The Abuse of Disability Placards: Findings

The following sections describe the Internal Special Audit Unit’s (ISAU) findings after an in-depth examination of placard abuse, the RMV’s process for issuing placards, and options for detecting and preventing the misuse of placards.

I. Placard Abuse is Still a Significant Problem in Boston.

More than two years following the OIG’s prior report on disability parking placards, placard abuse at metered parking spaces in certain areas of Boston continues to be a problem. The ISAU surveilled the Theater District, Copley Square, the Fenway neighborhood and parts of Back Bay over thirty-four days and identified numerous instances of placard abuse. Specifically, the Unit observed:

• Drivers regularly using placards belonging to someone else, including deceased persons, spouses, relatives and roommates.
• Drivers using expired placards.
• Drivers using cancelled placards.
• Drivers covering the placard’s number and expiration date, both of which must be displayed.
• A driver using a placard that her husband bought for $300. 

Many of the drivers the ISAU observed misused placards regularly for full weekdays, to park for free at meters. This is an indication that many commuters likely use placards for regular, free parking at meters near their workplaces in Boston.

A. Drivers Using Placards Belonging to Someone Else

During its surveillance of the four Boston neighborhoods described above, the ISAU identified 325 vehicles displaying placards belonging to someone other than the vehicle owner. Of these, approximately seventy-seven drivers appeared to regularly use placards belonging to someone else, including deceased individuals, relatives, roommates and acquaintances.

Many of the drivers parked regularly at metered spaces and worked at locations near their parking spaces. For example, the ISAU identified a construction worker in Boston using someone else’s placard to park near a construction site on weekdays. The placard owner does not have a driver’s license and the ISAU observed the vehicle parked regularly without any passenger present.

Photo of vehicle displaying a placard observed regularly near a construction site in Boston. According to RMV records, the placard belongs to the mother of the vehicle owner. Despite the vehicle owner receiving a citation for misusing a placard in 2013, the ISAU observed this vehicle throughout the surveillance period.

During the final phase of its investigation, the ISAU worked with the Massachusetts State Police in October, November and December 2015. Over the course of several days, ISAU investigators, working with the State Police, conducted targeted surveillance of drivers the Unit had previously identified as likely to be misusing a placard. When the State Trooper observed one of the suspected drivers using a disability parking placard, he stopped the driver and asked him to demonstrate that the placard holder was in the vehicle or that the driver expected to pick the person up within ten minutes pursuant to regulation. If the placard holder was not present, the Trooper seized the placard and issued a citation for placard misuse under M.G.L. c. 90, § 2. The Trooper issued twenty-three citations during this operation. In particular:

• Four cited drivers were using placards belonging to deceased persons.
• Nineteen were cited for using placards belonging to a friend, relative or acquaintance.

In one instance, a driver admitted to using a placard that her husband had purchased for $300. Another driver displayed two different placards during the ISAU’s investigation. One belonged to a deceased relative; when that placard expired, the driver began using a placard belonging to another relative. In another case, a state employee who earned nearly $110,000 in 2015 used a deceased person’s placard to routinely park outside of his office.

Yet another driver was using her husband’s placard to park near her workplace each day. The driver admitted that she was not picking up her husband, but was using the placard for herself. The State Police Trooper cited the driver and confiscated the placard. The following day, her husband went to the RMV’s headquarters in Boston and signed an affidavit – under the pains and penalties of perjury – stating that he had lost the placard or that someone had stolen it.³⁹ Because the Trooper’s seizure of the placard had not yet been recorded at the RMV, the RMV issued him a new placard immediately.⁴⁰

Eight of the twenty-three cited drivers work at a Boston hospital or neighboring medical facility.  These drivers illegally parked near the hospital on a regular basis and occupied metered parking spaces that could have been used by patients attending medical appointments.  Furthermore, nine other drivers were using placards the RMV had cancelled because they had been reported lost or stolen.  State Police cited two of these drivers during the investigation. For example, one driver used a relative’s placard that the relative had reported as “lost or stolen” to the RMV.  As noted earlier in this report, when a placard is reported lost or stolen, the RMV cancels the placard in its database and notifies the local parking commission of the cancellation.  Individuals can continue to misuse cancelled placards, however, unless they are caught by law enforcement. 

Twenty-two of the cited drivers were fined $500 and had their licenses suspended for thirty days. The last driver’s case is still open. Finally, as explained above, the RMV can revoke an individual’s placard if the individual “authorizes, permits, or allows” another person to use it.⁴¹ Accordingly, the RMV issued hearing notices to nineteen of the placard holders whose placards the cited drivers were using.⁴² Thirteen placard holders appeared for their hearings. The RMV issued warnings to each of these placard holders, but ultimately returned their placards to them. The RMV also suspended one placard holder’s license for thirty days for improperly reporting his placard lost or stolen.⁴³ The other six placard holders did not appear for their hearings. The RMV kept their placards and officially suspended the placards in the agency’s records.

B. Drivers Concealed Placard Information or Reversed Placards

Placard holders can use a “privacy sleeve” to cover their photograph on the placard; however, they are not permitted to cover or conceal any additional information, including the placard number or the expiration date. Additionally, placards must face forward in vehicle windshields to display relevant placard information.⁴⁴ Reversing a placard or covering placard information prevents parking clerks and law enforcement officials from determining whether placards are current and properly used. Stated differently, concealing the placard number or expiration date enables abusers to use placards that are cancelled, have expired or that belong to someone else.

Photo of a placard with the expiration date covered in the Fenway area of Boston, near a construction site. According to RMV records, this placard is expired and belongs to an 81-year-old individual. The vehicle owner is the placard holder’s son.

During its investigation, the ISAU observed forty-two vehicles parked at meters where the drivers had improperly concealed portions of the placard, including the placard number and expiration date. In an additional fifteen instances, drivers reversed the direction of the placard in the windshield so that the placard number and expiration date were not visible. None of the owners of these fifty-seven vehicles have their own placards.

Placard abuse in Boston is ongoing and takes several forms. Some drivers regularly use other individuals’ placards while others conceal placard information. These abuses collectively deprive the truly disabled from accessible parking.

II. Some Placard Holders Have Job Duties Contradicting Medical Standards for Obtaining a Placard.

Most individuals with placards obtain and use them appropriately. The current placard laws do not, however, contain a mechanism to protect against fraudulently obtained placards. The RMV does not, for instance, have the authority to deny or investigate suspicious placard applications; if an application is complete and signed by a medical provider, the RMV is required to issue the placard. Similarly, although the RMV receives tips concerning improperly obtained placards, neither law enforcement nor the RMV has the authority to investigate – or to revoke – a placard that was improperly obtained.

Vehicle belonging to a window washing company parked in front of the State Transportation Building throughout the time the company was on site.

During its investigation, the ISAU identified fourteen placards holders who used placards to regularly park at metered spaces near their workplaces, but who had job duties that appear to contradict being unable to walk 200 feet without resting, ambulatory aids or assistance.⁴⁵ For example, construction workers used their own placards to park regularly at construction sites in Boston. Furthermore, hotel banquet servers used their own placards to park near their workplaces. Both hotel banquet service and construction work require long hours standing, walking and lifting, which would seem to conflict with the legal criteria in 540 CMR 17.03(2)(a) for obtaining a placard.⁴⁶

In another example, a chiropractor who operates his own practice in Boston obtained five temporary placards and one permanent placard over ten years by submitting applications that his employees (who were also chiropractors) completed and signed. This individual regularly parks at designated disability parking spaces in front of his apartment building and workplace, which are both in the same Boston neighborhood.⁴⁷ A member of the public complained to the RMV about observing this medical professional walking around the apartment building he lives in without assistance, and never using any ambulatory aids; sometimes, neighbors saw him carrying multiple grocery bags. Further, this individual often posts photographs of himself at a New England ski area to his social media account. In response to the complaint, the RMV required the individual to complete a new application, but it could not revoke his placard because a healthcare provider with a current medical license signed the new application.

In another instance, an employee of a window-washing company used a placard to park in front of the State Transportation Building (“STB”) in the Theater District each day while he and his colleagues worked at the building. ISAU staff observed the vehicle’s driver and passengers walking into the STB, without ambulatory aids or apparent difficulty, while also carrying heavy equipment.

Most placard holders obtained their placards appropriately and use them in accordance with the law. Nevertheless, free all-day parking is a strong incentive for commuters working in – and people living in – urban areas to misuse placards in some way. Furthermore, disabled members of the public frequently report that they are unable to find parking in downtown Boston due to suspected placard abuse. The current placard laws do not, however, contain any mechanism to investigate potential fraud or to take action against wrongfully obtained placards.

III. Some Temporary Placards Extended Multiple Times, at Times Years Beyond Original Expiration.

The RMV issues temporary disability parking placards to individuals with short-term disabilities whose conditions are expected to improve.⁴⁸ Medical providers complete the same placard application used for permanent placards, but they must certify how long the disability is expected to exist; the placard is effective only for that length of time.⁴⁹ Temporary placards provide all of the benefits afforded to individuals with permanent placards, including free meter parking.

A temporary placard holder seeking to extend his placard must submit a new application with his provider’s approval; the provider must again certify how long the disability is expected to last. While the RMV does have limited authority to reject applications or request additional medical information,⁵⁰ it does not have the authority to question suspicious applications. Therefore, it cannot question seemingly excessive temporary placard renewals. Instead, the RMV approves and processes nearly all placard applications as long as a licensed medical provider certifies that the applicant meets at least one of the criteria on the application.

In a sample of 548 temporary applications, 19% extended their temporary placards three or more times. Seven had extended their temporary placards between eight and fifteen times since 2003. In one extreme example, a temporary placard holder renewed his placard seventeen times over nine years, using relatively the same diagnosis on each placard application. The initial application was for a six-month placard.

In another instance, an applicant altered the recommended length for her temporary placard from six months to twenty-six months after her provider had completed the application. The RMV identified and confirmed the alteration and issued the applicant a six-month placard. Two weeks later, however, the applicant’s provider then signed a new application for a two-year placard. Because a licensed medical provider signed the application, the RMV issued the two-year placard.

There are many medical reasons that an individual may need to extend a temporary placard, and each of these placard holders’ need for a placard may be genuine. The current process for extending temporary placards provides the opportunity for abuse or fraud, however, since the RMV does not have the authority to question suspicious applications that medical providers sign. Coupled with the convenience a placard affords, the RMV’s inability to scrutinize extensions leaves the RMV’s placard program vulnerable to abuse.

IV. One Aspect of the RMV’s Application for a Disability Parking Placard Does Not Follow State Law.

The RMV’s placard application deviates from the state regulations that govern disability parking placards. Further, the RMV sometimes issues placards when applications are missing required information. These errors allow individuals to obtain placards even though they have not demonstrated that they have a qualifying disability or medical condition.

First, under 540 CMR 17.00, an individual with arthritis qualifies for a placard if the arthritis prevents the individual from being able to walk more than 200 feet without stopping to rest, without assistance or without the use of ambulatory aids.⁵¹ Arthritis is not, however, a stand-alone basis for obtaining a placard.⁵² Despite this important distinction, the RMV’s placard application lists arthritis as one of the conditions qualifying for a placard.⁵³ Consequently, an individual could receive a placard for arthritis even though he can walk more than 200 feet without resting or assistance.

Although the application requires providers to disclose the type, severity and location of the arthritis, this does not meet the requirements of 540 CMR 17.00 because the application does not require the healthcare provider to certify that arthritis prevents the individual from being able to walk more than 200 feet. In general, moreover, Class III or IV functional arthritis would prevent a person from walking more than 200 feet without stopping to rest, without assistance or without the use of ambulatory aids,⁵⁴ but the RMV’s application does not require providers to list the class of arthritis. Therefore, many providers simply indicate “severe” on the application, but do not distinguish the class of the diagnosis. Notably, 95% of the applications that the ISAU reviewed that listed arthritis as a disability necessitating a placard did not list the class of the arthritis.

In addition, the RMV does not appear to always use the criteria on the application – location, type and severity – to screen applications. In fact, 50% of the applications listing arthritis as the qualifying disability did not identify the severity. Some applications identified the severity of the arthritis as mild. Other applications did not list the type or location of the arthritis. Finally, other applications listed general symptoms, such as knee or back pain, but did not include a clinical diagnosis as required in the regulations. In all of these instances, the RMV issued the applicant a placard.

The discrepancy between the RMV’s placard application and the regulations – as well as the RMV’s failure to use its own criteria to screen applications – allows individuals to obtain placards even though they have not demonstrated that they have a qualifying disability or medical condition. Moreover, issuing placards to applicants who do not meet qualifying criteria contributes to the overall parking problem in Boston and deprives the disabled public of much-needed access to parking.

V. The Improper Use of Placards May Cost Boston Taxpayers Millions of Dollars Each Year.

Since vehicles with disability parking placards are not required to pay meter fees, the city of Boston loses revenue each day from persons who misuse placards. The ISAU identified abuse in every area of Boston it surveilled; the OIG’s previous investigations found similar abuse in other areas of Boston. Consequently, it is likely that placard abuse exists throughout the city. And while it is not possible to determine the exact financial cost of city-wide placard abuse, when just one person misuses a placard for daily weekday parking, the annual cost to the city is approximately $2,280.⁵⁵ To put that figure in context, there are approximately 8,000 metered parking spaces in the city of Boston.

The chart below illustrates the potential lost revenue, based on differing numbers of drivers improperly using placards to occupy metered parking spaces. While the Unit observed between 20% and 38% of metered spaces occupied by vehicles with placards during its surveillance period, ⁵⁶ many individuals who have placards need them and use them appropriately. Therefore, the chart below uses more conservative estimates. 

Table 2: Potential lost revenue from placard misuse

Boston Metered Parking Spaces Potentially Occupied by Drivers Using Placards	Potential Annual Lost Revenue
5%	$912,000
10%	$1,824,000
15%	$2,736,000
20%	$3,648,000

 

Other cities that eliminated the meter-fee exemption for vehicles with placards experienced significant increases in city revenue. For example, Raleigh, North Carolina saw a 193% increase in revenue from downtown parking meters upon eliminating the meter-fee exemption for vehicles with placards.⁵⁸ Moreover, in early 2001 vehicles with placards occupied 40% (approximately 2,000) of Philadelphia’s Center City parking meters.⁵⁹ When the city eliminated its free-parking ordinance in April 2001, parking meter revenues in this one area of the city increased by $1.5 million in nine months. Additionally, the parking vacancy rate in Center City increased from 5% to 13% following the exemption revocation.⁶⁰

In California, one in ten registered drivers has a disability parking placard. In Los Angeles (“L.A.”) County alone, 621,000 drivers have placards, which translates into six placards for every city parking meter. The Los Angeles Times reported in 2011 that at any given time on any given street in L.A., more than 33% of drivers using placards to park at meters were abusing the placards.⁶¹ This abuse translated into millions of dollars in lost city revenue each year.

While Boston has not studied the financial impact of placard abuse, the evidence of existing abuse the OIG has reported over the past fifteen years, combined with data from other cities, indicate that placard abuse likely costs the city and taxpayers millions of dollars each year.⁶²

VI. The Healthcare Provider Information in the RMV's Electronic Database Was Often Incorrect.

The Registry’s Automated Licensing and Registration System (“ALARS”) is the central database for all of the RMV’s electronic records, including placard information. For instance, the database contains each placard holder’s name and address, as well as his placard number and the name of the medical provider who signed his placard application. The ISAU reviewed ALARS’s electronic records for over 600 placards and found that in approximately 50% of the cases, ALARS did not contain the correct name of the healthcare provider who signed the application. The ISAU identified two main causes for the inaccuracies: (1) outdated provider data; and (2) a system limitation that prevents the RMV from inputting providers’ complete license information.

First, to enter the name of the provider who signed the application into the database, RMV staff have to select from a pre-populated list of providers’ medical licenses. Once a clerk selects the license number, ALARS automatically fills in the medical provider’s name. The RMV, however, has not updated its list of provider names and license numbers since 2007. Therefore, the name and license number of many new healthcare providers are not in the RMV’s system. If the provider on the placard application is not included in the pre-populated list, RMV clerks either select a provider at random or select no provider at all. Sometimes, the clerks will note the correct provider name elsewhere in the system notes.

Second, medical licenses in Massachusetts generally contain a letter prefix followed by a series of numbers. For instance, a registered nurse’s license begins with “RN” and a physician assistant’s license starts with “PA,” both of which are followed by a number series. Consequently, a registered nurse and a physician assistant can have identical license numbers distinguished only by the precursor RN or PA. The RMV’s database, however, does not allow clerks to input the letter prefixes into the system; clerks may only enter the numeric portion of the license. Therefore, many placards the Unit sampled had incorrect provider information in ALARS because the provider on the application had the same medical license number as another type of provider in the pre-populated list of medical license numbers and the RMV clerk selected the wrong provider.

In 2014, the RMV was in the process of replacing ALARS and had intended to address the medical provider limitations in the new database. Staff from the RMV’s Medical Affairs Bureau worked with developers in charge of designing the RMV’s new system in order to address the provider issue and enhance the RMV’s reporting capabilities; however, the Registry suspended the ALARS replacement project in 2015, based on budgetary concerns. Currently, the Registry is preparing a new solicitation to select a vendor to replace ALARS.

Maintaining accurate Registry records is vital and doing so would enable the RMV to better analyze provider information, identify suspicious trends in applications and provide better customer service.

Additional Resources

The Abuse of Disability Parking Placards in Massachusetts, February 2016

³⁹ See Appendix B. 

⁴⁰ In November 2015, twelve days after the placard holder received his new placard, the Registry suspended the placard holder’s driver’s license for thirty days. Additionally, the Registry fined the placard holder’s wife $500 for misuse and suspended her driver’s license for thirty days. The Registry is currently updating its Request for Replacement Placard form to add a declaration that law enforcement did not confiscate the requestor’s placard.

⁴¹ See M.G.L. c. 90, § 2.

⁴² The other four placards were assigned to deceased individuals.

⁴³ See footnote 40.

⁴⁴ When the RMV issues a placard, it gives the placard holder instructions explaining how the placard can and cannot be used.  See Appendix E, Memorandum from the RMV’s Medical Affairs Bureau to all placard holders.  This includes instructing individuals that they must hang the placard from the rearview mirror “facing towards the front of the vehicle.” Id. (emphasis original).  Furthermore, Chapter 90 states that “the placard shall be displayed so as to be readily visible through the windshield of the vehicle and in accordance with instructions provided by the registrar from time to time.” See M.G.L. c. 90, § 2.  The legislation does not, however, clearly state that reversing a placard or concealing information other than the photograph is a citable offense.  See id.

⁴⁵ As previously discussed, an individual qualifies for a disability parking placard if he (1) cannot walk more than 200 feet without resting, assistance, or an ambulatory aid; (2) is legally blind; (3) has lost a limb or the permanent use of a limb; or (4) has specific cardiac or respiratory conditions listed in the placard regulations. See 540 CMR 17.03(2).  None of the fourteen individuals applied for placards based on categories (2), (3) or (4).

⁴⁶ See also footnote 45.

⁴⁷ The comparable cost to purchase a deeded parking space in this neighborhood as of September 2015 was approximately $105,000. See www.coldwellbankerhomes.com/ma/boston/2-avery-street/pid_8656851/. See also www.bostonrealestateobserver.com/tag/boston-ritz-carlton/.

⁴⁸ Specifically, the disability should be expected to last between two months and two years. The regulations state:

If, in the opinion of the health care provider, the duration of the applicant’s disability is at least two months but less than 24 months, the applicant shall be issued a Temporary Placard, with an expiration date coincident with the expected duration of the disability.

⁴⁹ CMR 17.03(5).

⁵⁰ See id.

⁵¹ See Section III(C) at page 11.

⁵² See 540 CMR 17.03(2).

⁵³ Id.  

⁵⁴ See Appendix A.

⁵⁵ See definition of the classes and stages of arthritis published by the American College of Rheumatology, available at www.rheumatology.org/Portals/0/Files/1992%20Global%20Functional%20Status%20in%20Rheumatoid%20Arthrit is.pdf.  

⁵⁶ Based on a commuter parking at a meter for eight hours a day for 228 days a year. 

⁵⁷ In one area of Boston with 217 parking meters. 

⁵⁸ Based on a commuter parking at a meter for eight hours a day for 228 days a year. 

⁵⁹ See Cullen Browder, “Raleigh’s pay-to-park rule helps curb handicapped placard abuse,” WRAL.com, May 13, 2010, available at www.wral.com/news/local/wral_investigates/story/7587736/. 

⁶⁰ See L. Stuart Ditzen, “City remedies handicapped parking fraud when rules were tightened, meter spaces opened up,” Philly.com, January 11, 2002, available at articles.philly.com/2002-01-11/news/25343337_1_placards-meterspaces-parking-meter-revenues. 

⁶¹ Id.

⁶² See Martha Groves, “Placards can bring a curbside surprise,” L.A. Times, May 22, 2011, available at articles.latimes.com/2011/may/22/local/la-me-disabled-parking-20110522. 

⁶³ Eliminating the meter exemption in the cities discussed above meant that everyone using a placard – including those using a placard appropriately – could no longer park at meters for free. Consequently, not all of the increased revenue can be attributed to placard abuse. Even attributing a small portion of the new revenue to the elimination of placard abuse, however, highlights the potential revenue that Boston is losing every year.

Date published:	February 24, 2016