Over the past several years, the federal government has reported an outstanding balance of delinquent debt in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion. DCIA reflected the Congress’ recognition that timely and effective agency debt collection efforts were needed to maximize collections of delinquent debts owed to the federal government. A central theme of the legislation is that before discharging any delinquent debt owed to any executive, judicial, or legislative agency, agencies should take all appropriate steps to collect the debt. Among the collection tools the act authorized were administrative offset (withholding some or all of a federal payment scheduled to be issued to the debtor), federal salary offset, referral to PCA contractors, referral to agencies operating a debt collection center, reporting delinquencies to credit reporting bureaus, and administratively garnishing the wages of delinquent debtors. Some DCIA-authorized debt collection tools are mandatory, while others are discretionary. AWG, one of the discretionary tools, is a process whereby an employer withholds amounts from an employee’s wages and pays those amounts to the employee’s creditor in satisfaction of a withholding order. Prior to the enactment of DCIA, agencies generally were required to obtain a court order before garnishing the wages of nonfederal employees. DCIA authorizes agencies to administratively garnish up to 15 percent of a debtor’s disposable pay to satisfy delinquent nontax debt owed to the United States. Under a separate statute, Education has had authority since 1993 to garnish up to 10 percent of the disposable pay of debtors who have defaulted on student loans. Treasury’s FMS is responsible for promulgating regulations to implement AWG and other debt collection tools authorized by DCIA. In May 1998, 2 years after the act was passed, Treasury issued final regulations that provide agencies with an overall framework for implementing AWG. The regulations authorize agencies to begin the AWG process as debt becomes delinquent, but they do not stipulate when in the collection cycle this tool may be used. According to the regulations, any federal agency that administers a program that might result in a delinquent nontax debt owed to the federal government and any agency that pursues recovery of such debt may administer AWG. Therefore, agencies holding delinquent debt may administer AWG in-house; they may authorize a debt collection agency, such as FMS, to administer AWG on their behalf as part of cross- servicing operations; or they may do both. To assist agencies in implementing AWG, Treasury issued AWG Form 329, known as the AWG package, in November 1998. The package includes a Letter to Employer & Important Notice to Employer, Wage Garnishment Order, Wage Garnishment Worksheet, and Employer Certification. In February 1999, FMS issued “Instructions to Federal Agencies for Preparing AWG Forms.” As is the case with other debt collection tools, Treasury’s regulations dealing with AWG provide for due process for debtors. The regulations require that at least 30 days before initiating wage garnishment proceedings, agencies notify delinquent debtors in writing of the nature and amount of the debt and of the agency’s intention to collect through deductions from pay. The notification must also include an explanation of the debtor’s rights regarding the proposed action. These rights include the opportunity to inspect and copy agency records related to the debt, to enter into a written repayment agreement with the agency, and to request a hearing concerning the existence or amount of the debt or the terms of the proposed repayment schedule under the garnishment order. An agency must provide a debtor with a hearing before it issues a garnishment order if the agency receives the debtor’s written request for a hearing on or before the 15th business day following the mailing of the notice. If a debtor does not make a timely request for a hearing, the agency is to send a withholding order to the debtor's employer within 30 days after the debtor fails to make a timely request for a hearing. If the agency receives a debtor’s written request for a hearing after the 15th business day following the mailing of the notice, the agency must still provide a hearing to the debtor. In such a case, however, the agency is not to delay issuing a withholding order unless it determines that the delay in filing the hearing request resulted from factors over which the debtor had no control or receives information that it believes justifies delaying or canceling the withholding order. Following receipt of a withholding order, employers are required to certify to the agency certain information about the debtor, such as the debtor’s employment status and disposable pay available for withholding. The employer must deduct from all disposable pay paid to the debtor during each pay period the amount of the garnishment, which is the lesser of (1) the amount indicated on the garnishment order, up to 15 percent of the debtor’s disposable pay, or (2) the amount by which the debtor’s disposable pay exceeds an amount equivalent to 30 times the minimum wage. If multiple garnishments from various sources are applied to one debtor’s wages, the total