GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

LICENSE 

SUSPENSIONS FOR 

NONDRIVING 

OFFENSES 

Practices in Four 

States That May Ease 

the Financial Impact 

on Low-Income 

Individuals 

February 2010 

GAO-10-217 
Page i GAO-10-217 

Contents 

Letter 1 

Appendix I Briefing Slides 7 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Health and 

Human Services 48 

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 51 

Abbreviations 

AAMVA American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators 

DOT Department of Transportation 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

 License Suspensions 
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

February 18, 2010 

The Honorable Pete Stark 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Health 

Committee on Ways and Means 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Jim McDermott 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Income Security and 

 Family Support 

Committee on Ways and Means 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Gwendolynne S. Moore 

House of Representatives 

States suspend driver’s licenses for a variety of offenses that are not 

directly related to driving safety.1

 For example, all states have procedures 

to suspend licenses for child support arrearages. In addition, a majority of 

states issue suspensions for such offenses as failure to pay court or motor 

vehicle fines or maintain proper insurance. While recognizing that license 

suspension can be an effective tool for encouraging compliance with 

various laws, some policymakers and advocacy groups have raised 

concerns that certain drivers may face suspension because of their limited 

ability to meet financial obligations. They have also raised concerns that 

suspensions make it difficult for some low-income individuals to maintain 

or find work, and may make it more challenging for them to pay fines or 

meet child support obligations. Additionally, they have raised concerns 

that suspensions for nondriving offenses2

 may clog court systems and 

divert resources to activities that do not improve traffic safety. 

License Suspensions

 

1

In this report, we focus on noncommercial driver’s licenses. 

2

In this report, we use the term “nondriving offense” to denote an offense that does not 

directly involve driving an automobile. This would include, for example, failure to appear in 

court or pay a fine, even when related to an underlying driving offense, but not speeding, 

reckless driving, or intoxicated driving. 

Page 1 GAO-10-217 
 

Although the federal government has a limited role with regard to driver’s 

licenses, federal law promotes nondriving suspensions in two 

circumstances. First, as a condition of federal funding for their child 

support enforcement programs, states are required to provide for license 

suspensions for individuals delinquent in making child support payments.3

Second, 10 percent of certain federal highway funds are contingent upon a 

state (a) enacting and enforcing a law that suspends driver’s licenses, in all 

cases, or except in compelling circumstances, for individuals convicted of 

drug offenses, or (b) its governor certifying that he or she is opposed to 

such a law and that the state legislature has adopted a resolution opposing 

it.4

 Thirty-two states have chosen the second option. 

While there has been interest in nondriving suspensions in recent years, 

little is known about the prevalence of and reasons for such suspensions 

or who is affected. With driver licensure generally a state responsibility, 

national-level data are not available and cannot be readily compiled. 

According to researchers and state officials we spoke with, while states 

collect data on license suspensions, they do not consistently categorize 

suspensions by the type of offense or classify them as being related to 

driving or nondriving offenses. Even when states categorize suspension 

data by type of offense, they differ in the ways they do so. Moreover, states 

do not generally collect suspension data for drivers by income level. A 

study of one state found that the vast majority of drivers were suspended 

for a variety of compliance reasons that were not directly related to 

driving behavior, such as not paying parking tickets or failing to maintain 

proper insurance. This suggests that, at least in one state, the number of 

nondriving suspensions may have been significant. 

In response to your request, we examined the following issues related to 

nondriving license suspensions: 

1. Practices in place that may ease the financial impact on low-income 

individuals. 

2. Any challenges involved in implementing these practices. 

To address these issues, we collected information from federal and state 

sources, as well as from researchers and program staff. We interviewed 

 

3

42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(16). 

4

23 U.S.C. § 159. 

Page 2 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
 

officials from the Office of Child Support Enforcement of the Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of 

Transportation (DOT); they administer the federal laws that address 

driver’s license suspensions for child support arrearages and drug 

convictions, respectively. 

We identified and reviewed literature on suspensions for nondriving 

offenses. We also asked state auditors, directors of state child support 

enforcement agencies, and administrators of state departments of motor 

vehicles in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to identify relevant 

studies. However, through these methods, we identified very few studies on 

the prevalence, impact, or effectiveness of nondriving suspensions or on the 

effectiveness of practices in easing the financial impact of these 

suspensions. We also identified and interviewed researchers and 

practitioners knowledgeable about practices that may ease the financial 

impact of suspensions on low-income individuals. Specifically, we asked 

them to identify states that had at least two entities with such practices in 

place. We identified four states (Maryland, New Jersey, Washington, and 

Wisconsin) using this method. In each of the four states, we interviewed 

state officials in the department of motor vehicles and the child support 

enforcement agency, representatives of the court system, and staff of other 

organizations involved in implementing the practices.5

 Finally, we reviewed 

the relevant federal laws, as well as those in the four states in our review. 

We conducted our work from November 2008 to February 2010 in 

accordance with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that 

are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and 

perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to 

meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We 

believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis 

conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions. 

