By  law, only individuals accredited by VA can represent claimants in the VA  claims process. As of May 2013, VA had on its rolls approximately 20,000 individuals who  are accredited to represent claimants. 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. VA’s Procedures and Requirements Do Not Sufficiently Ensure That Representatives Are Qualified

		VA Does Not Sufficiently Assess Whether Representatives Have Good Character

For four of these individuals, VA received complaints alleging these same individuals  charged non-allowable fees for filing claims. However, our work shows that an attorney’s standing with a state bar may  not always be a sufficient proxy for good character. 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. 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. Moreover, VA does not consistently ensure that attorneys  and agents complete required training. Inadequate Resource Allocation and Unclear Communication with Claimants Hinder Efforts to Administer Accreditation

		Inadequate Staffing and Information Technology Leads to Backlogs and Limited Program Monitoring

VA has dedicated only a few staff to administer its accreditation program,  which has resulted in limited monitoring efforts and workload backlogs. Even  so, VA has a significant backlog of accreditation applications to review. Because by law only accredited individuals may  represent claimants, this backlog may cause delays for claimants who  need assistance with their claims. 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. Further, an official noted that a significant amount of data entry  is required when applicants submit information for accreditation. For example, VA’s  accreditation website does not explicitly state how to report concerns  about representatives. Accreditation Does Not Address Some Emerging Threats

VA faces challenges with unaccredited individuals helping veterans file  claims and charging claimants for assistance. Conclusions

Hundreds of thousands of veterans and their families rely on accredited  representatives to guide them through the process of applying for VA  benefits. 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. VA concurred in principle with our second recommendation that it explore  strengthening initial and continuing knowledge requirements. Additionally, VA expressed concerns that additional  knowledge or testing requirements could have a chilling effect on attorney  representation for claimants. 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. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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. 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. 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.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.

What GAO Recommends

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.