garnishments may not exceed 25 percent of the individual’s disposable pay. Once the agency has fully recovered the amounts owed by the debtor, the agency is to send the debtor’s employer notification to discontinue wage withholding. Agencies are to review their debtors’ accounts at least annually to ensure that garnishment has been terminated for accounts that have been paid in full. The objective of our review was to determine the extent to which certain CFO Act agencies use or plan to use AWG as authorized by DCIA to collect delinquent nontax federal debts. As previously noted, we surveyed nine federal agencies: USDA, Education, DOE, HHS, HUD, VA, EPA, SBA, and SSA. Together, these agencies held about $40 billion of delinquent nontax federal debt as of September 30, 2000, which represented more than 90 percent of all CFO Act agencies’ reported delinquent nontax debt as of that date. We developed a survey instrument to obtain agency responses to a uniform set of questions (see appendix I) and received completed surveys from all nine surveyed agencies. We reviewed agency responses and followed up with cognizant agency officials, where necessary, to obtain any needed clarifications or additional information. Although we discussed certain of the survey responses with agency officials by telephone or electronic mail, we did not independently verify the reliability of all the information that agencies provided. We also conducted interviews with FMS officials responsible for regulations, guidance, and cross-servicing operations related to AWG and reviewed pertinent documents, including FMS’s “AWG Operations & Procedures Manual” and its “Performance Summary Report.” We performed our work from March 2001 through September 2001 in accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested written comments on a draft of this report from the 10 agencies covered by the report. All 10 agencies responded to our request and provided either written or oral comments, which are discussed in the “Agency Comments and Our Evaluation” section of this report and are incorporated in the report as applicable. Letters with comments from FMS, Education, HHS, HUD, SBA, SSA, and VA are reprinted and discussed in further detail, when applicable, in the appendixes. The nine large CFO Act agencies we surveyed had not used AWG as authorized under DCIA, thus undoubtedly losing some collection opportunities. Together, the surveyed agencies reported holding about $23 billion in consumer delinquent debt as of September 30, 2000. This is not to imply that AWG could be used to collect all such debt because circumstances such as bankruptcy or appeals could limit the application of this debt collection tool. Eight of the nine surveyed agencies said that they planned to adopt AWG as authorized by DCIA. Four agencies expected to implement AWG in-house and, to varying degrees, through FMS’s cross- servicing program. One of these agencies, Education, has been using AWG in-house under separate statutory authority since 1993. The four remaining agencies indicated that they would not perform AWG in-house but would authorize FMS to apply AWG to debts they referred to FMS for cross- servicing. However, we found in previous work that agencies have not been promptly referring all eligible debts to FMS when they become 180 days delinquent, as required by DCIA. Prompt referral of eligible debts is especially important for agencies that contemplate relying primarily on FMS to conduct AWG through cross-servicing because FMS intends to apply AWG as a tool of last resort, to be used only after all other collection efforts have been exhausted. Use of AWG, whether in-house or at FMS, should likely yield a marked increase in agency collections of consumer delinquent debt. The increase would result largely from AWG’s effectiveness as leverage to obtain payment in full, to secure a repayment plan, or to obtain full payment on a compromised amount. According to testimony by debt collection experts, the mere threat of AWG is often enough to motivate repayment. These experts based their testimony on experience at Education, which indicated that employees did not want their employers to find out that they had defaulted on their student loans. As a result, according to the debt collection experts, about 50 percent of the debtors notified of Education’s intent to use AWG made payment arrangements instead of allowing their wages to be garnished. According to Education officials and agency documents, collection of defaulted student loans has increased dramatically since Education implemented AWG in 1993 under the Higher Education Act, as amended. Education indicated that it had collected more than $306 million in principal and interest on defaulted student loans from fiscal year 1997 through March 2001 using 10 percent garnishment authority. The primary difference between AWG under DCIA and wage garnishment under the Higher Education Act is that the Higher Education Act allows up to 10 percent of disposable pay to be garnished, while DCIA allows up to 15 percent of disposable pay to be garnished. Eight of the nine surveyed agencies said they plan to implement AWG under DCIA authority. EPA, the ninth agency, determined that use of AWG would not be cost-effective because of its limited applicability to the agency’s debts. According to agencies’ survey responses and other agency correspondence, all eight agencies expect to implement AWG by the end of fiscal year 2003, as shown in table 1. Agencies gave various reasons for the delay in implementing AWG, including their need to focus priorities on the mandatory provisions of DCIA, to develop the required AWG regulations, and to complete the systems changes necessary to implement AWG. As shown in table 1, four agencies we surveyed (USDA, DOE, HUD, and VA) indicated that they plan to rely primarily on FMS to perform AWG as part of cross-servicing. DOE said that given due process requirements and efficiencies of processing debts, the agency prefers that FMS perform AWG. HUD indicated that it uses FMS’s cross-servicing program as its main “active” collection tool. VA indicated that it views AWG as a collection tool of last resort and stated that it would concentrate on its own established methods of collection, such as internal offset and referral of debts to the Treasury Offset Program. Although USDA stated that it plans to rely primarily on FMS to perform AWG, the agency did not comment on why it preferred this course of action. In addition, four of the surveyed agencies (Education, HHS, SBA, and SSA) plan to implement AWG in-house and, to varying degrees, through FMS’s cross-servicing program. The use of AWG in conjunction with other debt collection tools, whether performed in- house or at FMS, can provide leverage to obtain payments from delinquent debtors. Depending on the nature of an agency’s delinquent debt, relying on FMS to apply AWG as part of cross-servicing may be the best approach. FMS’s incorporation of AWG into the cross-servicing program would undoubtedly improve its collection success and make its cross-servicing collection efforts more comprehensive. However, relying primarily on FMS to perform AWG has definite limitations. First, not all delinquent debt reported by agencies as eligible for cross-servicing has been promptly referred to FMS in the past, and debt that has been referred has often been well beyond DCIA’s 180-day delinquency threshold. Second, under FMS’s cross-servicing program, AWG is considered to be a collection means of last resort and will therefore be used far into the debt collection process. To maximize the debt collection potential of AWG for debts referred to FMS for cross-servicing, agencies should send eligible debts to FMS promptly—even, when practicable, prior to the 180-day delinquency threshold. As we stated in our October 2001 testimony, debt collection experts have testified that AWG can be an extremely powerful debt collection tool, as the mere threat of AWG is often enough to motivate debtor repayment. Although debt referred for cross-servicing was not reported to Treasury on the Report on Receivables separately by consumer and commercial debt, the four surveyed agencies that plan to rely primarily on FMS for AWG implementation (USDA, DOE, HUD, VA) together reported having referred only $288 million of about $690 million of all types of debt that they reported as eligible for cross-servicing as of September 30, 2000. For example, as discussed in our October 2001 testimony, the USDA agencies we reviewed (the Rural Housing Service and the Farm Service Agency) had not identified and promptly sent debts to FMS for cross-servicing. Consequently, if AWG had been attempted only on delinquent debts reported as referred for cross-servicing, substantial amounts of delinquent debt would not have been subject to this debt collection tool. Because FMS views AWG as a collection tool of last resort, it is critical that agencies relying on FMS to implement AWG refer debts promptly to FMS for cross-servicing, even, when practicable, before they reach the 180-day delinquency threshold. According to the “AWG Operations & Procedures Manual” developed by FMS for its PCA contractors, AWG is a tool to be used after all other collection efforts have been exhausted. FMS has taken the position that AWG should generally be the collection tool of last resort because AWG will only allow the government to receive up to 15 percent of a person's disposable wages as long as the person is employed. The collection procedures FMS has provided to PCA contractors require that they attempt first, to collect the entire debt by having the debtor pay the debt in full with one payment; second, to establish an acceptable payment plan that pays the debt in full; third, to establish an acceptable one-time compromise agreement; and fourth, to establish a compromise agreement that is paid off in 6 months. The “AWG Operations & Procedures Manual” does not incorporate the use of AWG in conjunction with other debt collection tools as leverage to obtain payment in full, a repayment plan, or a more favorable compromise amount and payment schedule. The potential leverage of AWG and related collections may be delayed if agencies do not refer debts to FMS as soon as possible. Based on FMS’s established procedures for cross-servicing, debts agencies refer to FMS would typically age at least another 90 days before issuance of the AWG notice to the debtor and 120 days before issuance of the garnishment order to the employer. FMS first