 2010, a letter was 

sent to the veteran in regards to incompetency. The veteran waived due process 

later in March 2010, which enabled VA to act on the claim prior to waiting the 65 

days. Waiving the due process helped speed up the process. The award letter was 

sent in early April stating the first payment was sent in May, but the retroactive 

benefits will be withheld until the Guardianship Unit can make their visit. After 

all this process is complete, the Pension Management Center sends VA Form 21– 

592 (Request for Appointment of a Fiduciary, Custodian or Guardian) to the Hub 

in Salt Lake City. The Hub then notifies the Guardianship unit in the particular 

RO which can take months. Once the field exam is completed, the VA Form 21– 

555 (Certificate of Legal Capacity to Receive and Disburse Benefits) is sent back to 

the PMC for authorization of the retro benefits. 

In another case, the Fiduciary process took 4 years which made the family bear 

the cost of this delay. The American Legion service officers also reiterated that there 

is not a dedicated phone number for the Fiduciary Hub that a family member or 

VSO representative can contact to check on the status of claim. The American Legion is concerned that other veterans are experiencing the same delays, financial 

hardships and inability to reach the Fiduciary Hubs because of the lack of seamless 

coordination between ROs, PMCs, Guardianship Units and Field Exams. 

Prior to October 2009, it was VA’s policy to withhold benefits payable to a beneficiary while competency is considered, and during the period required to appoint 

a fiduciary. VA issued Fast Letter 09–41 in October 2009 providing revised procedures for VA to pay all monthly and recurring benefits, then withhold only retroactive benefits pending appointment of a fiduciary. However, many beneficiaries 

continue to suffer hardships as a result of the delays. The American Legion Service 

Officers have stated that VA workers receive credit for processing the case within 

the 45-day period. If a case is not completed during the 45-day period, there are 

not any work credits or staff initiative to get the case finalized. In one office, there 

are over 100 cases over 3 months to 1 year. Additionally, a service officer in a Pension Management Center helped schedule a fiduciary field exam because the veteran 

had been waiting for over 4 years. 

Mr. Chairman, this is unconscionable that a veteran’s claim can be delayed for 

this period of time and that the veteran’s family member or appointed VSO representative cannot access the system through VA’s computer system or an internal 

phone number. Our Nation’s veterans and their beneficiaries deserve better. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
62 

In closing, The American Legion has six recommendations: 

1. The American Legion recommends an additional Full Time Employee (FTE) be 

funded and authorized within each RO and PMC solely dedicated to Fiduciary 

Program management and oversight. 

2. The American Legion recommends Congress appropriate funding to VBA’s Information Technology (IT) budget to set up an IT software package within all 

of the RO’s Fiduciary Program Units, PMCs, and Salt Lake City Fiduciary Hub 

to enhance communications between each of these offices. 

3. The American Legion recommends that part of the software package include 

reminders or alerts throughout the process to ensure that no paperwork is lost 

or falls through the cracks. 

4. The American Legion recommends that Congress assure VSO representatives 

are given an internal access phone number for each of the facility’s Fiduciary 

Program Units to improve the timeliness, quality and full coordination of the 

program. 

5. The American Legion recommends that Congress assure VA creates a Fiduciary national toll-free number for family members and the general public. The 

American Legion recommends that Congress direct VA to establish a VA Voluntary Service (VAVS) Pilot Program to train volunteers on how to become VA 

Fiduciary Volunteers. 

Mr. Chairman, The American Legion has over 6,000 volunteers that serve veterans every day in the community that help veterans in VA Medical Centers, Community-Based Outpatient Clinics, Vet Centers, Fisher Houses, Domiciliaries and 

State Veterans Homes. Each year, Legionnaires serve over 916,000 hours of service 

to help veterans. The VAVS Program is the largest volunteer program in the Federal Government, providing over 64 years of voluntary service to the Nation’s veterans. In 2008, the VAVS Program developed a pilot program for Caregivers and 

The American Legion is assured that if given the necessary training and supervision 

by the Voluntary Service Program Managers at each VA Facility, a program could 

be similarly developed for these volunteers. Additionally, the current Fiduciaries for 

these veterans within the program would receive standardized training and evaluation. 

As the Nation’s veterans experience mental health trauma or diseases, they or 

their family members should not have to worry about receiving their earned benefits. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, The American Legion sincerely appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony. Thank you. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Vivianne Cisneros Wersel, Au.D., Chair, 

Government Relations Committee, Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. 

‘‘With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, 

as God gives us to see right, let us strive to finish the work we are in; to 

bind up the Nation’s wounds, to care for him who has borne the battle, his 

widow and his orphan.’’ 

. . . President Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, 

March 4, 1865 

Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Lamborn and Members of the Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to testify 

on behalf of Gold Star Wives of America. My name is Vivianne Wersel, Chair of the 

Gold Star Wives’ Government Relations Committee. I am the widow of Lt. Col. Richard Wersel, Jr., USMC, who died suddenly on February 4, 2005, one week after returning from his second tour of duty in Iraq. 