On February 1, 2010, we briefed your staff on the results of our work. This 

report formally conveys the information provided during that briefing (see 

app. I for the briefing slides). In general, we found the following: 

 

5

While we made efforts to obtain as complete information as possible, there may be other 

practices, or entities that implement such practices, in these four or other states that we 

did not identify. For example, child support enforcement agencies in other states may have 

similar practices in place. We did not attempt to identify and describe practices used by 

child support agencies nationwide; our focus was on selected states, identified as having at 

least two entities with such practices in place. 

Page 3 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
 

• In the four states we studied, we found three types of practices 

that may ease the financial impact of suspensions on low-income 

individuals: payment assistance, license reinstatement support, and 

suspension exemptions.6

 Payment assistance, which includes 

payment plans, payment alternatives, and fine reductions, generally 

helps drivers who have difficulty paying, for example, parking or 

traffic-related fines. License reinstatement support includes 

guidance, case management, and legal services that can help 

drivers navigate the sometimes complicated relicensing process. 

For example, some individuals owe fines to multiple courts and so 

must take several steps to address the reason for suspension. 

Suspension exemptions may apply with respect to certain 

nondriving offenses, such as the nonpayment of child support. In 

addition, exemptions can take the form of permitting restricted 

licenses, which allow individuals to drive to specific places. Courts, 

nonprofit organizations, child support enforcement agencies, and 

departments of motor vehicles implement these practices. Some of 

these practices were established to reduce administrative burdens 

on court systems, while others were created to lessen employment 

barriers, according to staff we interviewed. 

• Challenges to implementing these practices include the need to 

garner support from multiple organizations, difficulties in crossing 

jurisdictional boundaries, and sustaining program funding, 

according to program staff. Staff from one of the programs that 

involves multiple entities told us that building a strong 

collaboration among its four partner organizations was timeconsuming but critical to establishing their program. In addition, 

jurisdictional boundaries limit the reach of some court-based 

programs. Several programs noted that while many drivers owe 

fines in multiple cities or counties, courts typically cannot offer 

payment assistance for fines owed to other jurisdictions. With 

respect to funding, two programs recently experienced budget 

reductions that affected program capacity. 

In conclusion, the limited information on the prevalence and impact of 

nondriving suspensions, as well as on the effectiveness of the types of 

practices we found, may make it difficult for other localities and states to 

 

6

In this report, we use the term “suspension exemption” to denote any statutory provision 

or administrative arrangement under which discretion may be exercised not to suspend 

licenses—due to, for example, an individual’s disability, poverty, or other circumstances—

when such suspension would otherwise be required. 

Page 4 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
 

readily assess the need for these practices and to identify the most 

effective approaches. Also, while driver licensure is generally within the 

domain of state governments, some federal efforts exist that could 

facilitate information gathering and dissemination. DOT participates in a 

national working group that has brought together federal, state, and local 

officials to facilitate research, identify effective alternatives to suspension, 

and share information with state policymakers. In addition, HHS 

disseminates “best practices” for child support enforcement, including 

those related to driver’s license suspensions, which provides a mechanism 

for information-sharing among states. 

Prior to our briefing of February 1, 2010, we provided a draft of this report 

to DOT and HHS for review and comment. DOT provided technical 

comments that we incorporated as appropriate. HHS agreed with our 

conclusion that states have the flexibility to implement appropriate 

practices that take into account the ability of noncustodial parents to pay 

overdue child support. It also emphasized that some child support 

enforcement agencies in states other than the four we reviewed have 

implemented similar practices and that other states often view suspension 

policies as a last resort. We added this point to the report. We also clarified 

our methodology, noting that we did not attempt to identify and describe 

practices used by child support enforcement agencies nationwide. Instead, 

our focus was on the four selected states identified, by researchers and 

knowledgeable practitioners, as having at least two entities with such 

practices in place. HHS also provided some information about states that 

suspend licenses for child support arrearages through an administrative 

process rather than through court systems; we added this information to 

the report. We also provided some additional information on state 

payment plan practices in response to HHS’s comment about this issue in 

the draft report. HHS’s written comments appear in appendix II. 

We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional committees, 

the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Transportation, and 

other interested parties. In addition, this report will be available at no 

charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Page 5 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours, 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

ecurity Issues 

Kay E. Brown 

 and Income S

Page 6 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 7 GAO-10-217 

Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

License Suspensions for Nondriving Offenses:

Practices in Four States That May Ease 

the Financial Impact on Low-Income Individuals

Briefing for Congressional Staff

February 1, 2010

 License Suspensions 
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

2

Driver’s License Suspension Policies

• States suspend driver’s licenses for a variety of offenses that 

are not directly related to driving safety–such as failure to 

appear in court, pay fines, or meet child support obligations.*

• Although the federal government has a limited role with 

regard to driver’s licenses, federal law does promote such 

suspensions in circumstances that involve drug convictions 

and child support arrearages. 

Introduction

*In this report, we focus on noncommercial driver’s licenses.

