VA’s Fiduciary Program has policies in place that are intended to ensure that qualified fiduciaries are selected and regularly monitored; however, insufficient staff compliance with some policies and weaknesses in others hinder VA’s ability to safeguard veterans’ benefits. For example, VA was late in conducting required follow-up visits to monitor fiduciaries or provided insufficient documentation to show whether these visits were conducted in about 18 percent of the cases GAO reviewed. In addition, while GAO estimated that nearly 40 percent of fiduciaries who were required to submit financial reports to demonstrate how beneficiary funds are managed turned their reports in late, VA did not always take actions to obtain them on time or provide documentation that an attempt had been made, as required by VA policy…...Moreover, VA does not have a nationwide quality review process to ensure that these reviews are conducted properly and consistently.

All states have laws requiring courts to oversee guardianships, but court implementation varies. Most require guardians to submit periodic reports, but do not specify court review of these reports. Interstate jurisdictional issues sometimes arise when states do not recognize guardianships originating in other states. Most courts responding to our survey did not track the number of active guardianships, and few indicated the number of incapacitated elderly people under guardianship.

There are limited safeguards to protect older adults from abuse by guardians, who are granted authority by a state court to make decisions in the best interest of an incapacitated individual concerning his or her person or property. While guardians can play a key role in managing the assets of these older adults, we have noted in past reports that guardians are only subject to limited safeguards that could protect these older adults from financial exploitation. For example, local officials in California noted that it can be hard to determine whether a person applying to be a guardian is doing so to further his ward’s best interests. We have also reported that few states conduct criminal background checks on potential guardians. Moreover, we have noted concerns with weak court oversight of appointed guardians, as well as poor communication between the courts and federal agencies that have enabled guardians to chronically abuse their wards and/or others.