Gold Star Wives of America, Incorporated (GSW), founded in 1945, is a Congressionally Chartered organization of spouses of military members who died while serving on active duty or as a result of a service-connected disability. GSW is an allvolunteer organization. We could begin with no better advocate than Mrs. Eleanor 

Roosevelt, at the time newly widowed, who helped make Gold Star Wives a truly 

‘‘national’’ organization. Mrs. Roosevelt was an original signer of our Certificate of 

Incorporation as a member of our Board of Directors. Our current members are widows and widowers of military members who served during World War II, the Korean 

War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan, 

and every period in between. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
63 

We begin by thanking this Committee and our Government for providing essential 

services necessary to help us through our loss, many services being done well, in 

a caring and helpful way. But I also want to stress the importance of staying vigilant so that no one who is grieving the loss of a loved one will have to endure indignities or a lack of benefits because of the lack of knowledge. Therefore, we need consistent and relevant assistance before and at the time of the death, and for some 

period of time thereafter. While there have been huge strides made over the last 

several years in alleviating problems with benefit and eligibility misinformation 

coming to those who are grieving, confusion about the complete benefits available 

will be a normal beginning, with the best of information provided. We owe information to those in the throes of grief about the all the benefits available with the best 

information provided. We owe it to these families to help secure their futures with 

the most accurate information possible at an appropriate time—when it is ready to 

be received—because the confusing array of decisions that must be made have consequences for the rest of that their lives. 

VA Fiduciary Program 

Gold Star Wives was unaware of VA’s Fiduciary Program until we were asked to 

testify at this hearing. As we delved into the subject matter, the research became 

a game of 20 questions. It’s difficult to critique or make suggestions for a program 

of which we were unaware. There have been several hearings about the Fiduciary 

Program over the last 7 years; today is our first exposure to this VA Fiduciary Program. Therefore, Gold Star Wives’ main concern about the Fiduciary Program is the 

lack of information provided to eligible surviving spouses. Other concerns are the 

hardships surviving spouses encounter as well as the limitations of the VA fiduciary 

program. 

Lack of Information 

From the perspective of Gold Star Wives, the major problem is a lack of publicity 

and available information. There is no mention of the Fiduciary Program in the VA 

Handbook for Veterans, Dependents and Survivors. The surviving spouse needs 

prior knowledge of this existing program in order to obtain information on the VA 

Web site. Yet, according to VBA, there are 35,000 surviving spouses who are beneficiaries in the VA Fiduciary Program. This is a third of the total of the approximate 

109,000 participating in this program. Furthermore, this subject has neither been 

discussed in prior testimonies that included Gold Star Wives nor has it been a topic 

discussed in the VA/DoD Survivor Forum quarterly meetings. Lack of information 

and participation does not promote optimal care for the surviving families. How can 

we improve a program if we have no knowledge of the existing program? We have 

many questions that we hope will be answered as the result of this meaningful 

hearing today. 

Hardships 

Many Gold Star Wives were their spouse’s fiduciary before their military spouse 

died. Some were young and required an annual bonding fee because their credit 

score was not sufficient. Why do spouses have to pay significant fees to be bonded? 

In 2002, Petty Officer 2nd Class Anthony Palmer collapsed while playing basketball. He was kept alive via medical devices. When the respirator was removed, he 

unexpectedly continued living; however, he was totally incapacitated. He was then 

medically retired, but when he died 2 years later, his VA disability compensation 

suddenly stopped. His wife and two toddlers were left without support. What role 

did the VA Fiduciary Program play for this new Gold Star Wife with young children? Mrs. Palmer sought assistance from the Navy Marine Corps Relief Society 

when the disability compensation ceased. At that time, the Navy Marine Corps Relief Society referred her to Gold Star Wives. 

Limitations 

When the SGLI was assigned by name to Mrs. Palmer’s two small children, she 

had to pay several thousand dollars for a civilian court guardianship. Why is this 

required when she is the biological parent of the small children? She is one of the 

many young widows with children who are experiencing this problem. Why is the 

Fiduciary Program not used for SGLI, which is administered by the VA? 

Mrs. Dora Aja married her college sweetheart in 1953. His heart attack in 1976 

eventually left him totally incapacitated. She has to be bonded to be a fiduciary at 

a cost of $250.00 annually. When purchasing a home to be closer to family she had 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
64 

to receive permission from VA and the Defense Finance and Accounting System to 

purchase a home. She must submit a spreadsheet of all her expenses. Accountability 

is important; however, why does she have to pay to be bonded? Also, are the spouses 

provided with the tools they need to monitor the administration required from them 

annually? Mrs. Aja stated, ‘‘I have cared for him and loved him for over 50 years 

and the Government treats me like a juvenile. It is a good thing that my husband 

is not aware of what is happening because he would be angry.’’ She is not a widow 

or a veteran, and she is not treated as the dedicated military spouse that she is 

even though she is a soon to be a Gold Star Wife. 

There are approximately 35,000 surviving spouses who are incapacitated and 

have fiduciaries. Who takes the lead when the surviving spouse becomes incapacitated? If the surviving spouse wasn’t a fiduciary for the veteran spouse, they may 

well not know anything about the program and, by extension, neither would their 

children. How many spouses (current and surviving) are also fiduciaries for the 

nearly 18,800 adult disabled children in the program? 

Concerns 

What I can report to you today is that our number one concern with the VA Fiduciary Program is our lack of information. It is imperative that we are provided more 

information on the Fiduciary Program, so it provides meaningful support to surviving spouses as well as the soon-to-be surviving spouses who find themselves in 

this position. As the result of today’s hearing we hope our questions will be answered. 