Page 8 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

3

Concerns about Suspension Policies

• While recognizing that suspensions can be an effective tool for 

promoting compliance with various laws, some policymakers and 

advocacy groups have raised concerns that

• certain drivers may face suspension because of their limited ability to meet financial obligations; 

• license suspensions make it difficult for some low-income 

individuals to maintain or find work, and may make it more 

challenging for them to pay fines or meet child support 

obligations;* and

• suspensions for nondriving offenses** may clog court systems and divert resources to activities that do not improve traffic 

safety. 

Introduction

*See, for example, Sandra Gustitus, Melody Simmons, and Margy Waller, Access to Driving and License Suspension Policies for the TwentyFirst Century Economy (Washington, D.C., The Mobility Agenda, June 2008).

**In this report, we use the term “nondriving offense” to denote an offense that does not directly involve driving an automobile. This would 

include, for example, failure to appear in court or pay a fine, even when related to an underlying driving offense, but not speeding, reckless 

driving or intoxicated driving. 

Page 9 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

4

Research Objectives

In response to your request, we examined the following issues 

related to nondriving license suspensions: 

1. Practices in place that may ease the financial impact on 

low-income individuals.

2. Any challenges involved in implementing these 

practices.

Page 10 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

5

Scope and Methodology

To address our objectives:

• We interviewed officials from the Office of Child Support 

Enforcement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT), which administer the federal laws that address driver’s 

license suspensions for, respectively, child support arrearages 

and drug convictions.

• We identified and reviewed literature on driver’s license 

suspensions for nondriving offenses.

Page 11 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

6

Scope and Methodology (cont.)

• We also asked, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, state auditors, directors of 

state child support enforcement agencies, and administrators of state departments of motor 

vehicles, separately via e-mail, to identify relevant studies on the prevalence, impact, or

effectiveness of suspensions for nondriving offenses.

• Through these methods, we identified one study that provided information on state 

suspension policies, but very few studies on the prevalence of nondriving suspensions 

or the financial impact of such suspensions on low-income individuals.

• In addition, we did not find rigorous studies on the effectiveness of nondriving 

suspensions in changing behavior or the effectiveness of practices in easing the 

financial impact of suspensions.

• We identified and interviewed researchers and practitioners knowledgeable about practices 

that could ease the financial impact of nondriving suspensions on low-income individuals.

Page 12 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

7

Scope and Methodology (cont.)

• We conducted work in four states (Maryland, New Jersey, Washington, and Wisconsin) identified 

by knowledgeable researchers and practitioners as having at least two entities with such practices 

in place. Although we made efforts to obtain as complete information as possible, there may be 

other practices, or entities that implement such practices, in these four or other states, that we did 

not identify as part of this study.*

• In each of the four states, we interviewed state officials in the department of motor vehicles 

and the child support enforcement agency, representatives of the court system, and staff of 

other organizations involved in implementing the practices.

• Finally, we reviewed the relevant federal laws, as well as those in the four states in our review.

• We conducted our work from November 2008 to February 2010 in accordance with all sections of 

GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that 

we plan and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated 

objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, 

and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions.

*For example, child support enforcement agencies in other states may have similar practices in place. We did not attempt to identify and 

describe practices used by child support enforcement agencies nationwide; our focus was on selected states, identified as having at least 

two entities with such practices in place.

Page 13 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

8

Summary of Findings

We found three types of practices that may ease the financial impact 

of suspensions on low-income individuals: 

• payment assistance, such as for parking or traffic-related fines,

• license reinstatement support, and 

• suspension exemptions.* 

According to program staff, challenges to implementing these 

practices include:

• the need to garner support from multiple organizations,

• difficulties in crossing jurisdictional boundaries, and 

• sustaining program funding.

*In this report, we use the term “suspension exemption” to denote any statutory provision or administrative arrangement under which 

discretion may be exercised not to suspend licenses—due to, for example, an individual’s disability, poverty or other circumstances—when 

such suspension would otherwise be required. 

Page 14 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

9

States Suspend Driver’s Licenses for Offenses Not 

Directly Related to Driving Safety

According to a recent study by the American Association of 

Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), all states have 

adopted practices to suspend licenses for some nondriving 

offenses.*

• A majority of states have adopted policies to suspend 

licenses for such offenses as

• failure to maintain proper insurance;

• failure to appear in court for a traffic violation; and

• failure to pay a motor vehicle or court fine, fee, or surcharge.

Background

*Jon A. Carnegie and Robert J. Eger, III, Reasons for Driver License Suspension, Recidivism, and Crash Involvement Among Drivers 

with Suspended/Revoked Licenses, a study for the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, sponsored by the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, January 2009.

Page 15 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

10

As Required by Federal Law, All States Have Suspension 

Procedures for Failure to Pay Child Support

• As a condition of federal funding for their child support programs, 

states are required to provide for the suspension of driver’s licenses 

for individuals delinquent in making child support payments.* 

• The statute specifies that states should suspend licenses “in 

appropriate cases,” which gives states flexibility in implementing it, 

including setting the level of arrearage that would prompt a 

suspension. 

• HHS monitors states for inclusion of such procedures in their child 

support enforcement plans.

