VA Benefits: Improvements Needed to Ensure Claimants Receive Appropriate Representation
Published: 2013-08-01T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Representatives accredited by VA serve a critical role in helping veterans or their family members file claims for VA benefits. By law, accredited individuals must demonstrate good moral character and program knowledge and VA's OGC is tasked to ensure they do so by reviewing initial applications and monitoring ongoing requirements, such as training.
GAO examined (1) the extent to which VA's procedures adequately ensure representatives meet program requirements, and (2) any obstacles that may impede VA's efforts to adequately implement its accreditation process. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations and procedures, and interviewed VA officials and organizations of accredited representatives. GAO also reviewed a representative sample of accreditation decisions made in 2012 as well as complaints received by VA in 2012. GAO also conducted additional checks on a random but small and non-representative sample of accredited individuals.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) Office of General Counsel (OGC) procedures do not sufficiently ensure that accredited representatives have good character and knowledge. While GAO's analysis shows that VA follows its procedures for reviewing initial accreditation applications, VA relies on limited self-reported information to determine whether applicants have a criminal history or their character could be called into question, which in turn leaves VA vulnerable to accrediting individuals who may not provide responsible assistance. For example, when GAO conducted additional checks on a non-representative sample of accredited individuals, GAO found that some individuals had histories of bankruptcies or liens, information which could help develop a more complete picture of applicants' character and prompt further inquiry by VA into their background. VA's procedures also do not ensure that representatives have adequate program knowledge. For example, VA's initial training requirements are minimal and VA does not consistently monitor whether representatives meet additional continuing education requirements. As a result, some accredited representatives may not have adequate program knowledge to effectively assist clients with their claims. After being briefed on GAO's findings in May 2013, VA's OGC announced plans to take additional steps toward conducting background checks on applicants and auditing ongoing character and training requirements.
VA efforts to administer accreditation are hindered by an inadequate allocation of resources and unclear communication with claimants. For example, OGC has only four staff dedicated to overseeing thousands of accreditation applications each year, in addition to monitoring approximately 20,000 accredited representatives. As a result, OGC has not kept pace with pending accreditation applications, and has not consistently monitored continuing requirements. OGC's reliance on manual data entry results in resource-intensive program administration. For instance, OGC lacks information technology systems and tools that would help it proactively and efficiently identify representatives who are not meeting ongoing training requirements. Moreover, VA does not clearly solicit feedback from claimants about accredited representatives. For example, neither VA's accreditation web page nor information VA sends to claimants clearly communicates their rights or how to report abuses. Absent such outreach, claimants may not be aware that some representatives may be engaging in prohibited practices. Lastly, VA's current accreditation program does not address some emerging threats to claimants. For instance, VA has received complaints regarding unaccredited individuals inappropriately charging claimants to apply for benefits. By law, only accredited individuals can assist claimants. However, VA is not aware of the extent these unaccredited individuals operate, and is limited in the actions it can take to prevent them from assisting claimants.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: To improve the integrity of accreditation, GAO recommends that VA explore options for strengthening knowledge requirements and addressing emerging threats, improve its outreach, and determine the resources needed to adequately carry out accreditation. VA concurred or concurred in principle with GAO's recommendations and cautioned that imposing additional requirements to address concerns with representative knowledge or address emerging threats could have a chilling effect on representation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In 2012, veterans, their spouses, or survivors filed over a million claims  for various benefits with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In order  to help these claimants navigate what can be a complex and lengthy  process, VA accredits individuals—called representatives—to help ensure  responsible and qualified representation is available to prepare, present,  and prosecute claims on the behalf of veterans. Representatives who  assist veterans and their families in applying for benefits must have good  moral character and be capable of providing competent representation,  and VA has responsibility for making such determinations through its  accreditation process. However, we and others have found instances in  which individuals that purport to help veterans may actually be harming  them. For example, in prior work we identified instances where  representatives charged excessive fees for filing claims or failed to  properly file claims, costing veterans thousands of dollars in foregone  benefits.
At your request, we reviewed VA’s procedures for accrediting and  monitoring representatives. Specifically, this report examines (1) the  extent to which VA’s procedures adequately ensure representatives meet  program requirements, and (2) any obstacles that may impede VA’s  efforts to adequately implement its accreditation process. To identify  requirements for the program, we reviewed applicable federal laws,  regulations, and program guidance. To determine how VA carries out its  responsibilities and the challenges it faces, we interviewed officials in  VA’s Office of General Counsel—which administers VA’s accreditation  function—as well as the Veterans Benefits Administration, which reviews  disability benefits claims and awards benefits. We also visited a VA  regional office to obtain an operational perspective. To gain further  understanding of VA’s procedures for screening applicants and  addressing complaints, we reviewed a randomly selected and  representative sample of 92 accreditation decisions made in 2012, and a  judgmental sample of 24 complaints received by VA. Additionally, we  judgmentally selected a sample of 21 individuals—individuals who had  either received accreditation in 2012 or individuals for whom VA had  received a complaint in 2012—for additional checks into their criminal and  financial histories. To provide additional perspectives and further context  to our review, we interviewed officials from four national organizations  that represent veterans, as well as three organizations that represent  accredited attorneys or agents.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2012 to August  2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. These 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  conducted our related investigative work in accordance with investigation  standards prescribed by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity  and Efficiency. Additional information on our scope and methodology is  provided in Appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Although VA is required by law to assist claimants in obtaining the  evidence necessary to substantiate a claim for benefits, accreditation  helps ensure that claimants have access to qualified representation. By  law, only individuals accredited by VA can represent claimants in the VA  claims process. Table 1 below describes the three types of individuals  that VA recognizes as accredited representatives.
To implement accreditation, the law and VA regulations set forth a  number of requirements representatives must meet. For example, representatives must:
Be of good character: Although what constitutes good character is not  specifically defined, VA regulations provide, with respect to agents  and attorneys, that evidence showing a lack of good character and  reputation may include such things as: conviction of a felony or other  crimes related to fraud, theft, or deceit; or suspension or disbarment  from a court, bar, or government agency on ethical grounds. In  addition, all representatives are required to be truthful in their dealings  with claimants and VA.
Provide competent representation: Representatives must provide  competent representation, which includes the knowledge, skills,  thoroughness, and preparation necessary for representation, as well  as an understanding of the issues of fact and law relevant to the  claim.
Provide prompt representation: Representatives must act with  reasonable diligence and promptness in representing claimants. This  includes responding promptly to VA requests for information or  assisting a claimant in responding promptly to VA requests for  information.
As of May 2013, VA had on its rolls approximately 20,000 individuals who  are accredited to represent claimants. Specifically, VA had accredited  8,207 VSO representatives, 11,568 attorneys, and 345 claim agents.
Available data demonstrate the growing role and importance of  accreditation. Since current program rules were adopted in mid-2008, the  number of applications VA received has grown from 2,696 in 2008 to over  5,000 in each year since. Additionally, almost 80 percent of claims that  were open as of November 2012 used the services of a representative,  with VSOs accounting for the bulk of those claims (see fig. 1).
VA’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) oversees the accreditation  program. To this end, OGC staff review accreditation applications and  make approval decisions, monitor whether accredited representatives  meet ongoing program requirements, and investigate issues and  complaints that could lead to a representative having his or her  accreditation cancelled or suspended. Table 2 describes the initial and  ongoing requirements for these representatives. Additionally, OGC staff  receive and review fee agreements—contracts between claimants and  representatives outlining how claimants will be charged for services.  Within VA, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) also plays a  limited role in enforcing accreditation rules—checking that individuals are  accredited when claimants designate them as their representative. In  cases where an individual is not accredited, VA policy is to inform the  would-be representative of accreditation program rules and prohibit the  individual from serving as the representative for that claim.
VA rules also govern the fees that each type of representative can charge  claimants. VSO representatives are required to provide their services free  of charge. Attorneys and claim agents may not charge claimants for  services related to the initial preparation and filing of their claims, but can  charge fees for any services rendered after VA makes an initial decision  on a claim and the claimant initiates an appeal of VA’s decision.services rendered after an initial decision is made and an appeal is  initiated, VA rules generally allow attorneys and agents to charge a   For  reasonable fee based on retroactive benefits that are awarded. Fees that  do not exceed 20 percent of any retroactive benefits are presumed to be  reasonable.
VA’s OGC may cancel accreditation if the representative fails to meet any  of the requirements for accreditation, knowingly presents a fraudulent or  frivolous claim, or demands or accepts unlawful compensation. OGC may  also suspend and reinstate the individual if he or she meets conditions for  reinstatement. Additionally, a VSO can request that VA suspend or cancel  accreditation for one of its representatives based on misconduct or lack of  competence. OGC is required to inform representatives of the nature of  their alleged violation and representatives may request a hearing on the  matter. An OGC decision can be appealed to the Board of Veteran’s  Appeals.
section_title: VA’s Procedures and Requirements Do Not Sufficiently Ensure That Representatives Are Qualified
subsections: section_title: VA Does Not Sufficiently Assess Whether Representatives Have Good Character
paragraphs: For four of these individuals, VA received complaints alleging these same individuals  charged non-allowable fees for filing claims. Of the 21 individuals we conducted  background checks on, 10 of them had complaints against them on file with VA. The  remaining 11 individuals were selected from our sample of 92 attorneys and agents  accredited in 2012. We were able to obtain information on 20 of the 21 individuals in our  sample. acknowledged that additional background information, particularly on  agents who are also financial planners, would be useful in informing VA’s  judgment of their character. Subsequent to our May 2013 exit briefing  with VA, OGC officials informed us that they recently gained access to  VBA’s system to conduct background searches and are developing plans  to conduct comprehensive background checks on all claim agent  applicants and on attorney applicants as necessary. The official that  oversees accreditation also stated that VA is considering requiring  applicants to supply information on any professional certifications they  hold and confirming this information with agencies like the Financial  Industry Regulatory Authority, which regulates brokers’ activities.
Not consistently following up on references: VA may be missing  opportunities to obtain additional information about applicants by not  consistently following up on character references. While attorneys and  agents are required to provide references in their accreditation  applications, the official who oversees accreditation told us that VA  contacts references only for agents, which we verified in our review of  applications. Further, the value of reference letters VA receives is  questionable as VA did not use a standard set of questions or guidance to  obtain specific information that should be included in reference letters,  such as requesting information on the agents’ criminal or employment  history. Several reference letters we reviewed did not provide substantial  information on applicants’ ability to assist veterans. In one instance, VA  had to request additional reference letters for an applicant because two of  the applicant’s reference letters were from members of the same church  group and had identical language. Additionally, we found several  instances where references listed in applications were family members or  lived at the same address as the applicant, calling into question the  impartiality of the information received. At our May 2013 exit briefing with  VA, officials announced that VA has revised and will begin using a  standardized letter to references to specifically request information on  agents’ criminal and employment histories, as well as their interest in  serving veterans.
Reliance on VSOs and state bars: OGC officials told us that they rely  heavily on the judgment of VSOs when deciding whether to accredit their  prospective representatives. OGC officials told us that they believe VSOs  do a good job of screening their applicants and that it is in the best  interests of VSOs to maintain a positive reputation regarding the quality of  representation they provide as VSOs depend on contributions from  veterans to fund their operations. That said, VA does not actively review  VSO certification plans and therefore cannot know whether there is  variability in procedures and standards among organizations. Regarding  attorneys, VA generally presumes good character and fitness to represent  claimants if they have a state bar membership in good standing.  However, our work shows that an attorney’s standing with a state bar may  not always be a sufficient proxy for good character. In one example, an  attorney was in good standing with his state bar, but he had several  previous suspensions from the bar and multiple felonies in his criminal  record involving theft or misappropriation of property or funds. In this  instance, VA chose not to accredit the individual based on his self- reported criminal record, but it is not clear what the outcome would have  been had VA relied on his bar membership status in the absence of such  self-reported information.
Limited ongoing monitoring: Once representatives become accredited, VA  does little to ensure that they retain good character. VA requires attorneys  and agents to annually certify that they are in good standing with any  court, bar, or federal or state agency to which they are admitted to  practice or authorized to appear. VA also requires VSOs to recertify their  representatives every 5 years. However, VA officials told us that they  currently face a backlog in processing these annual certifications and  therefore have not consistently monitored whether these re-certifications  have occurred. For example, the official that oversees accreditation told  us that in one instance, an attorney self-reported in a letter to VA that he  was disbarred and that his accreditation should be cancelled. Since VA  does not consistently monitor whether attorneys annually certify their  standing with the bar, the agency would not have known that this  individual was disbarred had he not voluntarily communicated this  information. After our May 2013 exit briefing with VA, OGC informed us  that they are developing plans to annually audit the certifications of good  standing that attorneys and agents file.
section_title: VA Requirements Do Not Ensure Representatives Are Knowledgeable
paragraphs: VA’s initial knowledge requirements for attorneys and agents are limited  and do not ensure that they are knowledgeable about VA benefits. To  become accredited, agents must pass an exam comprised of 25 multiple- choice and true-false questions. However, organizations that represent or  help train agents told us the exam covers a wide array of subjects  concerning veterans’ benefits law and procedure without deeply  broaching any particular topic. Further, they said that the exam alone is  not sufficient to determine whether agents have enough knowledge to  represent veterans. For attorneys, VA presumes that any attorney in good  standing with the bar is qualified and knowledgeable enough to assist  veterans. As such, attorneys are not required to take an initial exam to  demonstrate their knowledge of veterans’ benefits law. However, officials  from two organizations that provide training for accreditation told us that  membership with the bar does not guarantee that an individual is  knowledgeable about VA benefits law. One attorney noted that it can take  years to understand VA benefits issues and provide knowledgeable  assistance in this area. In fact, representatives from one VSO told us that  attorneys and agents often contact VSOs with questions about  representing their claimants.
In addition, VA’s initial and ongoing training requirements do not ensure  accredited attorneys and agents are knowledgeable and VA does not  consistently enforce existing requirements. In addition to requiring that  attorneys and agents complete 3 hours of qualifying continuing legal  education (CLE) within 12 months as an initial condition of accreditation,  VA requires that accredited attorneys and agents complete 3 hours of  training every 2 years, and that this training cover certain topics such as  representation before VA, claims procedures, basic eligibility for benefits,  and appeal rights. Officials from two organizations that provide training for  accreditation told us that this amount of training is not sufficient to ensure  that attorneys and agents are knowledgeable. Additionally, officials from  these organizations told us that VA does not review, or provide guidance  on course content. OGC officials told us that they rely on each state bar  association to approve its own training, which can introduce variability  across states. Moreover, VA does not consistently ensure that attorneys  and agents complete required training. OGC officials told us that  individuals who do not certify their training requirements could have their  accreditation suspended. Despite this, OGC has fallen behind on its  monitoring of this requirement, and it is likely that individuals who should  not be accredited continue to assist claimants. After our May 2013 exit  briefing with VA, OGC officials informed us that they are developing plans  to annually audit the training certifications which attorneys and agents  must file with OGC.
VA relies on VSOs to train their representatives and ensure that VSO  representatives can provide knowledgeable assistance to veterans with  relatively little oversight from VA. We spoke to three national VSOs who  noted that they provide numerous training opportunities for their  representatives, which may include on-the-job training, seminars, and  regular conferences. Two VSOs we spoke with also said that they monitor  whether their representatives are meeting knowledge requirements.  However, the official who oversees accreditation said VA relies on VSOs  to ensure their staff have appropriate training and that VA does not review  VSO training programs. While VA did not express concerns about VSO  representatives meeting knowledge requirements, GAO’s standards for  internal controls state that information about a program’s operations  should be communicated to management, in order to determine whether  the agency is achieving compliance requirements under relevant laws  and regulations. Absent better oversight of VSO training, VA cannot  ensure the knowledge of representatives who represent a majority of  claimants.
Representatives’ knowledge is critical to meeting another VA  requirement—ensuring that they provide prompt representation. Officials  at one regional office noted that some representatives are less  knowledgeable than others and that they might forget or overlook certain  items in a claim. At the same time, they stated that it is VA’s responsibility  to review claims to make sure they are complete and to notify claimants  when information is missing. However, officials from an organization  representing attorneys and agents told us that VA does not consistently  follow up with veterans to make sure that their paperwork is complete and  there have been instances where mistakes on initial claims resulted in  veterans losing the ability to claim benefits that they were entitled to  receive. Similarly, the officials told us that a representative who is not  knowledgeable enough to use the appropriate language for appealing a  decision may result in VA not recognizing the communication as a formal  disagreement with VA’s decision, in turn causing the veteran to miss the  deadline for appealing their claims case.
section_title: Inadequate Resource Allocation and Unclear Communication with Claimants Hinder Efforts to Administer Accreditation
subsections: section_title: Inadequate Staffing and Information Technology Leads to Backlogs and Limited Program Monitoring
paragraphs: VA has dedicated only a few staff to administer its accreditation program,  which has resulted in limited monitoring efforts and workload backlogs.  VA officials told us that approximately four staff positions in OGC are  dedicated to accreditation. These staff are responsible for reviewing  thousands of applications each year, and ensuring that the approximately  20,000 individuals already accredited meet continuing requirements.  Officials told us this level of staffing is insufficient to carry out all these  responsibilities and that VA has chosen to prioritize screening initial  accreditation applications over monitoring ongoing requirements. Even  so, VA has a significant backlog of accreditation applications to review.  VA estimates that it may take 60 to 120 days to review an application  after it is received. Because by law only accredited individuals may  represent claimants, this backlog may cause delays for claimants who  need assistance with their claims.
VA currently has no plans to permanently increase the number of staff  dedicated to accreditation. OGC officials told us that they have been  seeking to increase the number of staff working on accreditation, but have  been unsuccessful in obtaining additional permanent staff. An official  noted that in the fall of 2012, several staff were assigned to accreditation  on a temporary basis and, with their help, OGC was able to eliminate its  backlog of attorney and VSO representative applications. However, OGC  stated that a considerable backlog of agent applications remains and it is  likely the backlog of attorney and VSO representative applications will  return since this temporary initiative has ended. Moreover, as of May  2013, one of the four positions was not filled because of a resignation.  OGC is in the process of replacing staff lost to attrition as well as  obtaining an additional temporary staff person. Still, OGC officials stated  that they would need several additional staff beyond the four dedicated  positions to function more effectively. It is questionable if this will happen  in the near future as VA’s proposed fiscal year 2014 budget calls for  fewer staff in VA’s OGC. This may also affect OGC’s plans to increase its  oversight of accredited representatives because those plans are  contingent upon eliminating the backlog of initial applications.
VA’s implementation of its accreditation process is also hampered by  limited information technology (IT) support. Officials told us that the  database system used by OGC cannot automatically inform individuals  that they are meeting program requirements and OGC staff must do this  manually. Further, an official noted that a significant amount of data entry  is required when applicants submit information for accreditation. Officials  noted that other IT improvements, such as the ability for applicants to  electronically submit applications, or for accredited representatives to  submit certifications of good standing and training certifications would  help OGC manage its responsibilities more efficiently. However, no steps  have been taken to date toward developing these capabilities.
section_title: VA’s Oversight Is Limited by a Lack of Outreach to Claimants and an Unclear Complaint Process
paragraphs: VA’s ability to identify and address abuses by representatives is limited  because VA has missed opportunities to educate claimants about their  rights and protections against potential abuses. In prior work, we reported  that targeted communication with a specific message is a best practice for  outreach to veterans. Individuals who do not yet have representation  receive a letter from VA after submitting a claim containing some  information on representation—such as explaining what VSOs are and  that they provide assistance at no charge. However, the letter does not  discuss attorneys and agents, nor does it note that a claimant should not  have to pay for services associated with filing an initial claim. Similarly,  the form that claimants use to designate an attorney or agentindividuals to the section of the law governing fees, but does not explain  that claimants should not pay for filing an initial claim. Beyond these  forms, VBA officials told us that VA does not actively conduct outreach to  claimants regarding representation, what to expect from their  representative, or their right to not pay filing fees for initial claims. As a   refers  result, several VSOs we interviewed stated that veterans are often  unaware of their rights or what to expect during the claims process. One  VSO service officer told us that nearly all veterans he encounters are  unaware that they should not pay to file initial claims. He added that if a  veteran is told that he or she must pay a fee, the veteran will usually just  assume this is how business is done. Further, many of the complaints to  VA we reviewed regarded improper fees.
VA’s ability to learn about and address potential abuses also may be  hampered by a complaint process that is not well-communicated to  claimants. GAO standards for internal controls state that effective  communications—such as with external stakeholders—is critical for  agencies to ensure they receive information that may significantly affect  whether they achieve their objectives. While VA regulations establish a  complaint process, VA may be missing opportunities to serve and protect  claimants as it has not clearly communicated to claimants or others how  to report concerns about representatives. For example, VA’s  accreditation website does not explicitly state how to report concerns  about representatives. While the website provides a link to an e-mail  address used for general inquiries, an official noted that OGC receives a  large volume of emails at this address—including complaints—and is  behind in responding to inquiries. Additionally, the materials provided to  individuals when filing a claim also do not clearly state how to report  complaints. When we interviewed veterans at two VSOs in the D.C. area,  we generally found that they were unfamiliar with program requirements  and did not know where or how to file a complaint.
Further, the process of responding to and addressing complaints—which  can be difficult and lengthy—is understaffed, thereby limiting its  effectiveness. VA officials told us they require clear and convincing  evidence in order to cancel a representative’s accreditation. One official  noted the process of monitoring representatives who received complaints  is difficult given competing demands for resources. Additionally, collecting  evidence can be difficult because claimants may be reluctant to reveal  their identities when making complaints. They added that some  cancellation actions may take years to resolve when representatives  exercise their right to appeal decisions. An OGC official told us that  allocated resources were currently inadequate to effectively monitor  representatives about whom complaints had been submitted and that  information about complaints is not shared with other parts of VA. For  instance, OGC does not share information with VBA that could help  identify or monitor the activities of representatives with complaints. OGC  estimated that only two attorneys or agents had their accreditation  cancelled over the last 5 years for violating the rules of the program and  none were suspended.
section_title: Accreditation Does Not Address Some Emerging Threats
paragraphs: VA faces challenges with unaccredited individuals helping veterans file  claims and charging claimants for assistance. While federal regulations  require representatives to be accredited, we found a number of  complaints about individuals who are not accredited filing claims for  veterans. Of the 24 complaints filed against attorneys and agents in 2012,  7 were regarding unaccredited individuals. Because VA is not aware of  the extent to which these individuals interact with claimants, VA cannot  take action or ensure they provide quality services. An OGC official told  us that when it learns of these individuals, it is limited in the actions it can  take beyond instructing the individual to stop. Additionally, he said he has  written to state attorneys general offices regarding potential wrongful  actions a few times in the last year, but does not know if the states took  action. In our review, we found a few instances in which OGC sent letters  concerning unaccredited individuals to state attorneys general only to  continue to receive complaints about these individuals. An OGC official  added that, beyond cancelling or suspending accreditation, there are no  penalties for individuals who violate the requirements of accreditation and  that cases generally are not referred to VA’s Inspector General.
Accreditation also does not address whether individuals should sell  financial products to veterans. Our prior work has shown that some  accredited individuals were selling financial products to veterans in order  to shelter assets and allow them to qualify for VA pension benefits.Some of these cases involved vulnerable populations, such as veterans  in assisted living facilities, or involved individuals selling products that  resulted in veterans losing control of their assets without qualifying for VA  benefits. VA and some VSO officials told us that financial planners  continue to be an area of concern. VA officials told us that an increasing  number of financial planners are applying for accreditation as agents. In  fact, all six of the agents in our file review appeared to have a financial  planning background. VA also told us that when an individual with a  financial planning background applies for accreditation, it asks for  additional information about their business plans, reviews any business  websites, and reminds applicants that the purpose of accreditation is to  provide assistance to veterans and that they should not use accreditation  to promote financial products. That said, the official who oversees  accreditation told us that they often lack a sufficient basis to deny  accreditation to these individuals because being a financial planner in and  of itself does not violate VA’s accreditation rules. He added that it might  be helpful to collect additional information on these individuals, such as  from financial regulators, when deciding whether to accredit them.
It is also difficult for VA to ensure that claimants are being charged  appropriate fees. Attorneys and agents are not allowed to charge or  receive a fee for the preparation or initial filing of a claim, but are allowed  to charge a fee for services provided after VA has decided the claim and  a notice of disagreement has been filed initiating an appeal of that  decision. The allowable fee is often 20 percent of retroactive benefits  awarded if the claim is granted. However, there is no restriction on fees  charged for services before an individual files a claim. VA’s OGC issued a  letter in 2004 noting that attorneys may charge claimants for services that  are rendered before the individual begins the process of filing a claim,  such as consulting with the individual about the range of VA and other  federal benefits he or she may qualify for. Some VSOs and other experts  expressed some concern regarding pre-filing consultation fees. The head  of one VSO noted that these fees may serve as a mechanism to hide the  fact that attorneys and agents are charging claimants for preparing  claims. Ambiguity regarding these fees makes it difficult for claimants and  VA to know whether they are being charged allowable fees, and may  result in attorneys inappropriately billing for work related to the claim as if  it was for a general consultation. Because fees for pre-filing activities are  outside the claims process, VA also has no way of knowing the extent to  which they occur or are properly charged. More than half of the  complaints against attorneys and agents (15 of 24) that we reviewed were  related to fees.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Hundreds of thousands of veterans and their families rely on accredited  representatives to guide them through the process of applying for VA  benefits. However, current program implementation and requirements do  not sufficiently ensure that veterans and their families are protected  against potential abuses or that VA has the ability to identify and address  situations where representatives are not acting in the best interests of  clients. While recent plans to collect more information on applicants and  increase oversight of existing representatives are promising, it is unclear  how OGC will implement and sustain these improvements given the  current level of resources VA has allocated to this program. Additionally,  without providing better information to claimants about how to report  issues or concerns about their representation, claimants may not know  where to turn to report an abuse or not even recognize that their  representative is engaged in prohibited practices. Lastly, claimants may  be vulnerable to emerging threats—such as unaccredited  representatives—in the absence of VA tools to provide protection. We  recognize that in considering program enhancements, VA will need to  balance the effort of instituting changes and the additional burdens they  may place on program staff and representatives with ensuring that  claimants continue to have ready access to representation. However,  representatives with ill-intent or poor knowledge can cause real harm to  claimants and a weak accreditation process will negatively affect VA’s  ability to provide veterans the benefits to which they are entitled.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve VA’s ability to ensure that claimants are represented by  qualified and responsible individuals, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs  should explore options and take steps to:  1.  Ensure an appropriate level of staff and IT resources are in place to  implement the requirements of the accreditation program. This should  include exploring options for utilizing other VA components and  resources outside of OGC.  2.  Strengthen initial and continuing knowledge requirements for  accreditation for all types of representatives.  3.  Enhance communications with claimants, including how they can  report complaints related to their representation. This could include  exploring options for incorporating information about representation  and veterans’ rights into existing communications and outreach  efforts.  4.  Address potentially abusive practices by representatives who lack  accreditation, charge inappropriate fees, or sell financial products to  claimants that are not in their best interest. If necessary, VA should  consider seeking additional legislative authority to address such  practices and enforce program rules.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for  review and comment. In its comments (see app. II), VA generally agreed  with our conclusions, and either concurred or concurred in principle or in  part with our recommendations, as discussed more fully below.
VA concurred in principle with our first recommendation to ensure  accreditation has appropriate staffing and IT resources, noting that efforts  to increase staff and obtain IT resources must be considered within the  existing OGC budget. We agree and fully support VA’s plans to identify  available resources within and outside of OGC.
VA concurred in principle with our second recommendation that it explore  strengthening initial and continuing knowledge requirements. VA stated  that it believes that existing initial knowledge requirements for attorneys  and agents adequately ensure that VA claimants have qualified  representation. Additionally, VA expressed concerns that additional  knowledge or testing requirements could have a chilling effect on attorney  representation for claimants. Nevertheless, VA stated that it will consider  ways in which it can equip newly accredited attorneys and agents with  information regarding veterans benefits law and procedures. Additionally,  VA stated it plans to revise and update examinations for prospective  agents to ensure they have adequate knowledge of veterans law and  procedures.  Regarding VSO representatives, VA reiterated that it  believes it is in each organization’s best interest to ensure their  representatives are competent and qualified. Nevertheless, VA plans to  request and review training curricula for up to about 10 percent of  recognized organizations each year—an effort which we commend.  We  support these efforts, but continue to believe VA should consider ways to  better equip all accredited attorneys and agents with relevant information  and not limit efforts to just newly accredited attorneys and agents, for  example, by improving the quality of required continuing legal education.
Regarding our recommendation to enhance communications with  claimants, VA concurred and plans to include information on how to  report complaints on OGC’s accreditation Web site, and will work with  VBA to identify potential outreach activities.  We agree with VA’s stated  efforts to improve communication with claimants.
VA also concurred in principle with our recommendation to explore  options for addressing potentially abusive practices by representatives  and stated it would consider seeking additional legislative authority to  address these practices and enforce program rules. VA noted that  imposing penalties on unaccredited individuals, individuals who  inappropriately charge claimants, or sell financial products to claimants  could help curb inappropriate practices, but in some cases may have a  chilling effect on the legitimate activities of others. We acknowledge that  penalties may be an appropriate deterrent in some but not all  circumstances and agree with VA’s desire to balance any changes with  maintaining access for claimants to valuable assistance. We also urge VA  to further explore other remedies that would not require legislative action,  such as closer cooperation with state and local law enforcement  regarding individuals who may commit unlawful acts.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,  and other interested parties. In addition, this document will be available at  no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-7215 or at bertonid@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. Staff members who made key contributions to  this report are listed in Appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: In conducting our review of how the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)  accredits and oversees veterans’ representatives, our objectives were to  examine (1) the extent to which VA’s procedures adequately ensure  representatives meet program requirements, and (2) any obstacles that  may impede VA’s effort to adequately implement its accreditation  process. We conducted this performance audit from September 2012 to  August 2013, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. These 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  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We conducted our related  investigative work in accordance with investigation standards prescribed  by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.
To determine the extent to which VA’s procedures are adequate, we  reviewed pertinent federal laws and regulations and interviewed officials  in VA’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) and Veterans Benefits  Administration. To assess the extent to which VA carries out its  procedures, we reviewed a random, representative sample of 92 case  files for attorneys and agents who were granted accreditation in 2012.  We examined these files to determine whether individuals provided  complete information on their personal histories, whether individuals had  the appropriate qualifications, and to determine whether VA took steps to  collect additional information when necessary. We determined whether  the evidence in each file indicated that VA carried out the procedures that  VA officials stated they follow when reviewing files.reviewed all 24 complaints that OGC received in 2012 regarding  attorneys and claim agents in order to understand the actions that VA  takes in response to concerns. Additionally, we selected a random,  judgmental sample of 21 attorneys and agents to determine whether an  independent background check would uncover issues that could call their  character into question. These 21 individuals consisted of 5 attorneys and  6 agents selected in our random sample of 2012 accreditation decisions,   Additionally, we  and 5 attorneys and 5 agents whose complaint files we reviewed.used Accurint—a commercial database of public records—to determine  whether these individuals had (1) a criminal history, (2) bankruptcies, (3)  liens, or (4) professional licenses revoked. In the instances in which  Accurint delivered a positive result, we confirmed the result by obtaining  court records.
To provide further context on VA’s procedures and to determine obstacles  that impede VA’s efforts to adequately implement accreditation, we  interviewed a number of veterans service organizations (VSO)—which  both assist veterans in filing claims and advocate for their interests—and  organizations that represent attorneys and claim agents (see table 3).
Additionally, we conducted a site visit to the Philadelphia VA Regional  Office where we interviewed regional managers, veterans service  representatives, and staff who review fee agreements, as well as local  VSO representatives. Finally, we informally met with groups of veterans  who were present at two VSOs in the Washington, D.C. area on the days  of our visits, to obtain views on their experiences with representation.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: Daniel Bertoni, (202) 512-7215 or bertonid@gao.gov.
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Michele Grgich and Lori  Rectanus (Assistant Directors), Daniel Concepcion and Aimee Elivert  made key contributions to this report. David Chrisinger, Paul Desaulniers,  Sheila McCoy, Wayne McElrath, Dae Park, Almeta Spencer, Roger  Thomas, and Walter Vance provided support.