Gold Star Wives of America has the following questions: 

1. Are there ongoing problems with the program that have yet to be fixed? 

2. Where and how is this program publicized? 

3. What is the protocol for the information to be provided in a timely fashion? 

4. Is it only provided to those for whom the program is necessary? 

5. What training is available for the challenged spouse who is caring for an incapacitated, perhaps dying veteran, who does not have the accounting and clerical skills to manage the tedious, demanding paperwork required by the annual 

audit? 

6. Some may find it necessary to hire a professional to do the reports for the 

audit at additional expense to them. Is there funding for this assistance? 

7. At what point is a fiduciary necessary? Who makes the determination? 

8. Could the VA select someone other than the spouse? 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. The families of the Nation’s fallen have 

already suffered the greatest loss; there is no need to make these families struggle 

financially unnecessarily. Gold Star Wives appreciates the compassionate work 

which Members of this Subcommittee and the staff do on our behalf. We always 

stand at the ready to provide this Subcommittee with any additional needed information. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Katherine R. Pflanz, Field Examiner, 

Winston-Salem Veterans Affairs Regional Office, on behalf of 

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO, and 

AFGE National Veterans Affairs Council 

Dear Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

The American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO (AFGE) and the 

AFGE National Veterans Affairs Council (NVAC), the exclusive representatives of 

VBA employees working in the Fiduciary Program, appreciate the opportunity to 

present the views of front line employees on how to better protect vulnerable veterans and their families. 

RECOMMENDATION: PROVIDE NATIONALLY UNIFORM, FORMALIZED 

TRAINING ON FIDUCIARY ISSUES 

AFGE and NVAC agree with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommendation for a national training program for the Fiduciary Program. Field Examiners (FE) and Legal Instrument Examiners (LIE) need formal training prior to 

assuming their responsibilities and refresher training at least every 2 years. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
65 

Standardized formal training is also an invaluable tool to form bonds with coworkers across the Nation and share lessons learned and best practices. A national 

Q&A mailbox or employee-only Web site could facilitate ongoing sharing of information. This teaching tool would be a timesaver and improve quality for the employees 

trying to protect beneficiaries in receipt of VA benefits. 

New employee training should be centralized, as it is for Rating Specialists and 

Veterans Service Representatives (VSR). Currently, the initial training for new FEs 

is woefully inadequate, consisting only of online course, without being able to ask 

questions of an instructor or supervisor. This online curriculum is only designed to 

explain how fiduciary process works, e.g. conducting field exams, and does not address other critical issues, such as entitlement to pensions and other benefits. Only 

those FEs who have previously worked as VSRs received formal training on benefits, which is important to ensuring the beneficiary is receiving all the funds to 

which they are entitled. 

On-the-job training needs to be standardized. New FEs are sent out to the field 

to observe other FEs conducting interviews. While this is helpful, there is no standardization to ensure that all new FEs have sufficient exposure to different types of 

cases. Inadequate new employee training slows production, increases errors, and causes 

undue duplication of work. Often times more experienced FEs and LIEs must interrupt their own work to answer questions or correct errors. 

Training for experienced employees is minimal and haphazard. VBA no longer 

provides centralized training that bring FEs into one location, e.g. RO, regional or 

national sites, for face-to-face instruction. Ongoing training often consists of conference calls where management merely points out common errors, local policy 

changes, and the newest hot topic. This limited time does not provide for proper 

guidance on correcting errors. Also, significant changes in policies and procedures 

are implemented without proper training or input from front line employees. 

RECOMMENDATION: DISCONTINUE THE HUB PILOT PROGRAM 

AFGE and NVAC have serious concerns about the Hub Pilot Program. This model 

has had serious ramifications; it has adversely affected training, case management, 

case tracking, and the proper application of different state rules. 

The Fiduciary Program works with a special population and it is critical that the 

employees oversee all their needs, not just their money. The RO model facilitates 

that oversight far better than the Hub model. At the RO, staff has tighter control 

over the accounting process, and is able to work much more closely with both the 

veteran and the payee to ensure the beneficiary lives the best life possible. 

RECOMMENDATION: INCREASE STAFFING AND REVISE THE WORK 

CREDIT SYSTEM AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 

The Fiduciary Program is facing increased demand for its services, especially 

among OIF/OEF veterans returning from two wars and an aging veteran population 

from earlier conflicts. In addition, due to our mobile society and current economic 

difficulties, many families are less able to assist disabled beneficiaries physically or 

financially than they were in the past. Families look more and more to VBA to protect disabled beneficiaries. 

Additional FE hiring has begun but more is needed. FEs are always working frantically to meet their production standards, ensure quality, maintain personal safety, 

and keep apprised of all the new changes. The expectation is that this can be accomplished with inadequate training, experience, and within an 8 hour day. The current 

performance standards are unrealistic for the tools currently provided to the Fiduciary staff. When overtime is offered, it frequently raises the production expectation 

which is already unobtainable to the less experienced. 

Managers also need training on the workings of the Fiduciary program, as well 

as employee issues such as personal safety and workers compensation claims for injuries incurred in the field. 

As a result of inadequate management, understaffing, unrealistic performance 

standards, and lack of training, the Fiduciary Unit is less able to properly serve and 

protect those who need our protection the most in today’s environment. 