attempts to collect referred debts for 30 days at its governmentwide debt collection center before referring the debt to a PCA. Assuming that FMS’s cross-servicing activities operate in a manner consistent with the schedule in its manual, after referral, debts would generally remain with the PCA to be pursued using other collection tools for another 60 days before the agency could request FMS’s approval to mail the AWG notice. Debts would age another 30 days before the AWG package could be sent to the debtor’s employer. The four surveyed agencies that said they would rely primarily on FMS to implement AWG (USDA, DOE, HUD, VA) do not forward debts to FMS for cross-servicing until they are at least 61 days delinquent. Some debts are more than 180 days delinquent when they are sent to FMS. In response to our survey, USDA and DOE indicated that the delinquency timeframe for referring debts to FMS varies by field office. For DOE, debts range from 61 to 180 days delinquent at the time of referral to FMS. USDA did not provide the range of delinquency for debts referred to FMS. HUD indicated that it currently refers debts to FMS for cross-servicing when they are from 121 to 180 days delinquent. VA indicated that it refers debts to FMS when they are more than 180 days delinquent. Since PCAs will typically use AWG as a debt collection tool of last resort under FMS’s cross-servicing program, debts of agencies that rely primarily on FMS to implement AWG will be, at a minimum, more than 150 days delinquent (i.e., 61 days at referral plus 30 days at FMS plus 60 days at the PCA) before the notice is sent to the debtor. These debts will be more than 180 days delinquent (because an additional 30 days will transpire after the notice is mailed to the debtor) before wage garnishment begins. If the debtor requests a hearing within the required time frame, wage garnishment could be delayed as much as 60 additional days pending a hearing decision. It is important to note that, regardless of what the surveyed agencies told us about when they are referring debts to FMS for cross-servicing, DCIA does not require agencies to refer debts to FMS until they are 180 days delinquent. Moreover, as previously mentioned, agencies have not in the past promptly referred all eligible debts that are 180 days delinquent to FMS. According to FMS data, as of September 30, 2001, more than 50 percent of debt referred for cross-servicing governmentwide was more than 2 years delinquent at the time of referral. As we have previously testified, industry statistics have shown that the likelihood of recovering amounts owed on a debt decreases dramatically as the age of the debt increases. Although FMS officials told us that the age of delinquency has no bearing on what can be collected using AWG, this view ignores AWG’s potential to motivate debtors to pay their debt in full, to enter into a repayment plan for the full amount, or to agree on a compromised amount. The old adage that “time is money” is very relevant to the application of AWG to delinquent debts. Therefore, whenever possible, eligible debts should be referred promptly to FMS for cross-servicing, even prior to the 180-day delinquency threshold established by DCIA. If AWG’s potential for boosting collections on delinquent debts is to be realized, agencies must develop clear implementation plans and regulations that are consistent with those issued by Treasury. Agencies must take these steps whether they intend to implement AWG in-house, to rely on FMS to implement AWG, or to do both. At the completion of our fieldwork, however, none of the eight agencies that plan to use AWG had comprehensive written implementation plans. In addition, although all eight agencies were developing regulations to implement AWG, none had finalized their regulations. It is not clear when the eight agencies will be able to take full advantage of the debt collection potential of AWG, either in-house or through FMS. As of the completion of our fieldwork, only two small agencies not included in our review, the Railroad Retirement Board and the James Madison Foundation, had provided FMS the authority to use AWG as part of cross-servicing. Although Treasury regulations do not require that agencies prepare written implementation plans before implementing AWG, we believe that comprehensive written implementation plans are critical for the eight surveyed agencies that intend to use AWG. At a minimum, each agency’s implementation plan should specify whether the agency intends to implement AWG in-house, through FMS, the types of debts to which the agency will apply AWG, since AWG may not be a feasible means of collection for all types of debt the agency holds; the tasks involved in implementing AWG and who will have responsibility for carrying out each task; and the process for conducting hearings, regardless of whether AWG is conducted in-house or through FMS. Three of the agencies had plans, but the plans were deficient. The other five agencies said they did not have written implementation plans. Three surveyed agencies (HUD, SBA, and SSA) indicated on their surveys that they had a written plan for implementing AWG. The plans they submitted, however, did not clearly describe how and by whom hearings would be conducted or clearly indicate when the agencies could fully implement AWG as a routine debt collection tool. In addition, SBA’s and SSA’s plans did not specify which types of debts would be subject to AWG. They did not address, for example, which age categories of debts would be subject to AWG and what the minimum debt amount subject to AWG would be. HUD’s plan stated that debts related to certain programs that are referred to FMS for cross-servicing would be subject to AWG, but the plan did not make it clear whether AWG would be applicable to all other programs and related debts administered by the agency. The other five surveyed agencies that plan to implement AWG indicated that they did not have written implementation plans. Three of these agencies (USDA, DOE, and VA) plan to rely primarily on FMS to perform AWG. The other two agencies (Education and HHS) plan to implement AWG in-house and, to varying degrees, through FMS’s cross-servicing program. The survey responses and follow-up information do not make it clear whether most of these agencies intend to develop an implementation plan. USDA stated that it has not prepared a formal AWG implementation plan because of a shortage of resources and the need to address other DCIA priorities. The importance of an AWG implementation plan for USDA was discussed in a hearing before your subcommittee on December 5, 2001. In that hearing, the commissioner of FMS stated that USDA intended to authorize FMS to use AWG as part of the cross-servicing program and needed to develop a plan to take full advantage of this debt collection tool. The commissioner emphasized that a significant percentage of USDA’s delinquent debt portfolio, such as Food Stamp Program debts, is exempt from cross-servicing by Treasury and therefore would not be subject to FMS’s AWG program. DOE indicated that it has not developed a written implementation plan because it has submitted its debt collection regulations to FMS to determine if they adequately cover AWG and will allow FMS to administer AWG functions on DOE’s behalf. VA indicated that it will rely on FMS to implement AWG and does not believe that a written implementation plan is necessary. HHS indicated that it plans to implement AWG based on departmental regulations, but the regulations have not yet been published. Although Education did not provide a written implementation plan, agency officials stated that they have prepared a system requirements document that includes steps for making the system changes necessary to administer AWG under DCIA. Notwithstanding the reasons agencies gave for not yet having written AWG implementation plans, we believe such plans are needed to help ensure that agencies fully incorporate AWG into their debt collection processes in the near future. We recognize that Education may not have as great a need for an implementation plan because the agency has wage garnishment experience under authority separate from DCIA. As of the completion of our fieldwork, none of the eight surveyed agencies that plan to use AWG as authorized by DCIA had finalized the regulations needed to implement AWG, but each agency was developing such regulations. Treasury regulations require an agency to prescribe regulations for the conduct of AWG hearings that are consistent with the Treasury regulations. FMS considers the performance of AWG hearings to be a creditor agency function and does not plan to conduct hearings on behalf of such agencies. FMS will refer debts back to creditor agencies to conduct required hearings. In the responses to our survey and in FMS’s discussions with agencies, a major concern agencies raised about AWG was their ability to handle the hearings that debtors may request once they receive an AWG notice. Two of the surveyed agencies (SBA and USDA) indicated that they anticipate obstacles related to the hearings process, including arranging for hearings and developing hearing procedures. Many agencies have stated to FMS that they do not have the staff to handle AWG hearings. Accordingly, agencies will have to either establish that capacity or obtain hearings services on a contract basis through another agency that is willing to provide such services. FMS has informed agencies that if they do not believe they have the staff to handle the hearing requests, other agencies are available to perform hearing activities for a fee. According to a VA official, for example, VA provides hearing services on federal salary offset to other agencies for about $100 per hearing. VA expects to conduct AWG hearings for its own agency and for other agencies for a similar fee. The best available indication of the frequency of hearing requests is from Education’s experience with wage garnishment under student loan legislation. During fiscal year 2000, Education issued 90,658 Notices of Intent for wage garnishment, and approximately 10 percent of the debtors who received a notice requested a hearing. AWG has the potential to be a powerful tool for collecting delinquent federal debts, especially those owed by debtors who are not currently making payments under an agreement with the agency. More than 5 years after the enactment of DCIA, which authorized but did not mandate use of AWG, and more than 3 years after Treasury issued implementing regulations for AWG, however, none of the large CFO Act agencies we surveyed had begun using AWG as authorized by DCIA, either in-house or through FMS. And although eight of the nine agencies we surveyed said they intended to use this debt collection tool, none had adequately completed crucial preliminary steps—preparing detailed implementation plans and developing the necessary implementing regulations. By failing to implement AWG, agencies have clearly missed opportunities to maximize collection of delinquent debts. Even when agencies do begin implementing AWG, those that rely primarily on FMS may find that the tool’s effectiveness—particularly its usefulness in leveraging full or compromise payments from debtors who wish to avoid wage garnishment—is limited because agencies have in the past failed to promptly refer a significant portion of eligible debts to FMS for cross- servicing and because FMS intends to use AWG as a collection tool of last resort, thus allowing debts (that may already be more than 180 days delinquent) to age significantly before sending an AWG notice to the debtor. To help ensure that agencies effectively incorporate AWG into their debt collection processes, we recommend that the secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Veterans Affairs; and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration direct their chief financial officers and that the administrator of the Small Business Administration direct the associate deputy administrator for capital access to take the following steps: Prepare comprehensive written implementation plans that clearly define, at a minimum, the types of debt that will be subject to AWG, the policies and procedures for administering AWG, and the process for conducting hearings. Some of the details that should be considered for inclusion in the plan are (1) whether the agency will conduct AWG in- house, at a debt collection center, or both; (2) the types of debts, if any, that will be sent to FMS prior to becoming 180 days delinquent; and (3) whether hearings will be conducted by the agency or contracted out. Complete and finalize regulations for conducting AWG. Use AWG in conjunction with other debt collection tools, when practicable, as leverage to obtain payments from delinquent debtors. Expedite referrals of eligible debts to FMS for cross-servicing when relying on FMS to perform AWG. Agencies should refer such debts prior to the 180-day delinquency threshold when practicable. We also recommend that the commissioner of FMS modify FMS’s “AWG Operations & Procedures Manual” to incorporate the use of AWG in conjunction with other debt collection tools, when practicable, as leverage to obtain payments from delinquent debtors. Each of the 10 agencies covered by our report responded to our request for comments. We received a combination of written and oral comments from the 9 agencies we surveyed and written comments from FMS. Letters with comments from FMS, Education, HHS, HUD, SBA, SSA, and VA are reprinted and discussed in further detail, when applicable, in the appendixes. Eight of the 9 agencies we surveyed either stated that they agreed with our report or indirectly indicated some level of agreement by describing their efforts to implement one or more of our recommendations. Several of these provided updates to their responses to our survey document that was in large part the basis for this report. We modified our report to reflect stated changes in how agencies expected to implement AWG and any related schedule changes. We also incorporated a number of technical suggestions as appropriate. The 9th agency, EPA, stated that appropriate staff reviewed the report and the agency did not have any comments. The only explicit disagreement on our recommendations was expressed by FMS. While saying it strongly agreed that agencies relying on FMS to implement AWG should refer debts promptly to FMS for cross-servicing, it disagreed with our recommendation concerning its timing and philosophy in applying AWG. We recommended that FMS modify its “AWG Operations & Procedures Manual” to incorporate the use of AWG in conjunction with other debt collection tools, when practicable, as leverage to obtain payments from delinquent debtors. FMS stated that PCA officials cannot threaten an action unless they actually intend to take it and FMS policy requires that AWG only be used when all other attempts at collection have been exhausted. FMS acknowledged that its policy does allow expedited use of AWG in defined circumstances but said it continues to believe that AWG should be used only when all other collection attempts have been unsuccessful and the debtor has been given every opportunity to otherwise resolve the debt. We did not recommend that FMS threaten debtors with the use of AWG with no intention of using it. Rather, if upon contacting the debtor, FMS could not obtain payment in full or a satisfactory repayment agreement, our view was that FMS or its PCA contractor could immediately initiate AWG. The intent would be to use AWG alone or in conjunction with other debt collection tools to liquidate the debt. Although FMS policy currently prescribes that its PCAs use AWG only after all other collection efforts have been exhausted, neither current law nor regulation contemplates that only one collection tool may be used at a time. In fact, the AWG regulations specifically state that agencies may pursue other debt collection remedies separately or in conjunction with AWG. As stated in our report, viewing AWG only as a collection tool of last resort ignores AWG’s potential to motivate debtors to pay their debt in full, to enter into a repayment plan for the full amount, or to agree on a compromise amount. In our view, deferring the notice of intended use negates a major benefit mentioned by experts on the utility of AWG. Their main point was that invoking the possibility of use could influence those who otherwise might not respond to a request for payment, or to actually pay, to do so because they do not wish employers to become aware that they have delinquent federal debt. FMS stated that it allows its PCAs under certain circumstances to initiate the AWG process before the expiration of the 60-day period following receipt of referred debt from other federal agencies. Our recommendation contemplates that such action should be the norm rather than the exception. As mentioned in our report, according to FMS data, more than 50 percent of debt referred for cross-servicing governmentwide as of September 30, 2001, was more than 2 years delinquent at the time of referral. Moreover, agencies are not required to send debts to FMS until they are more than 180 days delinquent. Consequently, FMS in most cases is not the first federal agency to attempt collection from or debt resolution with the debtors because creditor agencies should be attempting to collect their delinquent debts prior to sending them to FMS for cross-servicing. For FMS to wait until it or its PCA contractors have exhausted all collection efforts prior to initiating AWG by notifying the debtor that such action will be taken greatly diminishes AWG’s potential to help FMS leverage payment from debtors who are significantly delinquent on their obligations to the federal government and who likely had not cooperated with the referring federal agencies in resolving their debts. Finally, while there may be differences of opinion on when FMS should initiate AWG in its collection process, HUD in its comments on our report spoke in favor of our recommendation to FMS that FMS should incorporate the use of AWG in conjunction with other debt collection tools rather than consider AWG as a collection tool of “last resort.” In developing its own implementation plan for AWG, HUD said that it expected that effective use of AWG would be part of FMS’s plan for servicing debt referred for cross- servicing. In that light, HUD said that it would expect that those assigned to cross-service debts would be encouraged to use AWG as a tool to obtain voluntary payment. This view from HUD aptly summarizes our position and is a key aspect of the reasoning behind our recommendation that FMS use AWG in conjunction with other collection tools and not principally as a last resort. For the reasons offered above, we continue to believe that FMS should modify its “AWG Operations & Procedures Manual” and policy with regard to the use of AWG. As agreed with your office, unless you announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its issuance date. At that time, we will send copies to the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform and to the ranking minority member of your subcommittee. We will also provide copies to the heads of the agencies we surveyed, the secretary of the treasury, and the commissioner of FMS. We will then make copies available to others upon request. Please contact me at (202) 512-3406 if you or your staff have any questions on this report. I can also be reached by e-mail at engelg@gao.gov. Key contributors to this assignment were Kenneth R. Rupar, Michael S. LaForge, Linda K. Sanders, and Michael D. Hansen. 1. See our discussion in the “Agency Comments and Our Evaluation” section. 1. Education stated that the draft report is misleading and should be revised because it leaves the reader the impression that no agency is conducting AWG and does not give a clear synopsis of Education’s use of AWG. We disagree. The primary focus of our work was implementation of AWG as authorized by the DCIA. We accurately stated that none of the nine CFO Act agencies we surveyed were using AWG as authorized by DCIA and all but one agency indicated that they intend to do so. Despite this, we clearly state in this report, as Education noted in its response, that Education has effectively used wage garnishment under authority similar to DCIA’s since 1993 to collect delinquent student loans. According to Education, such efforts have dramatically increased collections on delinquent student loans. We made this point at the beginning of our report, as well as in the body of our report and in a separate subsection that is titled “Education’s Use of Wage Garnishment under Separate Authority Has Increased Debt Collections.” 