MCGEO Alleges Sheriff’s Office Misused Child Support Money – Montgomery Perspective

Report on Alleged Misuse of Child Support Funds and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Allegations of Financial Mismanagement and Impact on Social Welfare

The United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 1994 MCGEO has raised serious allegations against the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office concerning the potential misuse of state funds designated for child support enforcement. These allegations directly challenge the progress toward several key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aimed at fostering social and economic stability.

The funds in question, provided under the Cooperative Reimbursement Agreement (CSA-CSR-25-043), are critical for achieving:

• SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): Child support payments are a vital mechanism for lifting children out of poverty and reducing income disparities.
• SDG 5 (Gender Equality): Effective child support enforcement is essential for the economic empowerment of women, who are disproportionately the primary caregivers.

The union reports that deputies funded by this grant were directed to perform duties unrelated to child support, thereby diverting resources from these essential social objectives.

Core Allegations and Union Response

The central claim is that deputies assigned to the Child Support Division were tasked with other responsibilities while their time was officially logged as child support enforcement work. This practice represents a potential violation of the state funding agreement and undermines the principles of responsible governance.

Alleged Unrelated Duties

• Evictions
• Courtroom Security
• Extraditions

In response, UFCW Local 1994 MCGEO has initiated formal action to ensure accountability and transparency, aligning with the objectives of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), which advocates for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels.

Actions Taken to Promote Accountability and Transparency (SDG 16)

To address these concerns and promote institutional integrity, the union has submitted a formal Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) request to the Sheriff’s Office. The goal is to obtain clear, factual information regarding the administration of the child support grant and to protect employees who were acting under orders from potential disciplinary action.

The MPIA request seeks the following specific records:

1. All correspondence, reports, and communications between the Sheriff’s Office and the Maryland Child Support Administration concerning the investigation.
2. Payroll and duty assignment records for all deputies assigned to the Child Support Division from June 2024 to the present.
3. A commitment to preserve all relevant body camera footage from deputies in the Child Support Division from July 2024 to the present.

This pursuit of transparency is fundamental to ensuring that public funds are used for their intended purpose—supporting vulnerable children and families—and that public institutions are held accountable for their actions, as mandated by SDG 16.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 1: No Poverty: The article discusses the allocation of funds for child support enforcement. Child support is a critical social protection mechanism aimed at preventing poverty, particularly for children in single-parent households. The alleged misuse of these funds directly undermines efforts to ensure financial stability for vulnerable families and children, connecting the issue to the broader goal of poverty reduction.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: Effective child support systems are essential for reducing economic inequalities. They ensure that children receive financial support from both parents, which helps to level the economic playing field for children from different family structures. The failure to properly use funds designated for child support enforcement can exacerbate inequalities experienced by these children and their custodial parents.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This is the most central SDG in the article. The core issue is the alleged mismanagement and misuse of public funds within a government institution (the Sheriff’s Office). The union’s call for “transparency and accountability,” the formal investigation by the Maryland Child Support Administration, and the use of the Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) all relate directly to building effective, accountable, and transparent institutions, combating corruption, and ensuring the rule of law.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 1.3: “Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.” The child support grant (Cooperative Reimbursement Agreement CSA-CSR-25-043) is part of a social protection system. The article’s focus on the proper administration and funding of this system’s enforcement arm directly relates to this target.
• Target 16.5: “Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms.” The allegation that deputies funded by the child support grant were assigned to unrelated duties while their time was billed to the grant represents a potential misuse of public funds, which is a form of corruption. The investigation aims to determine if such a breach occurred.
• Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” The entire narrative of the article revolves around this target. The union’s MPIA request for “correspondence, reports… payroll and duty assignment records” is a direct action to enforce transparency. The call for accountability to “rest where it belongs—at the top” and the ongoing investigation are efforts to ensure the Sheriff’s Office operates as an effective and accountable institution.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Implied Indicator for Target 1.3: The article implies the need for an indicator measuring the proper allocation of resources for social protection systems. The investigation into the “Cooperative Reimbursement Agreement (CSA-CSR-25-043)” suggests that tracking the proportion of a public budget designated for social protection that is spent as intended is a crucial measure.
• Implied Indicator for Target 16.5: The investigation itself implies an indicator related to the prevalence of corruption. The findings from reviewing “payroll and duty assignment records for deputies assigned to the Child Support Division” could be used to quantify the amount or proportion of public funds diverted from their intended purpose.
• Mentioned Indicator for Target 16.6: The article explicitly mentions a mechanism that serves as an indicator for transparency and accountability: the “formal Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) request.” The existence and use of such public access to information laws are key indicators of institutional transparency. The number of such requests filed and the responsiveness of the institution could be used as metrics.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

Source: montgomeryperspective.com