RECOMMENDATION: IMPROVE ACCESS TO IT TOOLS AND OTHER 

NEEDED EQUIPMENT 

AFGE and NVAC agree with GAO’s recommendation for more efficient automated 

tools, including more informative reports from the Fiduciary Beneficiary System. In 

addition, there are a number of problems with National Field Examiner Report Generator Program. Although this system was intended to increase uniformity in the 

process of typing field exams, in practice, it is a difficult system to use and dramatically increases the time required to type reports. For example, FEs spend substanVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:41 Dec 17, 2010 Jkt 057016 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 E:\TEMP\57016.XXX 57016

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
66 

tial time deleting information from the Initial Appointment Report for follow up reports, and the system lacks separate templates for reports for Adult Helpless Children, Insurance Cases and Minors. If FEs on the front lines had been involved in 

the design and testing of this system before it was rolled out, it would function more 

effectively. 

FEs are not provided with other needed equipment on a sufficient or timely basis. 

There are frequent delays in issuing Government vehicles, thus requiring some FEs 

to share vehicles. As a result, both the well being of the beneficiary and FE timeliness suffer. 

Phone access is an essential part of the FE’s job each and every day, all day long. 

They have to schedule appointments, find beneficiaries, get information over the 

phone from legal custodians, and in some cases, the entire field exam is conducted 

by phone. Currently, the cell phones that are provided to FEs often lack adequate 

geographic coverage. FEs should have a long distance phone card as back up. 

In addition, travel funds that FEs need to manage their casework are often difficult to obtain due to budget constraints. 

RECOMMENDATION: PROVIDE MORE EXPERIENCED LEADERSHIP 

The Fiduciary Program is facing a serious lack of experienced coaches to mentor 

employees. Front line employees are being trained and supervised by managers who 

do not fully understand the fiduciary rules and regulations. Coaching is only effective if done by someone with extensive hands-on experience and subject matter expertise. 

Too often, the message from management is ‘‘get it done’’ to make production 

without an understanding of the mechanics. This approach hurts both beneficiaries 

and the Fiduciary Unit. If managers had more direct experience on the front lines, 

they would have more realistic expectations of what is required and how long it 

takes to do the job correctly. 

RECOMMENDATION: REVISE REVIEW EXAMINATION SCHEDULES 

FEs are unnecessarily burdened with conducting annual field review of claims in 

cases that already demonstrate accurate discharging of the fiduciary responsibilities, thus preventing them from completing work needed for other claims. AFGE 

and NVAC do not advocate complete elimination of the field review, but rather, 

many can be done less frequently or on a random basis. The current limitation on 

review examinations that are input in 2 or 5 year increments should be lifted; less 

frequent exams are recommended where there are no questions of impropriety or 

uncertainty about the fiduciary’s conduct. 

For example, currently, FEs are required to visit beneficiaries in Adult Living Facilities every 3 years. These beneficiaries should be reclassified as ‘‘institutionalized’’, which would reduce the requirement to a phone call every 6 years. This would 

suffice because the VA benefits are totally consumed by cost of care and all their 

housing and medical needs are being met in a safe manner. Also, these facilities 

are monitored by other Federal, state and local agencies. 

More infrequent visits to beneficiaries with dementia who are in the locked section of the facility would also suffice. More generally, in cases like these, it would 

be more effective to make unannounced visits on a random schedule in addition to 

scheduled audits. 

VBA could also eliminate field exams for beneficiaries receiving small amounts of funds, e.g. the old law pension rate of $61, or anyone receiving less than the 30 percent compensation rate. When beneficiaries are given the entire VA benefit for person spending, they are in effect managing their own funds. Visits for spouse payees 

receiving less than the 30 percent rate could be replaced by an occasional call or 

letter. 

Annual follow-up exams for accounting cases should be conducted on a 14–15 

month basis to allow for accountings to be reviewed and problems to be addressed. 

Follow up field exams should be limited to problem cases. 

RECOMMENDATION: IMPROVE COMMUNICATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES 

Although FEs are only responsible for ensuring the proper use of VA funds, they 

are also expected to detect misuse of other benefits such as Social Security and military retirement pay. We urge Congress to improve the lines of communication between the Fiduciary Program and other agencies to enable FEs to alert them to 

problems. National dissemination of reports from Field Examiners at other agencies 

would help VBA understand the proper use of those benefits. 

Currently, Social Security and VBA have a joint program for incarcerated beneficiaries; a joint program based on this model for Field Examiner fiduciary selection 

and monitoring should be considered. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
67 

In contrast, we believe that FEs should not be held accountable for informing 

beneficiaries about non-VA rules or benefits such as park passes and fishing and 

hunting licenses; this should be carried out by local Veterans Service Organizations. 

RECOMMENDATION: INCREASE EMPLOYEE INPUT INTO NEW POLICIES 

AND PRACTICES 

Frontline Fiduciary Program employees are rarely given the opportunity to make 

suggestions, and when given that opportunity, their suggestions are often not seriously considered. Some employees feel that they have been chastised or ostracized 

for making suggestions. 

This program will be greatly improved by input from the people who actually 

know the job—the ones on the front lines who go into beneficiaries’ homes and nursing facilities on a daily basis. Currently, management is making all the decisions 

based on what they feel is best. The front line employees are forced to simply follow 

their lead. Managers make many significant decisions during conference calls without considering the effect on FEs and LIEs. Decisions that change nationwide directives should not be made without input from the field. FEs and LIEs should be included in these conference calls. It is too difficult for the managers to communicate 

all the changes and directives after the call takes place. 

Minutes of a meeting should not be policy. Rather, the Fiduciary Program should 

adopt the approach used for Rating Specialists and VSRs to issue Fast Letters accompanied by explanations, directives, and guidelines. 

OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS 

Workforce Recruitment and Retention: The current senior FE career ladder— 

that tops out at a GS–11—is not aligned with recently added FE responsibilities. 

The decisions made by FEs are more consistent with the complexity and impact of 

decisions made by IRS Officers and INS agents whose career ladders top out at a 

GS–12. LIEs should also receive have a career ladder that is aligned with that of 

a VSR. Finally, the agency should pay the full cost of FE liability protection against 

civil suits; currently, FEs have to pay half the cost. 

Guidance to Fiduciaries: A subject matter expert should teach a structured 

course on an initial or quarterly basis to inform fiduciaries of applicable requirements and their responsibilities. The course should include a hands-on component. 

Their travel costs and lost time from work should be reimbursed. 

Quality Assurance: AFGE and NVAC commend VBA for centralizing Quality 

Reviews to increase their consistency, but better training is also needed to reduce 

errors. STAR reviews have become punitive in recent years; they are now part of 

Directors Dashboard, and therefore can make or break a performance rating. This 

also requires employees to focus on quantity far more than quality. 

Time Frames for Selection of Fiduciaries: Current time frames for completion 

of initial appointments of fiduciary are not sufficient. Given new parameters that 

apply (with more stringent accounting and oversight), it takes more than 45 calendar days to select proper fiduciaries who will serve the veteran’s best interests. 

This 45 day time frame fails to take into account logistics, and the fact that compliance with our requests (including scheduling of appointments and returning paperwork) is largely voluntary. 

Case Files: Since there is no need to see the fiduciary after the initial appointment, the Principal Guardianship File (PGF) should be kept where the beneficiary 

is, especially because the FE at that regional office completes the exam. It is difficult to compare finances and accountings without the file. In the alternative, the 

file could be accessed electronically as part of the Virtual VA, which would be especially helpful if the fiduciary resides in a different state than the beneficiary. 

Improve coordination with state courts. Frequently, state courts appoint a fiduciary before VBA gets involved in the case. Problems sometimes arise when VBA 

appoints its own fiduciary, and the court dispenses funds in violation of VBA’s restrictions that apply to the VA-derived portion. Better coordination between the 

courts and the Fiduciary Unit is needed to reduce the incidence of this problem. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important matter. 

f 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
68 

Prepared Statement of Bradley G. Mayes, Director, 

Compensation and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before 

you today to speak of the initiatives underway to enhance the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Fiduciary Program. I am accompanied by Ms. Diana Rubens, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Field Operations; and Mr. Gary Chesterton, 

Chief, Fiduciary Staff, Compensation and Pension (C&P) Service. 

The Fiduciary Program oversees VA benefits paid to those Veterans and beneficiaries who, because of injury, disease, or the infirmities of age, are unable to manage their financial affairs. VA currently supervises more than 108,000 VA beneficiaries with cumulative estates exceeding $3 billion. These Veterans, and their 

widows and children, are among our most vulnerable clients. 

VA takes very seriously the recommendations made by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and VA’s Office of Inspector General (VAOIG) and is working 

to implement recommendations made in those reports as well as other important 

measures we believe will further strengthen the program. 

I would like to highlight some of the strides VA has made within the last 18 

months, which are contributing to improved service delivery and oversight of benefits to this group of Veterans and beneficiaries. In September 2008, a new Chief of 

the Fiduciary Staff was recruited to spearhead reform efforts for our Fiduciary Program. Shortly thereafter, we selected a new Assistant Compensation and Pension 

Service Director for Veterans Services, who has responsibility for this Program area. 

These individuals bring many years of technical and management experience to 

bear on our efforts to strengthen the Fiduciary Program. In addition to these leadership changes, we have increased the staff responsible for fiduciary policies and procedures and reassigned a portion of the work previously assigned to this staff to 

VA’s National Quality Assurance Staff in Nashville, Tennessee. The result is significantly more resources dedicated to oversight and policy changes aimed at strengthening protections for these Veterans and beneficiaries. 

VA is taking steps to clarify existing procedural guidance. The operations manual 

for fiduciary activities, M21–1 MR, Part XI, is undergoing a complete revision. Several policy changes are already in place to increase protections. Guidance was disseminated to all VA regional offices implementing new requirements to obtain documentation of any unbudgeted expenses in excess of thresholds agreed to between VA 

and an approved fiduciary in their fund usage agreement. Fund usage agreements 

document recurring expenses that are allowed to be paid out of VA benefits to support an incompetent Veteran, beneficiary or dependent. Additional requirements are 

in place for documentation of budgeted expenses that exceed pre-approved limits by 

more than 15 percent and cannot be verified by bank statements submitted as part 

of the annual accounting requirement. This guidance was issued in C&P Service 

Fast Letter 10–12 dated April 19, 2010. 

Periodic or onsite reviews at a fiduciary’s place of business are required for those 

fiduciaries that manage the benefits of 20 or more beneficiaries. Increased oversight 

was established in October 2009 to review compliance with this policy. VA’s site survey protocol related to fiduciary activities now includes an assessment of these onsite reviews. Further, policy guidance was released in Fast Letter 10–12, which requires the collection of a taxpayer identification number or Social Security number 

for every corporate and individual fiduciary. This will assist in identifying those fiduciaries subject to the onsite review requirement. The fast letter also requires all 

onsite review reports be submitted to VA Central Office Fiduciary Staff for review 

and analysis. Finally, VA is considering a third-party audit process, which could potentially assist with conducting onsite reviews and investigations relating to misuse, 

as well as provide independent audits of local fiduciary activities nationwide. 

VA has deployed several measures to improve oversight of investigations into allegations of misuse of beneficiary funds. Beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2010, the Fiduciary Staff will complete a systematic analysis of operations related to VA’s misuse 

determination process. This annual review will be incorporated as a standard business process for continuous process improvement. The goal of the analysis will be 

to identify areas in which VA fiduciary activities could improve in compliance and 

oversight, and areas in which VA’s Fiduciary Program could be enhanced to eliminate the potential for misuse of Veterans’ and beneficiaries’ benefits. 

In October 2009, VA’s site survey protocol for reviewing fiduciary activities at VA 

regional offices was amended to include a review of all documentation pertaining to 

any misuse allegation. Additionally, in cases where a misuse allegation has occurred, policy is now in place that requires VA regional office fiduciary activities to 

forward all documentation pertaining to the investigation of these allegations. PreVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:41 Dec 17, 2010 Jkt 057016 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 E:\TEMP\57016.XXX 57016

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
69 

viously, VA fiduciary activities were required to forward only the final misuse determination; however, some allegations had been determined to be without merit at the 

local level and did not warrant a formal misuse determination. This policy allows 

for centralized oversight of all allegations, regardless of whether a formal misuse 

determination is determined necessary. 

A major initiative is also underway to develop and deploy standardized training 

for all VA fiduciary activities. The training, which is being deployed this month, is 

an intense, 40-hour session for all fiduciary employees nationwide. The training focuses on the specific responsibilities of fiduciary managers, field examiners, and 

legal instruments examiners. The prepared course material includes instruction on 

vulnerabilities of the Fiduciary Program, file documentation, account audits, estate 

protection, and fiduciary appointments. Additionally, the Fiduciary Staff will conduct a National Fiduciary Managers Training Conference in June 2010, to provide 

in-depth training on a myriad of fiduciary matters. 

To improve operational efficiencies, VA consolidated the management of 14 fiduciary activities within the Western Area under the Fiduciary Hub Pilot Program. 

The Western Area Fiduciary Hub, located at the VA Regional Office in Salt Lake 

City, Utah, is responsible for all fiduciary work including field examinations, account audits, fiduciary appointments and oversight, and related program responsibilities. VA is conducting a full analysis of the Western Area Fiduciary Hub Pilot. 

The analysis with recommendations will be completed by September 30, 2010. The 

analysis will address program strengths, weaknesses, and lessons learned, and 

make recommendations on the feasibility of expansion of the hub concept. 

To date, the Western Area Hub has demonstrated improvement in processing fiduciary accountings. The standard requires account audits to be completed within 

14 days of receipt. The Hub has processed ninety-four percent of its accountings 

within the prescribed timeliness standard, which is higher than the national average of ninety-three percent. 

The Hub is the only fiduciary activity operating in a paperless environment, 

which has served its unique configuration well. Electronic forms, field examination 

packets, and other important information are available to every employee of the 

Hub regardless of the employee’s location. The Hub also created a Misuse Team, 

which specializes in misuse investigations. The Hub is unique in that it has integrated Microsoft MapPoint software in the scheduling of field exams within the 

Western Area Hub’s jurisdiction. Utilizing this technology has reduced overall travel 

times and increased the effectiveness of field examiners. These are examples of improvements realized with the consolidation. 

VA also recognizes the need to improve the information technology systems available to its field fiduciary personnel in the administration of this program. The current fiduciary electronic case management system, the Fiduciary Beneficiary System 

(FBS), poses some limitations with historical data, interfacing with other systems 

currently employed by VA, workload management, and fiduciary oversight. We have 

initiated steps to replace FBS. A project team was established in October 2009, to 

assess the functional requirements for a replacement fiduciary case management 

system. The project team will present its findings and recommendations in June 

2010. Concurrently, we are preparing a request for information to solicit interest 

from the private sector in an alternative electronic case management system. 

Recently, VA had the opportunity to participate in audits of the Fiduciary Program conducted by GAO and VAOIG. These audits confirmed the validity of our current efforts to eliminate vulnerabilities in this important program. 

Finally, VA is taking steps to collaborate with other agencies that perform similar 

functions. We intend to host a round table forum with other Federal agencies to 

share best practices and explore ways to strengthen our program. 

In conclusion, I want to affirm the commitment of VA to serve and protect our 

most vulnerable population of Veterans and beneficiaries. The interest expressed in 

our program from VAOIG, GAO, and this Committee is a testament to the very important task at hand. VA is committed to take every step necessary to ensure we 

fulfill our obligations to protect this special segment of Veterans and beneficiaries 

whom we serve. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to address 

any questions or comments regarding my testimony here today. 

f 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
70 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

May 13, 2010 

Honorable Eric K. Shinseki 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

810 Vermont Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20420 

Dear Secretary Shinseki: 

On Thursday, April 22, 2010, the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs’ Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs’ convened an oversight 

hearing entitled ‘‘Examining VA’s Fiduciary Program: How Can VA Better Protect 

Vulnerable Veterans and their Families?’’ Through its Fiduciary Program the Department of Veterans Affairs currently supervises more than 108,000 of our most 

vulnerable veterans and their widows and children with cumulative estates of more 

than $3 billion. In FY 2010 VA paid more than $696 million in benefits payments 

to these beneficiaries. 