2. As stated in this report, Education has been using AWG under separate authority, to garnish up to 10 percent of debtors’ disposable pay and plans to implement AWG under DCIA authority in fiscal year 2002. While we acknowledge that Education has had to consider the additional requirements to smoothly transition to the DCIA process, other agencies have also had to develop the necessary procedural and programmatic changes for implementing AWG. As such, we stated in this report that the eight agencies we surveyed that are planning to implement AWG under DCIA authority, including Education, gave various reasons for the delay in its implementation, including the need to complete the necessary systems changes. 1. Although SSA provided us copies of their written implementation plan and project scope agreement, we do not consider either document to be a comprehensive written AWG implementation plan. The one-page written implementation plan that was provided to us did not address (1) which debts would be subject to AWG, (2) which age categories of debts would be subject to AWG, and (3) what would be the minimum debt amount subject to AWG. Also, the plan did not clearly describe how and by whom hearings would be conducted or clearly indicate when SSA could fully implement AWG. Although SSA provided us its project scope agreement, it only documented the scope of software changes that are needed to implement AWG. 1. We have revised our report to reflect that responsibilities for addressing our recommendations at SBA reside with the associate deputy administrator for capital access. 1. We understood that the survey and implementation plan submitted by HUD covered the agency as a whole. The intent of our comment was to address our concern that HUD’s departmentwide implementation plan only specifies the use of AWG for certain debts referred to FMS for cross-servicing and did not make it clear whether AWG would be applicable to all other programs and related delinquent debts administered by the agency that are not referred to FMS for cross- servicing. 2. We have revised our report to reflect HUD’s expected implementation date of fiscal year 2002. 1. HHS suggested that the report highlight that it will utilize AWG in-house and through FMS. Although table 1 reflects that HHS will be using AWG both in-house and through FMS’s cross-servicing program, we have revised the body of our report so that it more clearly reflects that HHS and certain other agencies will implement AWG in-house and to varying degrees through FMS’s cross-servicing program. 2. HHS suggested that the date for its expected implementation be changed to fiscal year 2002. As of the completion of our fieldwork, HHS estimated its expected implementation date to be the end of calendar year 2001. We have revised our report to incorporate HHS’s updated expected implementation date. 3. HHS stated that it transmits data elements to Treasury that identify a claim as consumer or commercial debt and suggested that we modify the report to identify the agencies that do not report the consumer or commercial debts separately. We understand that agencies transmit debts to Treasury for cross-servicing as consumer or commercial debts, however, debts are not separately reported in this manner on the Treasury Report on Receivables. We have revised our report to clarify that debts referred are not reported as consumer or commercial debts on the Treasury Report on Receivables. The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO E-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily e-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm, E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov, or 1-800-424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 (automated answering system).

Summary: To improve federal debt collection, the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 established a framework of debt collection tools, including administrative wage garnishment (AWG). This report discusses the extent to which nine agencies use or plan to use AWG to collect delinquent nontax federal debt and provides GAO's perspective on ways to make AWG more widespread and effective. GAO found that none of the nine agencies had yet implemented AWG. Although AWG is not mandatory, by failing to use this tool--more than five years after the act's enactment and more than three years after the Department of the Treasury issued implementing regulations--agencies have missed an opportunity to maximize collection of delinquent debt. Agencies identified various reasons for not yet implementing AWG or for deciding not to do so, including the need to focus their resources on implementing the act's mandatory provisions. Although some agencies or programs may have valid reasons for not implementing wage garnishment, all of the larger programs that deal with individuals and that have a demonstrated risk of financial loss resulting from unpaid debt should have AWG as a viable debt collection option. Reliance on the Financial Management Service (FMS) to perform AWG as part of cross-servicing might be prudent for some agencies, provided the collection tool is used as early as practicable to maximize its collection potential. However, the act does not require that agencies refer debts for cross-servicing until they are more than 180 days delinquent, and FMS, which views wage garnishment as a tool of last resort, does not contemplate initiating AWG in most cases until the debt has been with FMS for at least 90 days. As a result, FMS's use of AWG could be significantly limited and delayed.