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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Daniel Bertoni, (202) 512-7215 or bertonid@gao.gov. 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.

Summary: 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. 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. 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.