In 2010, both VA’s Office of Inspector General (VA OIG) and the Government Accountability Office issued reports criticizing the VA’s Fiduciary Program for lacking 

the proper staffing, training, and other resources needed for effective oversight of 

this program and delivery of benefits. What is also disturbing is that the issues 

identified in these reports seem to be longstanding because they are almost identical 

to those identified in a 2006 VA OIG Report. In the absence of adequate supervision 

and accountability by VBA, some fiduciaries have misused millions of dollars belonging to our veterans and their dependents. This is an unacceptable outcome that can 

be avoided with better internal controls. 

In light of the importance of this program, I would like to bring to your attention 

a number of issues that were raised during last month’s oversight hearing: 

• The Veterans Benefit Administration (VBA) has failed to (1) obtain seriously delinquent accountings; (2) consistently verify questionable expenses reported by 

fiduciaries; and (3) adequately follow up and report on allegations of misuse of 

beneficiary funds and estates. 

• VBA’s data tracking and case management system, the Fiduciary Beneficiary 

System, does not store data needed to allow the agency to effectively manage 

the Fiduciary Program or accurately target vulnerable beneficiary estates. 

• The VBA lacks the number of trained staff to fully oversee fiduciary-managed 

estates. Additionally, training for fiduciaries may assist VBA in preventing misuse of funds reserved for VA beneficiaries. 

• The VA OIG noted deficiencies in staffing and workload models for the Fiduciary Program. For example, VA OIG observed that there was no national fixed 

maximum number of cases assigned to each Field Examiner and Legal Instrument Examiner, nor a fixed limit on the number of beneficiaries that any single 

fiduciary can manage. 

• Outreach regarding the Fiduciary Program could be improved by updating the 

material on VA’s Web site about the Fiduciary Program and including information on the program in the VA Handbook for Veterans, Dependents and 

Survivors and including statistical information pertaining to the misuse of 

funds by VA fiduciaries in the Annual Benefits Report to Congress as required 

by title 38, United States Code, section 5510. 

This is an area of serious concern that warrants immediate attention. While I appreciate your recent efforts to improve service delivery and oversight of benefits, 

clearly more is needed to improve the efficiency and effective of this program. I 

would appreciate your response to these issues by Friday, June 11, 2010. Due to 

the processing delays with Congressional postal mail, please also send your reVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:41 Dec 17, 2010 Jkt 057016 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 E:\TEMP\57016.XXX 57016

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
71 

sponses to Ms. Megan Williams by fax at (202) 225–2034. If you have any questions, 

please call (202) 225–3608. 

Sincerely, 

John J. Hall 

Chairman 

Enclosure 

KR/tk 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

July 23, 2010 

The Honorable John J. Hall Chairman 

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

I am responding to your letter in which you listed several significant issues raised 

during your Subcommittee’s oversight hearing conducted on April 22, 2010, entitled 

‘‘Examining the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ Fiduciary Program: How Can 

the VA Better Protect Vulnerable Veterans and Their Families?’’ 

I assure you that I share your concerns regarding VA’s duty to protect our most 

vulnerable beneficiaries. I agree that the issues raised in your letter are 

vulnerabilities within our Fiduciary Program. VA’s Chief of Staff, Acting Under Secretary of Benefits, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Field Operations, and Director of the Compensation and Pension Service have all been personally involved 

in addressing the deficiencies of the fiduciary program. The process to enhance VA’s 

Fiduciary Program began in September 2008 when a new Chief was hired to reengineer the program. The enclosure provides the most current update on each of your 

issues of concerns. 

Thank you for your support of VA’s efforts to safeguard the assets of our most 

vulnerable Veterans and beneficiaries. 

Sincerely, 

Eric K. Shinseki 

Enclosure 

Response to Inquiry from the Honorable John J. Hall 

Department of Veterans Affairs Fiduciary Program 

Issue #1: The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) has failed to obtain 

seriously delinquent accountings. 

Response: Seriously delinquent accountings are defined as accountings that have 

not been received within 120 days of the due date. VBA continues to take all steps 

necessary to obtain seriously delinquent accountings. VA does not simply conduct 

an accounting on a sampling of cases; accountings are required from every fiduciary 

who meets certain criteria (i.e. VA estate exceeds $10,000, the fiduciary receives a 

fee, 100 percent service-connected veteran, court-appointed, etc.). Currently, VBA requires 30,444 accountings annually which equate to approximately 28 percent of all 

beneficiaries in the program. To eliminate instances of seriously delinquent accountings, VBA developed and deployed a national training program that includes methods for addressing overdue accountings. The methods include aggressive follow-up 

and initiating misuse investigations. In June 2010, VBA hosted a National Fiduciary Managers Training Conference, attended by 82 managers from every regional 

office, pension management center and area office, as well as the Western Area Fiduciary Hub. The training conference included comprehensive focus on delinquent 

accountings and methods to obtain them. Since February 2010, VBA reduced the seVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:41 Dec 17, 2010 Jkt 057016 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 E:\TEMP\57016.XXX 57016

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
72 

riously delinquent accounting rate from 5.7 percent to 5.2 percent, and anticipates 

making greater progress by the end of the fiscal year. 

Issue 2: VBA has failed to consistently verify questionable expenses reported by fiduciaries. 

Response: On April 20, 2010, VBA released Fast Letter 10–12, Revised Fiduciary 

Policies and Procedures (enclosed), which significantly heightens the requirements 

for addressing questionable expenditures. This guidance mandates that all non-recurring expenditures over $1,000 must have receipts for verification and all expenditures exceeding the Fund Usage Agreement by more than 15 percent that cannot 

be verified with financial institution documents must also be confirmed by receipts. 