• All states have procedures to suspend licenses for child support

arrearages.

Background

*42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(16). This law also covers the suspension of professional, occupational, recreational, and sporting licenses.

Page 16 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

11

In Response to Another Federal Law, Some States Also 

Suspend Licenses for Drug Convictions

• A state’s receipt of some federal highway funding is contingent upon its 

enacting and enforcing a law to require in all cases, or in the absence of 

compelling circumstances warranting an exception, the suspension of the 

license of any individual convicted of a drug offense. The suspension is to 

be for at least 6 months and is irrespective of whether the offense involved 

driving.*

• Although DOT is authorized to withhold 10 percent of certain highway 

funds if a state does not comply with this provision, the law explicitly 

permits states to opt out without penalty,** and DOT reported that as of 

January 1, 2010, 32 states have done so. 

Background

*23 U.S.C. § 159.

**To opt out, a state’s governor must submit a certification and the state legislature must adopt a resolution indicating their 

opposition to enacting and enforcing such a law.

Page 17 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

12

Various Agencies Are Involved in the Suspension Process

Courts and child support agencies are involved in carrying out suspensions 

by making referrals to state departments of motor vehicles, which are 

generally responsible for processing suspensions.

• Courts in some states have the authority to order license suspensions 

for such infractions as drug offenses or the nonpayment of traffic 

fines. 

• Child support enforcement agencies generally refer for suspension 

those individuals who do not comply with their court-ordered child 

support payments.*

Background

*In some cases, courts suspend licenses for non-payment of child support, while in other cases, licenses are suspended administratively by 

child support enforcement agencies. For some information on these processes, see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office 

of Inspector General, Review of States’ License Suspension Processes, CIN: A-01-96-02502 (Washington, D.C., July 2, 1997).

Page 18 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

13

National and State-Level Data for Nondriving Suspensions 

Are Not Readily Available

According to researchers and state officials we spoke with: 

• While states collect data on license suspensions, they do not 

consistently categorize suspensions by the type of offense or 

classify them as being related to driving or nondriving offenses. 

• Even when states categorize suspension data by type of 

offense, they differ in the ways they do so.

• States generally do not collect suspension data for drivers by 

income level.

Background

Page 19 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

14

New Jersey study (2007)*

• Determined that about 300,000 licensed drivers statewide (about 5 percent) were suspended at any given time for driving and nondriving offenses combined. 

• Found that the vast majority of drivers were suspended for a variety of compliance reasons that were not directly related to driving behavior, such as not paying parking 

tickets or failing to maintain proper insurance.** 

• About a third of suspensions involved failure to appear in court to satisfy a summons.***

• The suspension rate was more than four times higher for drivers residing in extremely low-income ZIP codes when compared to the rate statewide. (Due to a lack of income data, the researchers were unable to precisely match suspensions to suspended drivers, and instead examined suspension rates by income level of ZIP code.)

State-Level Data Offer Clues, but Are Still Imprecise

Background

*Jon A. Carnegie, Driver’s License Suspensions, Impacts and Fairness Study. Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (August 2007). 

**The AAMVA study provided some additional information on the prevalence of nondriving offenses among suspended drivers based on a sample of data from six states including New Jersey. That study estimated that a quarter to a third of suspended drivers had lost their licenses for nondriving offenses from 2002 to 2006. However, based on our assessment of the study’s methodology, this estimate cannot be generalized to the six states collectively nor to individual states. ***Data on reasons for suspensions reflect the number of suspension orders, not suspended drivers; an individual driver can have multiple suspension orders.

Page 20 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

15

Little Is Known about the Prevalence of Nondriving 

Suspensions or Who is Affected

The 2009 AAMVA study* was an initial effort to examine license suspensions 

nationwide, including those related to driving, as well as nondriving, offenses.

For all types of

suspensions:

AAMVA study results for 2005:

• About 7 million drivers were suspended–for driving 

and nondriving offenses combined–according to data 

from 31 states and the District of Columbia.

• Across these states, on average, an estimated 7.4 

percent of licensed drivers were suspended.

Background

* Carnegie and Eger, Reasons for Driver License Suspension, Recidivism, and Crash Involvement Among Drivers with Suspended/Revoked Licenses. The latest year for which data were available is 2005.

Page 21 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

16

Little Is Known about the Prevalence of Nondriving 

Suspensions or Who Is Affected (cont.)

1.3 million

driver’s license

suspensions

What is not known:

• the proportion of 

suspensions specifically for 

nondriving offenses, and

• demographic 

characteristics, such as 

income level, of those 

suspended.

Background

Figure 1: Estimated Number of Suspended 

Drivers in 31 States and D.C. (2005)

About 7 million

suspended drivers

? ? ?

Figure sources: GAO analysis and AAMVA study. 

Page 22 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

17

Ongoing Work by Federal and State Agencies

AAMVA’s Suspended and Revoked Drivers Working Group

• Formed in 2005, it is comprised of representatives of state motor vehicle 

agencies, state and local law enforcement, courts, and DOT.

• The primary focus of the group is to consider the administrative burden on law 

enforcement personnel in stopping, and the courts in monitoring, suspended drivers who do not necessarily pose a safety hazard.

• In addition to conducting research, the group is exploring alternatives to license 

suspension, such as community service or garnishment of wages.

Health and Human Services

• HHS’s periodic dissemination of “best practices”* broadly covering the federal- state child support enforcement program, including those related to license 

suspensions, provides a mechanism for information-sharing between states.

Background

*The periodically issued HHS compilation covers a range of enforcement tools, including wage withholding practices and filing liens against

property, among others.

Page 23 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

18

Summary of Findings

We found three types of practices in four states that may 

ease the financial impact of suspensions on low-income 

individuals: 

• payment assistance,

• license reinstatement support, and 

• suspension exemptions. 

Objective 1 

Page 24 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

19

Different Entities Implement These Practices, Which Vary

in Scope and Timing

• Courts, nonprofit organizations, child support enforcement 

agencies, and departments of motor vehicles implement 

these practices. 

• Some practices are carried out locally, while others are 

implemented statewide.

• The timing of aid also varies, since some practices provide 

support to suspended drivers, such as case management, 

while others, such as exemptions, help prevent suspension.

Objective 1

Page 25 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Objective 1 

Table 1: Overview of Practices in Four States

Source: GAO analysis based on documentation provided by and interviews with relevant entities.

a We use the term “suspension exemption” to denote any statutory provision or administrative arrangement under which discretion may be exercised not to 

suspend licenses—due to, for example, an individual's disability, poverty or other circumstances—when such suspension would otherwise be required. 

b These entities implement practices locally, whereas the other entities implement practices statewide.

c In 1998 and 2004, the Milwaukee Municipal Court Fine Reduction Program temporarily offered suspended drivers partial amnesty of their fines.

Child support enforcement X X

Courts X

Courts X X

Dept. of motor vehicles X

Child support enforcement X X

X

Milwaukee Municipal Court 

Fine Reduction Programb, c

X X X X X

Center for Driver's License 

Recovery & Employability 

(nonprofit)b

WI

Dept. of motor vehicles X

X X X X X

Municipal Court of Seattle Relicensing Programb

X X X X 

King County District Court Relicensing Programb

WA

Courts X X

Child support enforcement X X

X

New Jersey Institute for Social 

Justice (nonprofit) 

X

Essex County Court License 

Reinstatement Programb

NJ

Child support enforcement X X

Dept. of motor vehicles X

X

Maryland Legal Aid Bureau, Inc. 

(nonprofit)b

MD

Legal 

services

Case 

Fine reduction Guidance management

Payment 

Payment plans alternatives

Suspension 

exemptionsa

Payment assistance License reinstatement support

Entity implementing 

the practice

State

20

Page 26 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

21

Some Practices Were Established to Reduce 

Administrative Burdens on Court Systems

Municipal Court of Seattle Re-licensing Program (Washington)

• The program was established in 1998, according to program staff, to reduce administrative burdens on the court 

system, such as backlogs and costs, resulting from individuals caught driving with a suspended license, a 

criminal offense in Washington. 

• At the time the program started, around 7,000 such cases were filed a year and represented 

approximately one-third of a city attorney’s caseload. 

• Each case has costs associated with it. For example, if a suspended driver fails to appear in court, it costs 

about $100 for arraignment and about $80 per day to house them in jail.

• Staff also reported that another goal of the program is to help suspended drivers with license reinstatement.

Center for Driver’s License Recovery and Employability (Milwaukee, Wis.)

• A pilot program was created in 2003 by the Milwaukee Bar Association primarily to reduce the backlog of court 

cases involving individuals caught driving with a suspended license, according to program staff.

• By the time the center was formally established in 2007, according to program staff, it also aimed to remove 

suspensions as a barrier to employment.

Objective 1

Page 27 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

22

Other Practices Were Created to Reduce Employment 

Barriers

Essex County Court License Reinstatement Program (New Jersey)

• The program was initially developed in 2005 by the New Jersey Institute for Social 

Justice as a pilot program, according to program staff, in part because staff realized 

that clients would not be eligible to participate in a construction apprenticeship 

program without a valid license. 

• The goal of the program, which is currently administered by the Essex County Court, 

is to remove driver’s license suspension as a barrier to employment. 

Maryland Legal Aid Bureau, Inc. 

• The Baltimore City Child Support Project was developed by the Legal Aid Bureau in 

2004 to enable clients to find work when their suspensions are due to a child support 

arrearage.*

Objective 1

*The Legal Aid Bureau discontinued the Baltimore City Child Support Project after losing funding in 2008 but has continued to assist 

clients with license reinstatement.

Page 28 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

23

The Practice of Payment Assistance Targets Drivers Who 

Have Difficulty Making Financial Payments

• Nonpayment of fines is a frequent reason for license suspension,

according to several program staff and state officials. Low-income 

individuals’ licenses may be disproportionately suspended for this reason 

because they have difficulty paying fines. 

• In particular, parking and traffic fines vary in amount but can be significant. 

• Parking fines in New Jersey range from $17 to $130 with most under 

$50, according to a New Jersey-based study.* 

• Some traffic fines in Washington are high, according to staff from the 

Municipal Court of Seattle Re-licensing Program. They cited one that 

was over $600 and noted that if the fine was not paid on time, the 

debt would increase. 

Objective 1: Payment Assistance

*Jon A. Carnegie, Driver’s License Suspensions, Impacts and Fairness Study. 

Page 29 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

24

Payment Assistance Includes Payment Plans, Payment 

Alternatives, and Fine Reductions

Some courts and nonprofit organizations, as well as all four state child support 

enforcement agencies, offer payment assistance.

The King County District Court Re-licensing Program (Washington)

• Helps individuals caught driving with a suspended license, according to 

program staff, by

• establishing payment plans that allow users to pay fines through smaller 

monthly payments over a longer time period; 

• offering payment alternatives such as performing community service or 

serving on a work crew in lieu of making a payment; and

• reducing fines, which judges have the authority to do depending on the 

circumstances.

New Jersey, Washington, and Wisconsin Courts

• Offer payment plans, as required by laws in their states, to individuals who are unable to pay traffic fines because of poverty.*

Objective 1: Payment Assistance

*N.J. Stat. Ann. § 39:4-203.1, Wash. Rev. Code § 46.63.110(6), and Wis. Stat. § 345.47(1).

Page 30 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

25

The Practice of License Reinstatement Support Helps Drivers 

Take the Sometimes Complex Steps to Obtain a Valid License

• To obtain a valid license, a suspended driver must generally

• address the reason for suspension with the issuing agency, and 

• pay a reinstatement fee to the department of motor vehicles. 

• In some cases, individuals owe fines to multiple courts and so must 

take several steps to address the reason for suspension. 

• According to the Center for Driver’s License Recovery and 

Employability in Milwaukee, license reinstatement can be a 

complicated and confusing process.

Objective 1: License Reinstatement Support

Page 31 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

26

Support with Reinstatement Can Include Guidance, Case 

Management, or Legal Services

Several nonprofit organizations and two court programs offer license reinstatement 

support.

The Center for Driver’s License Recovery and Employability (Milwaukee, Wis.)

• Provides low-income suspended drivers with personalized guidance, ongoing case 

management, and legal advice and representation. 

• Between March 2007 and July 2008, the center provided*

• 650 clients with case management services, 53 percent of whom 

successfully obtained a valid license, and

• 212 clients with both case management and legal services, 70 percent of 

whom successfully obtained a valid license.

Objective 1: License Reinstatement Support

*Lois M. Quinn and John Pawasarat, Second Year Evaluation of the Center for Driver’s License Recovery & Employability (Employment 

and Training Institute, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, November 2008).

Page 32 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

27

The Practice of Suspension Exemptions Generally 

Prevents Suspensions

• Suspension exemptions may be granted for certain nondriving 

offenses, such as the nonpayment of child support and drug 

offenses.* 

• Suspension exemptions may take the form of restricted licenses, 

which allow individuals to drive to specific places, such as work and 

school.**

Objective 1: Suspension Exemptions

*In the context of drug offenses, federal regulations require a state to implement any such exemptions through law, regulation, policy, or statewide published guidance 

establishing circumstances under which they will apply. 23 C.F.R. § 192.4(d) (2009). DOT indicated that there is a certain degree of uniformity required across a state. 

**The term “restricted license” is used generally to describe any license that grants limited driving privileges to otherwise suspended drivers, such as occupational 

licenses.

Page 33 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

28

Exemptions May Be Granted for Child Support Arrearages 

and Nondriving Related Drug Offenses

All four states grant suspension exemptions for child support arrearages, and two states grant 

exemptions for certain nondriving drug offenses.

• Child support officials in all four states said that license suspensions are used as a last resort 

when other enforcement tools have not resulted in receipt of payment. Noncustodial parents 

are notified twice before suspension and directed to contact child support enforcement to 

resolve the situation. 

• Officials in all four states said that they believe that suspensions are an effective tool for 

obtaining past-due child support.* 

The practices and perspectives we identified in these four states may be more widespread. HHS 

officials who monitor states’ child support enforcement policies told us that, in addition to these four 

states, other state child support agencies often use their discretion to avoid routinely suspending the 

driver’s licenses of low-income noncustodial parents and view suspensions as a last resort.

Objective 1: Suspension Exemptions

* A 2002 GAO report noted that suspensions lead some noncustodial parents with past-due support to make their child support 

payments, but no data were reported on these parents’ income levels. Child Support Enforcement: Most States Collect Drivers’ SSNs 

and Use Them to Enforce Child Support, GAO-02-239 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2002).

Page 34 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

29

Exemptions May Be Granted for Child Support Arrearages 

and Nondriving Related Drug Offenses (cont.)

• Child support-related suspension exemptions stem from both state laws and administrative 

practices. Some examples include:

• A Washington law provides that licenses of noncustodial parents will not be suspended if at 

a hearing they demonstrate that they made a good faith effort to comply with the support 

order—based, for example, on their efforts to find employment. Wash. Rev. Code § 

74.20A.322(4).

• A Maryland law provides child support officials with discretion regarding the initiation of 

suspensions and specifically prohibits the initiation of a suspension in certain 

circumstances, such as when it would be an impediment to employment. Md. Code Ann., 

Fam. Law § 10-119(c)(4).

• Administrative practices in New Jersey and Wisconsin, according to child support officials,

allow for suspension exemptions for certain populations, such as individuals with 

disabilities. 

• While New Jersey and Wisconsin have state laws that authorize license suspensions for 

nondriving-related drug offenses, both states also allow judges to exempt drivers from 

suspension.*

*N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:35-16 and Wis. Stat. § 961.50(1). These laws were recently amended to allow for exemptions. Maryland, Washington, and Wisconsin

have opted, as explicitly permitted by statute (23 U.S.C. § 159(a)(3)), not to have laws requiring license suspension for all drug convictions, according to DOT. 

Maryland only suspends driver’s licenses for drug convictions that directly involve driving. Washington revokes the licenses of all juveniles convicted of drug 

offenses and does not provide exemptions. Wash. Rev. Code §§ 46.20.265 and 69.50.420.

Objective 1: Suspension Exemptions

Page 35 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

30

Restricted Licenses Exempt Drivers from Full Suspension of

Driving Privileges

Maryland, Washington, and Wisconsin allow eligible drivers suspended for certain 

nondriving offenses to obtain restricted licenses that limit where and when the individual 

can drive.* Two examples are: 

• In Maryland, noncustodial parents in partial compliance with their child support may 

be issued a restricted license, which lets them drive to and from work during work 

hours. To obtain a restricted license, a driver must provide the department of motor 

vehicles with a letter of authorization. The child support enforcement agency 

typically issues this letter after the individual has entered into a payment plan that 

will bring him or her into full compliance. 

• In Wisconsin, drivers suspended for a drug offense, among other offenses, can also 

apply for a restricted license, and if they meet the eligibility criteria, the department 

of motor vehicles will issue it.

Objective 1: Suspension Exemptions

*Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 16-203(b)(2), Wash. Rev. Code § 46.20.391, and Wis. Stat. § 343.10.

Page 36 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

31

Summary of Findings

According to program staff, challenges to implementing these 

practices include:

• the need to garner support from multiple organizations,

• difficulties in crossing jurisdictional boundaries, and 

• sustaining program funding. 

Objective 2

Page 37 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

32

Garnering Support from Multiple Organizations Can Be a 

Challenge

Center for Driver’s License Recovery and Employability (Milwaukee, Wis.)

• Offers both payment assistance and license reinstatement support to 

suspended drivers through a partnership between four organizations (see fig. 

2).*

• According to program staff, building a strong collaboration among these partner 

organizations was time-consuming but critical to designing and carrying out the 

program.

• Staff noted that establishing and maintaining such partnerships would likely be 

a challenge to implementing the program in other communities.

Objective 2

*At the time of our interviews, the center operated as a partnership between Justice 2000, Inc., Legal Action of Wisconsin, Inc., the 

Milwaukee Municipal Court, and the Milwaukee Area Technical College. The center planned to begin a new partnership with Wisconsin 

Community Services, Inc. in January 2010. At that time, Wisconsin Community Services, Inc. is expected to replace Justice 2000, Inc. 

as the lead organization in the partnership.

Page 38 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

33

Figure 2: Center for Driver’s License Recovery and 

Employability: Partner Organizations and Roles

Objective 2

Source: GAO analysis.

Note: Partner organizations are as of 2009. 

Page 39 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

34

Garnering Support from Multiple Organizations Can Be a 

Challenge (cont.)

Municipal Court of Seattle Re-licensing Program

• Offers both payment assistance and license reinstatement support to individuals 

caught driving with a suspended license through a partnership between the court, 

the Seattle City Attorney’s Office, and the King County Office of the Public Defender 

(see fig. 3). While the program serves all individuals regardless of income, many 

participants are low-income.

• The court also dismisses the criminal charge for driving while suspended if the 

individual meets certain requirements.

• According to court staff, a key factor in establishing the program was that these 

partner organizations agreed on overall program goals, despite tensions related to 

their different perspectives and areas of responsibility.

Objective 2

Page 40 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

35

Figure 3: Municipal Court of Seattle Re-licensing Program: 

Partner Organizations and Roles

Objective 2

Source: GAO analysis.

*The Seattle City Attorney’s Office provides a prosecutor and the King County Office of the Public Defender provides a defense attorney at each initial court appearance for individuals caught driving while suspended. If an individual meets certain requirements, the 

prosecutor and defense attorney agree to dismiss the criminal charge. 

Page 41 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

36

Court-Based Programs Are Challenged by Jurisdictional 

Boundaries

Jurisdictional boundaries limit the reach of court-based programs.*

• Several programs reported that many drivers owe fines in multiple cities or counties. For example, the 

862 suspended drivers served by the Center for Driver’s License Recovery and Employability between 

March 2007 and July 2008 owed fines in 60 different city and county court systems in Wisconsin.** 

Staff from the Municipal Court of Seattle Re-licensing Program explained that many drivers owe fines 

in multiple jurisdictions because the Seattle metropolitan area is large, and drivers often commute to 

work across multiple cities or counties. 

• However, courts typically cannot offer payment assistance for fines incurred in other jurisdictions. For 

example, the Municipal Court of Seattle does not have the authority to offer payment assistance for 

fines incurred outside the city of Seattle. If a suspended driver also owes fines elsewhere but cannot 

afford to pay them, he or she cannot obtain a reinstated license, despite receiving payment assistance 

for the Seattle fine.

• Staff from all three court-based programs said that jurisdictional boundaries would be a challenge to 

implementing these programs more broadly.

Objective 2

*By court-based programs, we are referring to the Essex County Court License Reinstatement Program, the King County District Court Relicensing Program, and the Municipal Court of Seattle Re-licensing Program.

**Quinn and Pawasarat, Second Year Evaluation of the Center for Driver’s License Recovery and Employability.

Page 42 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

37

Court-Based Programs Are Challenged by Jurisdictional 

Boundaries (cont.)

Efforts to overcome jurisdictional boundaries may face administrative challenges.

Essex County Court License Reinstatement Program

• The court obtained permission from the state Administrative Office of the Courts to

consolidate fines incurred throughout the county into one payment plan based on 

income.

• According to staff, the program is cumbersome to administer because they must 

identify fines owed across 21 municipalities. Differences in information technology 

systems among municipalities also make it difficult to track payments and assess 

compliance with payment plans.

• While the court can consolidate fines incurred within Essex County, payment plans 

cannot include fines incurred outside of Essex County.

Objective 2

Page 43 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

38

Sustaining Program Funding Can Also Be a Challenge

Two programs recently experienced budget reductions that affected program capacity. 

Municipal Court of Seattle Re-licensing Program

According to program staff:

• Due to state budget cuts during the severe economic recession, the court 

eliminated an ombudsman position in July 2009. The loss of the ombudsman, who 

provided individual assistance to program participants, has decreased the court’s 

ability to provide personalized license reinstatement support. 

• If the court is forced to eliminate additional positions, it might be unable to continue 

offering payment plans and community service as payment assistance options.

Objective 2

Page 44 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

39

Sustaining Program Funding Can Also Be a Challenge 

(cont.)

Maryland Legal Aid Bureau, Inc.

According to Legal Aid staff:

• The Legal Aid Bureau discontinued the Baltimore City Child Support Project after the 

project lost private foundation funding in 2008, but has continued to assist clients with 

license reinstatement. These efforts are now funded entirely by the Legal Aid Bureau. 

• License reinstatement assistance is currently provided on a part-time basis by one 

attorney, who said that funding is not available for additional staff support. There are 

currently no plans to expand the project, as additional staff would be needed in order to do 

so.

In addition, staff from two other programs noted that resource constraints would be a challenge to broader implementation.

Objective 2

Page 45 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

40

Concluding Observations

• State and local needs and concerns have been the impetus behind the 

practices we found to help drivers retain, or suspended drivers regain, 

their licenses. While there were often challenges to be addressed, the 

entities involved in license suspensions–courts, child support enforcement 

agencies, and departments of motor vehicles–were sufficiently flexible to 

allow for the development of such practices in the four states we 

reviewed. 

• The limited information on the prevalence and impact of nondriving 

suspensions, as well as on the effectiveness of the types of practices we 

found, may make it difficult for other localities and states to readily assess 

any potential need for such practices and to identify the most effective 

approaches.

Page 46 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

41

Concluding Observations (cont.)

• While driver licensure is generally within the domain of state governments, 

some federal efforts exist that could facilitate information-sharing and 

dissemination:

• DOT is playing a role in sharing information about such practices. DOT 

is participating in AAMVA’s Suspended and Revoked Drivers Working 

Group that has brought together DOT, state, and local officials to 

facilitate research, identify effective alternatives to suspension, and 

share information with state policymakers. 

• In addition, HHS’s dissemination of “best practices” for child support 

enforcement, including those related to driver’s license suspensions, 

also provides a mechanism for information-sharing between states.

Page 47 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix II: Comments from the Department Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 

of Health and Human Services 

Page 48 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services 

Page 49 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services 

Page 50 GAO-10-217 License Suspensions
Appendix III: GAO

A

 Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 51 GAO-10-217 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Kay E. Brown, (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov GAO Contact 

Staff Acknowledgments Gale Harris, Assistant Director, and Paul Wright, analyst-in-charge, 

managed this assignment. Caitlin Croake, Kathryn O’Dea, and Ramona 

Burton made significant contributions to this report in all aspects of the 

work. Terry Richardson and Steven Putansu provided methodological 

assistance; Craig Winslow provided legal support; and Susan Bernstein 

and James Bennett also provided assistance. 

(130901) License Suspensions 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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 at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper