Maryland Audit Finds Wage Garnishment Problems Dating Back to 1997
A coding error kept Maryland’s Central Collection Unit (CCU) from pursuing wage garnishments on three accounts totaling $846,900, according to a state audit that also found broader wage-garnishment problems had been repeatedly identified since 1997.
The Office of Legislative Audits’ September 23 report found that an electronic marker showing an initial warning letter had been sent was missing from the unit’s automated collection system. That marker triggers the wage garnishment process.
The error originated during a 2018 system transition. Auditors said similar garnishment deficiencies had appeared in nine previous reports without being sufficiently corrected.
Audit Identifies Gaps in Garnishment Efforts
The audit reviewed how the CCU used quarterly matches between its accounts and state wage data to identify potential wage garnishments.
Auditors examined 15 accounts with outstanding debts totaling approximately $8.2 million and combined monthly wages of $72,200. They found that the unit had not pursued wage garnishments for any of those debtors. The three accounts affected by the coding error were part of that sample.
Management was unaware of the missing electronic marker until auditors brought it to its attention. The unit could not readily determine how many accounts had gone without garnishment efforts because of the error.
How the Collection Unit Operates
The CCU is part of Maryland’s Department of Budget and Management. It handles overdue debts referred by state agencies after unsuccessful collection attempts.
Its collection methods include intercepting state income tax refunds and applying them toward outstanding balances. Debtors may also arrange payment plans under certain conditions.
Department Says Error Was Corrected
In its written response, DBM said the coding error was corrected in March 2026 and that collection efforts were underway on affected accounts.
However, the department disputed the broader garnishment finding. It said garnishments can take two years and argued that auditors had overlooked eligibility requirements and missing documentation.
Those explanations addressed whether particular accounts could proceed through the garnishment process, beyond the system error identified in the audit.
Auditors Maintain Their Findings
Auditors challenged parts of the department’s response in a written rebuttal.
For six accounts, they said DBM’s explanation contradicted information management had previously supplied in writing. For five others, auditors said the department provided no documentation supporting its explanation that necessary records could not be obtained.
Auditors recommended that DBM pursue appropriate potential wage garnishments and document its efforts. They also called for a review of accounts missing the electronic marker to confirm their status and take any necessary follow-up action.
DBM agreed to review its garnishment process and consider additional staffing, with a March 2027 completion target.