VBA’s Quality Assurance Staff reviews completed accountings on a monthly basis 

for compliance with this requirement. Additionally, VBA’s Quality Assurance Staff 

provides a quarterly analysis of errors found during the quality reviews. 

Issue 3: VBA has failed to adequately follow up and report on allegations 

of misuse of beneficiary funds and estates. 

Response: VBA’s adjudication manual mandates that allegations of misuse of 

beneficiary funds and estates must be addressed by VBA within 14 days of receipt. 

In October 2009, the Compensation and Pension Service revised the site-visit protocol for VA regional office fiduciary activities to include a review of misuse allegations. With the release of FL 10–12 on April 20, 2010 (enclosed); every RO Fiduciary 

Activity is now required to submit findings in every instance of an allegation of misuse. C&P Service Fiduciary Staff is collecting and reviewing these reports. C&P 

Service will complete an annual analysis of misuse processes and procedures to 

identify areas that may be improved. 

Issue 4: VBA’s data tracking and case management system, the Fiduciary 

Beneficiary System (FBS), does not store data needed to allow the agency 

to effectively manage the Fiduciary Program or accurately target vulnerable beneficiary estates. 

Response: VBA recognizes the need to replace FBS and prepared a Request for 

Information (RFI) seeking private companies with the capabilities to provide a replacement product for FBS. The RFI is scheduled to be released by the end of fiscal 

year 2010 and will require responses by November 30, 2010. Upon review of the RFI 

responses, VBA will determine the necessary budgetary requirements for a replacement program. The proposed timeline calls for a replacement FBS program by the 

end of fiscal year 2011. Additionally, the business requirements for the Veterans 

Benefits Management System (VBMS) include a fiduciary component that will allow 

for greater integration of fiduciary functionality. 

Issue 5: VBA lacks the number of trained staff to fully oversee fiduciarymanaged estates. Additionally, training for fiduciaries may further assist 

VBA in preventing misuse of funds reserved for VA beneficiaries. 

Response: Because of a lack of standardized training for VA fiduciary activity 

personnel, VBA deployed a program of standardized training in April 2010, which 

includes a 40-hour classroom-training course. Through the end of fiscal year 2011, 

the training will be delivered to approximately 500 VBA employees who staff fiduciary activities within the regional offices. Headquarters staff members are delivering the training onsite to increase the interactive participation and establish a 

greater level of communication and collaboration between Headquarters and the regional offices. 

VBA is also in the process of developing an Internet site for private individuals 

or entities that serve as fiduciaries for our veterans and beneficiaries. The proposed 

site will detail the duties and responsibilities of a private fiduciary and provide responses to frequently asked questions, links to forms, and links to other sites with 

important information to fiduciaries, e.g. the Social Security Administration. The 

new Web site will be launched by September 30, 2010. 

Issue 6: The VA OIG noted deficiencies in staffing and workload models 

for the Fiduciary Program. For example, VA OIG observed that there was 

no fixed maximum number of cases assigned to each Field Examiner and 

Legal Instruments Examiner, nor a fixed limit on the number of beneficiaries that any single fiduciary can manage. 

Response: The Compensation and Pension Service is currently developing staffing and workload models for fiduciary activities nationwide. The models will include 

variations for density of population, remoteness of beneficiaries (number of miles 

traveled), and a ratio of field examiners and legal instruments examiners based on 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
73 

the number of beneficiaries in the fiduciary program. The models will be completed 

by September 30, 2010. 

VBA does not place a fixed limit on the number of beneficiaries assigned to any 

private fiduciary since each beneficiary’s case is unique and fiduciary capabilities 

vary. Fiduciaries with substantial experience may be capable of managing a larger 

number of cases. Ultimately, if it is determined that a fiduciary is not performing 

satisfactorily for any or all beneficiaries he or she manages, VBA will relieve the 

fiduciary of cases. Fiduciaries are not VA employees, and they are unable to appeal 

the decision to remove them as fiduciary. 

Issue 7: Outreach and information regarding the Fiduciary Program 

could be improved by updating the material on VA’s Web site about the Fiduciary Program and including information on the program in the VA 

Handbook for Veterans. Dependents. and Survivors and including statistical 

information pertaining to the misuse of funds by VA fiduciaries in the Annual Benefits Report to Congress as required by title 38, United States 

Code, section 5510. 

Response: VBA has significantly broadened outreach efforts to the National 

Guardianship Association, the National Association for Elder Law Attorneys, the 

National College of Probate Court Judges, and various State conventions for fiduciaries and guardians. Additionally, VBA will provide representation at the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) national convention which is expected 

to draw 25,000 attendees. VBA has accepted an invitation to be a plenary speaker 

at the 2010 National Guardianship Association national convention. 

The actions being taken to update VA’s Web site regarding the Fiduciary Program 

are addressed in the response to Issue 5. VBA will provide information for inclusion 

in the annual Federal Benefits for Veterans, Dependents and Survivors reference 

guide. VBA anticipates the 2010 online version will be updated by August 31, 2010, 

and the 2011 print version will include the additional fiduciary information. 

VBA is in the process of gathering the data required for the Annual Benefits Report (ABR). The ABR is posted on VA’s Web site. The next ABR will include statistical information, and VBA will amend fiscal year 2009 ABR to include the data as 

well. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING