Technical Memorandum

To: Bridget Barksdale

From: CTR RS/Study team: Michael Murphy, Zhe Han, Darren Hazlett, Lisa Loftus-

Otway, Sherri Greenberg, Randy Machemehl, John Guttman, Matt Kammer-

Kerwick, Kara Takasaki, Carolina Baumanis, Meredith Brown, Michelle Surka,

Susanna Gallun, Taehoon Lim, Srijith Balakrishnan, Shidong Pan

Subject: DPS-CTR IAC Contract – Technical Assistance to TxDPS Driver License

Division, Technical Memorandum 3: Fact-finding through Expert Working

Group, Workshops, Interviews, and Surveys

Date: July 12, 2020

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................ 1

Chapter 1. Customer Focus Group Meetings, Breakout Sessions, and

Interviews ............................................................................................................ 2

1.1. Customer Focus Group Meetings ................................................................ 2

1.1.1. Objective of the Customer Focus Group Meetings ............................... 2

1.1.2. Design of the Customer Focus Group Meetings ................................... 2

1.1.3. Procedure of the Customer Focus Group Meetings .............................. 4

1.1.4. Summary and Findings of the Customer Focus Group Meetings ......... 6

1.1.5. Consensus of the Customer Focus Group Meetings ............................. 9

1.1.6. Disagreements of the Customer Focus Group Meetings .................... 12

1.2. Breakout Sessions with DPS, DMV, and County Offices through

WebEx .............................................................................................................. 13

1.2.1. Breakout Session on DLD Management, Operations, and

Performance Measures .................................................................................. 14

1.2.2. Breakout Session on REAL ID Compliance and Security .................. 15

1.2.3. Breakout Session on Customer Service .............................................. 17

1.2.4. Breakout Session on General IT Issues............................................... 21

1.2.5. Breakout Session on Call Center ........................................................ 25

1.3. Interviews Conducted ................................................................................ 29

1.3.1. Interview with DPS Commissioners and DMV Board Members ....... 29

1.3.2. Interview with DPS Executive Management ...................................... 34

1.3.3. Interview with Secretary of State Senior Staffers ............................... 36

1.4. Chapter Conclusion .................................................................................... 38

Chapter 2. Database Analyses............................................................................... 39

2.1. NEMO-Q Database Analysis ..................................................................... 39

2.2. DLD High-Value Dataset .......................................................................... 45

2.3. DMV/County Offices VTR Transactions .................................................. 46

2.4. Chapter Conclusion .................................................................................... 48

Chapter 3. Survey Analyses and DLD Customer Service Enhancements ............ 49

3.1. Customer Survey on DLD Experiences ..................................................... 49

3.1.1. Survey Design ..................................................................................... 49

3.1.2. Survey Distribution ............................................................................. 51

3.1.3. Survey Analyses and Results .............................................................. 90

iii

3.1.4. Survey Conclusions .......................................................................... 109

3.2. DLD Customer Service Enhancements ................................................... 111

3.3. CTAC Survey on Three DLD Location Options ..................................... 114

3.4. CTAC Survey on VTR Transactions ....................................................... 116

3.5. Chapter Conclusion .................................................................................. 118

Chapter 4. Conclusion and Key Findings ........................................................... 119

References ........................................................................................................... 120

Appendix A. Focus Group Participant Demographics with Anonymity ............ 122

Appendix B. Satisfaction Group Exercise Sheet ................................................ 124

Appendix C. Focus Group Discussion Guide ..................................................... 126

Appendix D. List of Attendees and Questions for the Breakout Session on

DLD Management, Operations, and Performance Measures .......................... 133

Appendix E. List of Attendees and Questions for the Breakout Session on

REAL ID Compliance and Security ................................................................ 135

Appendix F. List of Attendees and Questions for the Breakout Session on

Customer Service ............................................................................................ 139

Appendix G. List of Attendees and Questions for the Breakout Session on

General IT Issue .............................................................................................. 145

Appendix H. List of Attendees and Questions for the Breakout Session on

Call Center ....................................................................................................... 152

Appendix I. Customer Survey............................................................................. 155

Appendix J. County Tax Assessor-Collector Survey on DLD Three

Options ............................................................................................................ 194

Appendix K. County Tax Assessor-Collector Survey on VTR Transactions ..... 198

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Comparison Results of Completed Transactions .................................. 40

Table 2.2 Comparison Results of Incomplete Transactions ................................. 41

Table 2.3 Comparison Results of Total Transactions ........................................... 42

Table 3.1 List of the Top 50 Texas Counties by Population and the

Number of Surveys Received ......................................................................... 71

Table 3.2 List of the Top 50 Texas Cities and Towns by Population and

Number of Surveys Received ......................................................................... 72

Table 3.3 Race and Ethnicity by Texas Population Percentage Compared

to Number of Surveys Percentage................................................................... 74

Table 3.4 Annual Household Income Categories and Number of Survey

Respondents .................................................................................................... 78

Table 3.5 Household Income Data—Number of Surveys and Number of

Households* .................................................................................................... 79

Table 3.6 Actions Taken by DLD to Improve Customer Service....................... 113

Table A.1 Focus Group Participant Demographics with Anonymous ............... 122

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Flyer for the Customer Focus Group Recruitment ................................ 3

Figure 1.2 Facebook Post for the Customer Focus Group Recruitment ................. 4

Figure 1.3 Example of Starting Point for Satisfaction with DLD Services

Group Wall Exercise ......................................................................................... 5

Figure 1.4 Synthesized Ending Point after Satisfaction and Importance of

DLD Services Group Wall Exercise ................................................................. 6

Figure 3.1 Percentages of Surveys vs. Female and Male Wait Time

Ratings ............................................................................................................ 53

Figure 3.2 Male Wait Time Ratings for Different Race and Ethnic Groups ........ 53

Figure 3.3 Female Wait Time Ratings for Different Race and Ethnic

Groups ............................................................................................................. 54

Figure 3.4 Male Wait Time Ratings - Did Not Stand Outside the DLO

Building and Did Not Lose Pay or Vacation Time while Waiting ................. 55

Figure 3.5 Female Wait Time Rating - Did Not Stand Outside the DLO

Building and Did Not Lose Pay or Vacation Time while Waiting ................. 55

Figure 3.6 Male Wait Time Ratings - Did Not Stand Outside the DLO

Building but Lost Pay while Waiting.............................................................. 56

Figure 3.7 Female Wait Time Ratings - Did Not Stand Outside the DLO

Building but Lost Pay while Waiting.............................................................. 56

Figure 3.8 Male Wait Time Ratings - Did Not Stand Outside the DLO

Building but Used Vacation Time while Waiting ........................................... 56

Figure 3.9 Female Wait Time Ratings - Did Not Stand Outside the DLO

Building but Used Vacation Time while Waiting ........................................... 57

Figure 3.10 Male Wait Time Ratings – Did Not Lose Pay or Vacation

Time, but Did Stand Outside the DLO Building while Waiting..................... 57

Figure 3.11 Female Wait Time Ratings – Did Not Lose Pay or Vacation

Time, but Did Stand Outside the DLO Building while Waiting..................... 57

Figure 3.12 Male Wait Time Ratings - Had to Stand Outside the DLO

Building and Lost Pay while Waiting ............................................................. 58

Figure 3.13 Female Wait Time Ratings - Had to Stand Outside the DLO

Building and Lost Pay while Waiting ............................................................. 58

Figure 3.14 Male Wait Time Ratings - Had to Stand Outside the DLO

Building and Used Vacation Time while Waiting .......................................... 58

Figure 3.15 Female Wait Time Ratings - Had to Stand Outside the DLO

Building and Used Vacation Time while Waiting .......................................... 59

Figure 3.16 Male Wait Time Ratings – I had to stand outside the DLO

building and I didn’t know how long I’d be waiting ...................................... 59

Figure 3.17 Female Wait Time Ratings – I had to stand outside the DLO

Building, and I didn’t know how long I’d be waiting..................................... 60

Figure 3.18 Distribution of Percentage of the Texas Population by Age

Group (TDC 2018a) ........................................................................................ 61

Figure 3.19 Distribution of Percentage of Survey Respondents by Age

Group .............................................................................................................. 62

Figure 3.20 Percentage of Survey Responses for Wait Time Ratings: Age

Group 17 or Younger ...................................................................................... 63

Figure 3.21 Percentage of Survey Responses for Wait Time Ratings: Age

Group 18–20 ................................................................................................... 63

Figure 3.22 Percentage of Survey Responses for Wait Time Ratings: Age

Group 21–29 ................................................................................................... 64

Figure 3.23 Percentage of Survey Responses for Wait Time Ratings: Age

Group 30–39 ................................................................................................... 64

Figure 3.24 Percentage of Survey Responses for Wait Time Ratings: Age

Group 40–49 ................................................................................................... 64

Figure 3.25 Percentage of Survey Responses for Wait Time Ratings: Age

Group 50–59 ................................................................................................... 65

Figure 3.26 Percentage of Survey Responses for Wait Time Ratings: Age

Group 60–69 ................................................................................................... 65

Figure 3.27 Percentage of Survey Responses for Wait Time Ratings: Age

Group 70–79 ................................................................................................... 65

Figure 3.28 Percentage of Survey Responses for Wait Time Ratings: Age

Group 80 or Older ........................................................................................... 66

Figure 3.29 Percentage of Survey Responses for Driver License Program

Performance Ratings: Age Group 17 or Younger ........................................... 66

Figure 3.30 Percentage of Survey Responses for Driver License Program

Performance Ratings: Age Group 18–20 ........................................................ 66

Figure 3.31 Percentage of Survey Responses for Driver License Program

Performance Ratings: Age Group 21–29 ........................................................ 67

Figure 3.32 Percentage of Survey Responses for Driver License Program

Performance Ratings: Age Group 30–39 ........................................................ 67

Figure 3.33 Percentage of Survey Responses for Driver License Program

Performance Ratings: Age Group 40–49 ........................................................ 67

Figure 3.34 Percentage of Survey Responses for Driver License Program

Performance Ratings: Age Group 50–59 ........................................................ 68

Figure 3.35 Percentage of Survey Responses for Driver License Program

Performance Ratings: Age Group 60–69 ........................................................ 68

Figure 3.36 Percentage of Survey Responses for Driver License Program

Performance Ratings: Age Group 70–79 ........................................................ 68

Figure 3.37 Percentage of Survey Responses for Driver License Program

Performance Ratings: Age Group 80 or Older ............................................... 69

Figure 3.38 Driver License Program Performance Rating for Urban

Customers Who Either Did or Did Not Have to Stand Outside the

DLO or Mega Center while Waiting .............................................................. 73

Figure 3.39 Driver License Program Performance Rating for Rural

Customers Who Either Did or Did Not Have to Stand Outside the

DLO or Mega Center while Waiting .............................................................. 73

Figure 3.40 Driver License Program Customer Performance Ratings

Depending on Whether the Customer Did or Did Not Have to Stand

Outside while Waiting –All Groups ............................................................... 74

Figure 3.41 Driver License Program Customer Performance Ratings

Depending on Race and Ethnicity – American Indian or Alaskan

Native Customers ............................................................................................ 75

Figure 3.42 Driver License Program Customer Performance Ratings

Depending on Race and Ethnicity – Asian Customers ................................... 75

vii

Figure 3.43 Driver License Program Customer Performance Ratings

Depending on Race and Ethnicity – Black or African American

Customers ....................................................................................................... 75

Figure 3.44 Driver License Program Customer Performance Ratings

Depending on Race and Ethnicity – Hispanic or Latino Customers .............. 76

Figure 3.45 Driver License Program Customer Performance Ratings

Depending on Race and Ethnicity – Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific

Islander Customers.......................................................................................... 76

Figure 3.46 Driver License Program Customer Performance Ratings

Depending on Race and Ethnicity – Chose ‘Two or More’ Race and

Ethnicity Categories ........................................................................................ 76

Figure 3.47 Driver License Program Customer Performance Ratings

Depending on Race and Ethnicity – White Customers ................................... 77

Figure 3.48 Wait Time Ratings for Customers with an Annual Household

Income of Less Than $15,000 ......................................................................... 79

Figure 3.49 Wait Time Ratings for Customers with an Annual Household

Income from $15,000 to $25,000 .................................................................... 79

Figure 3.50 Wait Time Ratings for Customers with an Annual Household

Income from $26,000 to $35,000 .................................................................... 80

Figure 3.51 Wait Time Ratings for customers with an Annual Household

Income from $36,000 to $45,000 .................................................................... 80

Figure 3.52 Wait Time Ratings for Customers with an Annual Household

Income from $46,000 to $55,000 .................................................................... 80

Figure 3.53 Wait Time Ratings for Customers with an Annual Household

Income from $56,000 to $65,000 .................................................................... 81

Figure 3.54 Wait Time Ratings for Customers with an Annual Household

income from $66,000 to $75,000 .................................................................... 81

Figure 3.55 Wait Time Ratings for Customers with an Annual Household

Income from $76,000 to $85,000 .................................................................... 81

Figure 3.56 Wait Time Ratings for Customers with an Annual Household

Income from $86,000 to $100,000 .................................................................. 82

Figure 3.57 Wait Time Ratings for Customers with an Annual Household

Income More Than $100,000 .......................................................................... 82

Figure 3.58 Texas Level of Education for Persons Aged 25 or Older in

2015 (TDC 2018b) .......................................................................................... 83

Figure 3.59 Level of Education for Driver License Program Survey

Respondents of All Age Groups ..................................................................... 83

Figure 3.60 Customers with up to High School Level, No Diploma – Wait

Time Rating .................................................................................................... 84

viii

Figure 3.61 Customers with a High School Diploma or Equivalent – Wait

Time Rating .................................................................................................... 84

Figure 3.62 Customers with Technical, Vocational or Trade School

Training – Wait Time Rating .......................................................................... 85

Figure 3.63 Customers with Some College but No Diploma – Wait Time

Rating .............................................................................................................. 85

Figure 3.64 Customers with a 2-Year College Degree – Wait Time Rating ........ 85

Figure 3.65 Customers with a 4-Year College Degree – Wait Time Rating ........ 86

Figure 3.66 Customers with a Graduate or Professional Degree – Wait

Time Rating .................................................................................................... 86

Figure 3.67 Driver License Program Performance Rating for Individuals

with an Education up to High School Level, No Diploma ............................. 87

Figure 3.68 Driver License Program Performance Rating for Individuals

with an Education High School Education or Equivalent .............................. 87

Figure 3.69 Driver License Program Performance Rating for Individuals

with Technical, Vocational or Trade School Training.................................... 87

Figure 3.70 Driver License Program Performance Rating for Individuals

with Some College but No Diploma ............................................................... 88

Figure 3.71 Driver License Program Performance Rating for Individuals

with 2-Year College (Associate) Degree ........................................................ 88

Figure 3.72 Driver License Program Performance Rating for Individuals

with a 4-Year College Degree ......................................................................... 88

Figure 3.73 Driver License Program Performance Rating for Individuals

with a Graduate or Professional* Degree ....................................................... 89

Figure 3.74 Histogram Showing Number of Survey Responses for Wait

Times on a 15-minute Interval ........................................................................ 90

Figure 3.75 Wait Time Ratings for All Survey Respondents Who Reported

a Wait Time between 1 Hour and 1 Hour 14 Minutes .................................... 91

Figure 3.76 Cumulative Distribution of Wait Times – Percentage of

Survey Takers Who Experienced a Wait Time Equal to or Less Than

the Intersecting Percentage Shown on the ‘Y’ Axis ....................................... 92

Figure 3.77 Number of Survey Responses for Driver License Program

Performance Ratings ....................................................................................... 92

Figure 3.78 Comparison of the Texas Driver License Program to Programs

in Other States based on Experience (21,011 responses) ............................... 99

Figure 3.79 Comparison of Wait Time Ratings for the Three Time Periods

for This Study including Prior to and After the New Hiring and Salary

Increases Authorized in September 2019 ..................................................... 106

Figure 3.80 Driver License Program Performance Ratings for Customers

Who Did or Did Not Have to Stand Outside – January to December

2018............................................................................................................... 108

Figure 3.81 Driver License Program Performance Ratings for Customers

Who Did or Did Not Have to Stand Outside – January to September

2019............................................................................................................... 108

Figure 3.82 Driver License Program Performance Ratings for Customers

Who Did or Did Not Have to Stand Outside – October 2019 to

February 2020 ............................................................................................... 109

Figure B.1 Screenshot of Satisfaction Group Exercise Sheet 1 .......................... 124

Figure B.2 Screenshot of Satisfaction Group Exercise Sheet 2 .......................... 125

Executive Summary

This technical memorandum contains four major chapters:

• Chapter 1 presents the customer focus group meeting, breakout sessions,

and interviews conducted by the study team

• Chapter 2 provides various database and dataset analyses, including

NEMO-Q database, DLD High-Value Dataset, and DMV/county VTR

transactions

• Chapter 3 discusses the findings from the surveys with customers and

county tax assessor-collectors as well as the ongoing DLD customer service

enhancements

• Chapter 4 summarizes the key findings of this technical memorandum and

provides conclusions

This technical memorandum documents the fact-finding process to gather

information to inform the analysis and assess the three options. The study team has

made tremendous efforts in organizing customer focus group meetings, holding

breakout sessions, conducting interviews, analyzing various databases and surveys.

Following are some notable findings presented in this technical memorandum:

• Certain areas within DLD need to be improved, such as the website, wait

times, call center, etc.

• NEMO-Q data analyses show that after the additional new FTE hire and

salary increase in September 2019, both wait time and transaction time

decreased by over 14 minutes on average.

• Results from customer survey indicate that the additional new FTE hire and

salary increase had a definite, positive effect on both customer service

performance rating and wait time rating

• There have been various ongoing efforts made by DLD to improve customer

service

• Regardless of where DLD ultimately resides, certain mission-critical

practices and enhancement should be implemented to meet the needs of the

growing Texas population

More detailed findings regarding the customer focus group, breakout session,

interviews, databases, and survey analyses can be found in this technical

memorandum.

Chapter 1. Customer Focus Group Meetings,

Breakout Sessions, and Interviews

In order to obtain additional information and opinions regarding the three options

of DLD (stay at DPS, transfer to DMV, establish a stand-alone agency), the study

team conducted a series of focus group meetings, WebEx breakout sessions, and

interviews with various levels of individuals (e.g., representatives of director,

executive, commissioner, managerial, and frontline staff levels) from DPS, DMV,

County Offices, and other agencies as well as the general public. A large amount

of insightful information was obtained. The details and findings of these focus

group meetings, WebEx breakout sessions, and interviews are summarized and

presented in this Chapter.

1.1. Customer Focus Group Meetings

1.1.1. Objective of the Customer Focus Group Meetings

The objective of the customer focus group meetings is to gather the opinions and

experience from customers who recently visited a Driver License Office (DLO) in

person regarding the following three questions:

Question 1 (Q1): Should the Driver License Division (DLD) remain in the

Department of Public Safety (DPS), move into the Department of Motor

Vehicles (DMV), or become its own entity?

Question 2 (Q2): What does the DLD need to do to reduce wait times for

DLD services?

Question 3 (Q3): How can the DLD improve customer service?

1.1.2. Design of the Customer Focus Group Meetings

The study team recruited focus group participants during the first two weeks of

February by posting flyers (Figure 1.1); e-mailing flyers; and posting messages to

local groups, community centers, and local businesses. The team also posted

advertisements on Facebook (Figure 1.2), targeting Austin area zip codes, and

English speakers over 18 years old. The team incentivized participants by offering

$40 for participation in a focus group; these funds were paid by a faculty member

using his personal chair endowment funds. Potential participants took a short

screening survey on UT Austin Qualtrics using a QR code or the survey link. The

study team scheduled respondents who had visited a DPS office in person to use

DLD services within the last 9 months. The team used a free online scheduling app,

an IC2 Gmail account, and Google voice number to schedule respondents and

remind them of their focus groups. On Wednesday, February 12, 2020, the team

held three focus groups, for 1.5 hours each, with a total of 13 participants at

ThinkGroup Austin, a professional focus group facility.

• The first focus group: February 12, 2020, from 3:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m., six

participants

• The second focus group: February 12, 2020, from 5:30 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.,

three participants

• The third focus group: February 12, 2020, from 7:30 p.m. – 9:00 p.m., four

participants

Figure 1.1 Flyer for the Customer Focus Group Recruitment

Figure 1.2 Facebook Post for the Customer Focus Group Recruitment

The detailed demographics of the participants is presented in Appendix A.

Appendix B includes the satisfaction and importance exercise sheets. Appendix C

includes the focus group guide.

1.1.3. Procedure of the Customer Focus Group Meetings

When participants entered the focus group room, observers were behind a one-way

mirror to view and take notes on the discussion. Participants filled out the

satisfaction exercise sheet. On a continuum of “not satisfied” to “satisfied,”

participants marked their level of satisfaction with each of the DLD customer

service items the team had listed on the sheet. The study team cards printed with

each service item listed on the exercise sheet; the cards were taped vertically on the

wall, as shown in Figure 1.3. The team told respondents their responses to the

exercise sheet would guide a group discussion about how satisfied they were about

each of the items listed. Based on participants’ recommendations, the team would

move the cards denoting those items from “most satisfied” (on the left side of the

horizontal axis) to “least satisfied” (on the right side of the horizontal axis).

Respondents discussed each aspect of service and the facilitator moved these items

based on the discussion. Certain items could be polarizing (described in Section

1.1.6), so the representative cards were set off to the side, and the team made a note

of them for the second exercise.

Figure 1.3 Example of Starting Point for Satisfaction with DLD Services Group

Wall Exercise

After discussing and moving service items along the wall’s horizontal satisfaction

scale, the study team used the discussion guide to ask in-depth questions about each

of the services. Participants came up with items that the team had not considered

and helped break down items supplied for the exercise. Added or developed items

included:

• Law enforcement officer at check-in

• Waiting outside versus waiting inside

• Accessibility for the disabled and elderly

• Customer service at check in versus customer service at transaction

After completing the exercise, the study team took a five-minute break where the

facilitator met with observers behind the one-way mirror. Meanwhile, participants

filled out the importance exercise sheet. The facilitator then led the discussion with

focus group participants to move the items vertically along a vertical axis of “most

important” (at the top) to “least important” (at the bottom). While the satisfaction

exercise referred to how satisfied participants were based on their most recent visit

to use DLD services, the importance exercise referred to how important these

aspects of service would be to the participants’ future decision-making about which

DPS office to go to for DLD services. The resulting top right quadrant in Figure 1.4

shows the aspects of customer service that were most important and the least

satisfactory to participants.

Figure 1.4 Synthesized Ending Point after Satisfaction and Importance of DLD

Services Group Wall Exercise

1.1.4. Summary and Findings of the Customer Focus Group

Meetings

Summary: Based on our analysis of Austin focus group transcripts, the study team

found that Q3: “How can the DLD improve customer service?” is a more important

question than Q1 or Q2 to customers using DLD services. The consensus and

disagreements of Q3 are presented in Section 1.1.5 and 1.1.6, respectively. The

analysis showed that customers care more about the way they are treated, the

management of their expectations, and their ability to plan around a DLD visit, than

how long the actual wait time is, e.g., waiting either 30 minutes or up to 1 to 2 hours

could be similar in satisfaction for most respondents, if other aspects of the

interaction are reliable and satisfactory.

Q1: Should the Driver License Division (DLD) remain in the Department of Public

Safety (DPS), move into the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), or become its

own entity?

Finding: Respondents preferred improving existing services that they

identified as important for their customer experience over using the same

resources to move DLD from DPS to the DMV.

The following feedback was generated during the discussions from Group

1 and Group 2, presented as examples of the customers’ opinions on Q1.

Group 1

Facilitator: Should DLD stay in DPS? Or should DLD become its own

department?

“Just a part of DPS. It's what everybody knows…if you're going to start

changing stuff, there's no reason to take it out because then you're going to

confuse people even more because right now everybody knows you go to

DPS for your license.”

“The money they would use to tell people could be used more in DPS…don't

fix what's not broken.”

Group 2

“Well the DMV in California is a disaster. So if it were to go under that

umbrella, I'm not sure the circumstances would change…we've been

bruised by the present experience and not being listened to and not having

effective advocacy on the phone or website that's clear and communicative.

So the process at present is inadequate and needs to be fixed, whoever is

doing it, if they can only listen.”

“Just make it a system that works.”

Respondents regularly mixed up referring to the DLD as the DMV. A few

respondents from out of Texas said if they moved the DLD to the DMV,

then it would be less confusing for them. A few respondents from Texas

said that the DLD had always been in DPS, so not moving the DLD would

be easiest for them. A few respondents worried that moving the DLD to

DMV would cause more confusion for customers and the money and efforts

put toward making that transition could be better used to improve what

currently exists.

All respondents agreed that they did not care whether DLD stays in DPS, is

transferred to DMV, or is established as a stand-alone agency, as long as

other aspects of their experience were improved, which for higher

administration consideration could include department location, e.g.,

sufficient parking, size of the building for waiting area, and/or bus stop

location.

Q2: What does the DLD need to do to reduce wait times for DLD services?

Finding: Most of the customers, even those with appointments, had to wait

one to three hours to receive services. These customers said the waiting time

was too long. However, the overall experience was improved or worsened

by other aspects of the customer service experience. More important than

the actual wait time was the frustration around not knowing how long they

would have to wait and whether they would ultimately be served.

The following feedback was generated during the discussions, presented as

examples of the customers’ opinions on Q2.

Facilitator: What did you think about the tracking system?

“That was my biggest trouble… I had a different letter of the alphabet. I

started, I was moving up, then all of a sudden, I came to a grinding halt and

all these others that had started after me started moving up, and there was

no rhyme or reason as to why. I was running out of time…it's a system you

don't understand. Nobody gives you any information. It seems inconsistent.

There's the illusion that …there's all these people serving you and yet it

takes three hours at least… from what they were telling me because I asked,

"Why are these other people moving through?" And they said, "Well they

have more complicated things and we need to get them done by the end of

the day." So they were pushing them up when I was sitting there with all my

paperwork in hand…there should have been like an expedited line for those

who were ready.”

Facilitator: Is there anything you would have done differently to prepare for

that visit? Would you do something differently if you had to go back to the

driver license division?

“Better prepare my son for how long the wait was going to be… [My autistic

son] He's pretty high functioning. If I had warned him, "We're going to be

here about three hours or two hours," he would've mentally been okay with

that. But we walked in there, "We're probably going to be a long time, but I

don't know how long. I have no idea."

“The ticket system tracking system, very poor because I had no idea how

long my wait was going to be…It showed, okay we're serving these four

people, but they would pop up randomly, which number, so there was no

way to say, "Okay there are three people ahead of me. There are two people

ahead of me. There are 20 people ahead of me. I might not have time— I

might want to do this a different day." I don't think that's fair to people. We

need to not waste their time…I had an appointment, but it's like you can't

get to the appointment because you have to wait for a spot in the parking

lot.”

A few customers had to make multiple trips because their situations required

multiple services. However, a few customers also had to make multiple trips

because they did not have the right paperwork. Some customers were

expedited at the end of the day, so that they would not have to come back.

A couple of customers had waiting times shorter than an hour or did not

find their wait unbearably long because they had experienced worse wait

times outside of Texas.

The remainder of the analysis is organized into two sections. Section 1.1.5 describes

service items that focus group participants agreed upon, in terms of the service

items’ importance or level of satisfaction with the service item. Section 1.1.6

describes service items that focus group participants disagreed about, in terms of

the items’ importance or level of satisfaction with the service item.

1.1.5. Consensus of the Customer Focus Group Meetings

On certain elements of the DLD experience and how the DLD can improve

customer service, the respondents shared common experiences and reached

agreement as the level of importance or satisfaction.

1.1.5.1. Website

Respondents felt that the website could be greatly improved. They believed that

resources spent on improving the website would pay off more than if those same

resources were spent on other aspects of the customer-facing experience, like the

call-in phone system.

Respondents also said that they had previous experience with good websites, so

they knew that the organization of information and functionality of the website

could be greatly improved. In particular, customers wanted the website to be clear

about which documents were needed for which services, e.g., new policies like the

REAL ID act, new licenses for persons with violations, replacement driver licenses,

and for people moving to Texas from out of state. In particular, one group thought

that the website should provide a page for people moving into Texas from out of

state who needed to get services from both DMV and DLD, outlining which

department covers which services. Information about people who could renew their

driver license online and who could not, as well as the paperwork needed for in-

person renewal, would also have helped. Respondents suggested that having a

representative that they could chat with online while searching the website would

be helpful. For example, one participant wanted to find out what the DLD was

doing to regulate license renewal for older drivers with severe health problems, like

dementia, who should not be allowed to drive.

1.1.5.2. Call Center Phone System

Respondents said that from previous experiences with call-in phone systems for

government agencies, they were expecting long wait times and automated response

machines. Many of them did not even try to call in, or only tried as a second step

to confirm information that they found on the website but did not understand.

1.1.5.3. Best Practices: making online appointment, arriving early,

clearing schedule, using mega center

Respondents who signed up for an appointment through the website in advance of

their visit, and also arrived early for their appointments, still waited for several

hours. Although they were unhappy that they still had to wait several hours and did

not know when their appointment would actually take place, they were happy that

it meant that they would be served that day without having to return. These

respondents made adjustments to take off several hours from work and arrived

early, expecting a long wait. Another best practice included going to a mega center

for sufficient parking, waiting room space, and a satisfactory wait time.

1.1.5.4. Managing Expectations for Wait Time

Respondents wanted the ability to sign up for appointments earlier than the day of

the appointment itself. As an example of an agency that allows that feature, a

respondent mentioned the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), where an

appointment to review documents for pre-check is available online through

different offices with schedule availability provided for each office. Respondents

also wanted to know how long a wait to expect. An example of a service that

provides wait times is the Yelp website, where users check wait times at restaurants

and add themselves to a seating wait list. The restaurant’s wait list updates as

customers are served. By knowing how long their wait would be, respondents could

prepare dependents (particularly elderly relatives or children with disabilities) or

plan a longer drive to a more efficient office, allowing children to sleep in the car,

and minimizing wait time in the office itself.

Respondents were most upset with the queuing system that was displayed on

monitors in the waiting area. The monitors display both letters and numbers, but

not in a discernible order of who was to be served, so that people did not know how

to manage their expectations about when or if ever they would be served. People

who had come in after them would be served before them. Similarly, there was no

way to estimate how long their wait would be. Respondents wanted a system that

would help manage their expectations—and thus their frustration with waiting.

They want a system that indicated, both on the monitors and in the organization of

the waiting room, the current wait time for people who had quick transactions (such

as renewals with all paperwork ready), and the current wait time for those who had

more complex transactions (such as obtaining a new license).

1.1.5.5. Law Enforcement Officers

For the most part, respondents liked that DPS had officers on hand. For the

respondents who spoke to experiences with officers, at the worst officers were

uninvolved, and at best, they were helpful. One respondent was having trouble with

the employee providing him services and the officer stepped in to correct the

employee, which helped to calm the man down. Another participant said that at one

office, the officers were around but unhelpful, and at another office the law

enforcement officer was monitoring and regulating the waiting line outside, which

was very helpful. Respondents said that having a law enforcement officer around,

whether at DPS, DMV, or stand-alone agency, would make customers feel safer,

especially when people became upset because of the bad customer experience they

were having. If customer experience was improved, there may be less need for law

enforcement officers.

1.1.5.6. Facility

Respondents were satisfied with the ease of check in using kiosks at the DPS

offices. They were also satisfied with the signage for where to go, where to sit, and

the quality of the building, water fountains, and bathrooms. Respondents said few

people actually used the water fountains or bathrooms because they didn’t want to

give up their space in the waiting room and did not want to miss their number being

called—a result of the unclear queuing system. They were also satisfied with

mediocre facilities, as long as they were clean, and provided that other more

important aspects of customer service could be improved.

1.1.5.7. Public Relations Campaign

Respondents who had used DLD services multiple times over their lives were

frustrated that they didn’t recognize any improvements to the process since the last

time they had visited for services, more than a decade earlier. More importantly,

respondents had the perception that DLD was supposed to have made changes to

improve the customer experience in the past, but as far as their own experience,

they did not see the results of these changes. Respondents in one of the focus groups

said that they would appreciate future improvements from this project to be widely

and clearly communicated through a public campaign, so that customers could

approach their next DLD visit with optimism and would also be able to use

improvements that would facilitate a better experience. Several respondents

described having to recover from the stress of their experience for the rest of the

day.

An effective public campaign would also require regulating informal and formal

sources that review DPS offices (such as social media sites) so that people trying

to determine which office to go to for DLD services would not be making decisions

based on past or incorrect information.

1.1.6. Disagreements of the Customer Focus Group

Meetings

For these elements of the DLD experience, the levels of satisfaction among

respondents varied: parking availability, outside waits, check-ins, and customer

service.

1.1.6.1. Parking

Some respondents said there was sufficient parking, or a short wait for parking as

cars turned over spots. Other respondents reported insufficient parking, requiring

people to park in other nearby parking lots, and one respondent from Houston said

he drove around for an hour looking for parking. He suggested use of a parking

attendant and a similar queuing system for parking, as there is for waiting for

services inside the office—for example, a parking attendant to direct traffic, parking

lots that show the number of available spaces on a monitor, and update waiting time

online, so that customers can plan for their DLD appointment before arriving.

1.1.6.2. Waiting Outside

Some respondents found no waiting lines outside the DPS office, while others

reported extremely long lines outside the office. Respondents were worried for the

elderly, disabled, and young children having to wait for long periods of time outside

the office without seating, cover, or water, especially in the summer. Respondents

were puzzled that once you got into the office, elderly in wheelchairs received help

getting in the door, but that this same care was not provided outside the office.

Some respondents said people were bringing service pets and children and these

individuals took up waiting room space. To ensure sufficient waiting room seating,

they felt that an online reservation should include how many persons would be

accompanying a customer (such as companions, children, or other dependents).

Most of the respondents agreed that there was insufficient space between seats to

allow people to feel comfortable in the waiting room. Respondents felt that being

corralled by rope outside the office, inside the waiting room, and crammed into

seats made them feel like cattle instead of humans.

1.1.6.3. Check-in Process

Some respondents walked into the DPS office and went straight to a kiosk that

helped them to check in easily. Other respondents did not use a kiosk and had

varying experiences, with either a DLD staff member to check them in by reviewing

their paperwork, or an officer let them into the office. The description of the overall

flow of respondents through their DLD visit made it clear that there was no policy

in place for how people should be flowing through the DLD visit. A few

respondents did not have the paperwork they needed and waited until they were

supposed to receive services before they found out. In the waiting room, some

respondents said they were not allowed to use their phones or eat or drink, while

others said they or other people were doing these things. This type of information

or policy should be communicated through the website and should be standardized,

if necessary. One group also said that there should be information on the website

and in the office when people checked in for people who do not speak English or

Spanish as their first language.

1.1.6.4. Customer Service

Customer service experiences also differed. Some respondents said once they

received services, the employee was super helpful, and the actual transaction was

quick and easy. Other respondents said the employee was curt, rude, and tried to

rush them through the service desk either without answering their questions or

answering their question incorrectly. One of these respondents said it may have

been because she had arrived later in the day and there was an escalation of

frustration in the last two hours before the office closed, when employees seemed

overwhelmed, and customers were worried that they would not be seen by the end

of the working day after having waited several hours for services. A few

respondents said that their employee could not find their identity in the data system

and did not know how to deal with the situation, saying things like, “you do not

exist,” even though the respondent had all their paperwork identifying them at the

desk. Employees needed better training for new policies and a set process for

escalation when they did not know what to do or could not find a person in the

system. Respondents thought there should be a process in place to deal with rush

hour or overflow demand, especially at the end of the day. One respondent

expressed frustration at seeing empty service centers (processing stations), and

employees leaving for lunch without replacements, while so many people were

waiting for services.

1.2. Breakout Sessions with DPS, DMV, and County

Offices through WebEx

The study team conducted a series of breakout sessions on various topics related to

DLD, including management, operations, and performance measures; REAL ID

compliance and security; customer service; general information technology (IT)

issues; and call centers. Depending on the topic, representatives from DPS, DMV

and/or county offices were invited and participated in the discussion on the three

options for DLD operations. In addition, the study team held breakout sessions with

DPS commissioners, DMV board members, and DPS executives and deputy

directors. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, these breakout sessions were conducted

online through Cisco WebEx, where participants can either log in through a

computer or call in using phones.

1.2.1. Breakout Session on DLD Management, Operations,

and Performance Measures

The breakout session on DLD management, operations, and performance measures

was held through WebEx on Thursday, May 7, 2020, from 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

The 14 participants included 4 representatives from DPS, 5 representatives from

DMV, and 5 study team members. The study team prepared a list of seven questions

associated with DLD management, operations, and performance measures. These

questions were discussed during the breakout session.

1.2.1.1. Objectives

The objectives of this breakout session were to:

• Understand current management, operations, and performance measures of

both DLD and DMV

• Obtain factors that could impact those three elements

• Understand current constraints on those three elements

• Gather information to facilitate discussions and gain new insights that help

explain the benefit(s) or drawback(s) of the three DLD location options,

framed in terms of management, operations, and performance measures

1.2.1.2. Summary of Key Findings

The first goal of DLD is to provide driver license program customers with

completed transactions or the information they requested on the first visit; this goal

is more important than wait time. The second goal is to ensure safety and security

while increasing online transactions. Some customers come to the office not for

transactions but just to ask questions. It is important to record the number of

successful contacts with the customers because those customers come in and

receive a service. Therefore, the number of successful transactions and contacts

with the customers could be a performance measure. However, federal REAL ID

Compliance requirements often mean a customer must present documentation in

person. This is a state and national security issue. Although the DLD website has a

checklist of required documentation as well as an online tool to personalize the

documents needed, a number of customers do not check online before coming to

the office. If possible, customers should be provided multiple choices or options to

complete the transactions. Online transaction method should be incentivized.

Regarding the three study options, participants suggested that DPS has extensive

experience (e.g., equipment, infrastructure, information technology, etc.) in

operating the Driver License Program and the DPS mission as a law enforcement

agency did not necessarily mean it would provide poor customer service. If DLD

is moved to DMV, management would need to consider cross-training employees

to perform both license/ID and the vehicle title and registration (VTR) functions

for efficiency. However, experience indicates it is difficult and time-consuming to

move an organization or establish a stand-alone agency—having sufficient

resources, particularly budget, is the key. As a stand-alone agency, DMV has

improved customer service by streamlining processes. Although DPS has many

programs to manage, DLD does have a single focus and a team aspect. With a stand-

alone agency, customers would know exactly where to get driver licenses and ID

cards.

The list of participants and questions discussed are provided in Appendix D.

1.2.2. Breakout Session on REAL ID Compliance and

Security

The breakout session on REAL ID compliance and security was held through

WebEx on Friday, May 8, 2020, from 8:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. The 10 participants

in this breakout session included 5 representatives from DPS and 5 study team

members. The study team prepared a list of 15 questions associated with REAL ID

and security for discussion.

1.2.2.1. Objectives

The objectives of this breakout session were to:

• Understand the components of REAL ID compliance that are currently

under DPS’s charge.

• Understand how REAL ID compliance requirements are communicated

internally and to the public.

• Understand the systems and processes needed to verify the validity of

source identification documents.

• Gather information on current efforts and other ideas for streamlining

REAL ID compliance at the end-user level.

• Gather information on best practices to ensure the safety of workers while

dealing with potentially dangerous customers.

1.2.2.2. Summary of Key Findings

As a division of DPS, DLD places high priority on REAL ID compliance and

security. DPS and DLD’s organizational priorities support implementing state and

federal regulations such as the REAL ID Compliance Act. However, DLD is only

one division of DPS and may be lower on the list of departmental priorities.

Funding for identification document verification technology would benefit

communication with the public about what is needed to obtain or renew a driver

license. Funding for better technology to increase customer experience and quality

of service has not been considered a top priority in the past. For example, a check-

in system that verifies eligibility requirements does not prevent people from

bringing in the wrong documents, such as a birth certificate from a hospital instead

of an official birth certificate.

Visiting a DPS office more than once to complete a transaction not only creates a

frustrating experience for the customer, but also indirectly affects the experience of

other customers. Repetitive visits to complete a single transaction increases the wait

area and employee processing time demands, which can increase wait times.

Technology that improves clear communication with the public about requirements

must be prioritized by the DLD moving forward.

In terms of security concerns, both physical security threats and cyber threats can

be minimized with increased funding. Moving DLD to a different state agency or

even creating a new state agency to house DLD could be costly because new

infrastructure, IT, legal resources, and human resources must be acquired, which

are already available through DPS.

While DMV has some of these resources in place, changing over from an intra-

agency information sharing to inter-agency information sharing environment would

require additional expenditures. There is no clear advantage in terms of improving

employee physical security gained by moving DLD to a different state agency.

The list of participants and questions discussed are provided in Appendix E.

1.2.3. Breakout Session on Customer Service

The study team conducted three breakout sessions on customer services with

representatives from DLD and DMV. Participants included both managerial staff

and frontline customer-facing employees.

• Session 1: Wednesday, May 13, 2020. 2:00 p.m.–3:30 p.m. The 20

participants included 7 representatives from DLD, 6 representatives from

DMV, 5 study team members, and 2 unidentified callers.

• Session 2: Thursday, May 14, 2020. 3:30 p.m.–5:00 p.m. The 17

participants included 7 representatives from DLD, 3 representatives from

DMV, 6 study team members, and 1 unidentified caller.

• Session 3: Thursday, May 21, 2020. 1:00 p.m.–2:30 p.m. The 12

participants included 5 representatives from DLD, 3 representatives from

DMV, and 4 study team members.

For each session, the study team prepared a list of questions associated with

customer service for discussion.

1.2.3.1. Objectives

The objectives of this breakout session were to:

• Understand how DMV and DLD are operated to produce a good customer

service experience

• Understand current difficulties of DMV and DLD in improving customer

services

• Understand how DMV and DLD train their customer service

representatives

• Gather information on potential customer service improvements

• Obtain opinions on the three DLD location options from the perspective of

customer service

1.2.3.2. Summary of Key Findings

The study team found that by improving working relationships and connectedness,

the quality of customer service increases. Working relationship factors that improve

customer service included some level of autonomy, cooperation with colleagues,

and hiring people who are proactive and highly motivated for public service. The

following discussions summarize the main findings for each topic.

1.2.3.2.1. Response to long wait times and customer wait-time

expectations

Although DMV and DLD face similar issues with customer service, DMV is a

much smaller organization than DPS. In addition, DMV has partnered with county

tax assessor-collectors (CTACs) to process VTR transactions, which increases the

number of employees who process transactions significantly. DMV has 146

employees who support VTR transactions, whereas CTAC offices have

approximately 3,000 employees. Additional information about DMV/CTAC VTR

transaction processing is provided later in this technical memorandum.

Both DMV and DLD have recently implemented new appointment/check-in

systems to help reduce wait times and increase the customer’s reassurance

regarding the specific time at which they will be served. DMV implementation of

the new system is in response to a customer-service survey that all DMV employees

reviewed with their managers. As of this writing, DLOs have not yet been opened

to service driver license renewals using the new Applus™ appointment system,

though initial response from DLD customers who have used the new appointment

system is positive.

1.2.3.2.2. Response to website, phone system, and public relations

campaign

DLD lacks the formal agency structure that would exist were the overall

organization focused on customer service, rather than a combination of law

enforcement and safety as a priority and customer service.

For example, DMV has a high-performing call center and a division dedicated to

improving communication with the public. The DLD call center has not been

integrated into the division as a critical resource for customer service, which has

been identified by DLD and the Sunset Advisory Commission as an area that needs

improvement.

1.2.3.2.3. Language access

Both DMV and DLD have customer service issues with language access. Both

agencies have websites that are translated into Spanish. DMV provides cheat sheets

for the customer on how to fill out forms in Spanish and provides this to customers

by email or postal mail. DLD session participants suggested that other language

translations are needed on the DLD website to facilitate customer communications.

1.2.3.2.4. Law enforcement officers

DLD employees liked that they had law enforcement officers on hand to deal with

situations in which customers could become abusive with DLD employees or even

other customers. Some county offices have also indicated that their staff must deal

with abusive customers and have called law enforcement to handle the situation. In

addition, driver license transaction customers might be identified as having an open

arrest warrant during processing; DLD employees indicated that having an officer

in the DLO was very helpful in these circumstances.

DMV appreciated being located near DLD offices because law enforcement

officers were nearby if needed. Although DMV employees were less worried about

their safety than DLD employees, DMV also recently installed panic buttons in

response to DMV employee concerns.

1.2.3.2.5. Increasing worker engagement and customer service: team time

and awards

DMV has taken recent steps to make the organization’s communication and

feedback loops between all levels of employees more horizontal instead of vertical.

Instead of policy and procedure changes coming only from top management and

trickling down to customer-facing employees, formal mechanisms for customer-

facing employees to communicate emerging issues and suggestions to higher-level

management have been put in place and motivated by team-based reward

mechanisms.

The Customer Relations Division (CRD) in DMV that handles the phones were

enthusiastic about the team time that was structured into their division. This

additional motivation is extremely important for people who are always on the

phones, and have little opportunity to interact with colleagues. The answer rate for

DLD on phone calls is much lower and it was not easy to speak to anyone from the

call center. It was not clear whether the same motivation approach CRD employs

is implemented throughout DMV. Both DLD and DMV said that there were

holidays, food, and office parties.

DMV team building was motivated by awards given for top customer service

reviews. In a later quote, the study team found that state agencies cannot buy food

or drinks, so these employees are essentially paying for their own rewards. With

this kind of barrier, an innovative agency would think of other ways to reward and

motivate their employees to provide better customer service.

1.2.3.2.6. Customer feedback and review

Both DMV and DLD provide an award to acknowledge that an employee’s idea

had been implemented. DMV provides a formal feedback loop that processes

customer feedback and interactions with management and employees. DLD

continually conducts customer service surveys that are posted online at the DLD

website. DLD’s process is managed at the division level and communicated to

regional managers during scheduled meetings held at different regional locations.

These meetings are held quarterly or semi-annually depending on circumstances.

1.2.3.2.7. Career advancement at DLD

When opportunities for career advancement and additional employee training arise,

these are not communicated clearly throughout the organization and are not

implemented in a way that increases DLD employee engagement in their work.

DLD employees and lower level managers expressed that they did not know how

to advance in their careers.

For example, a management training academy had been planned to be offered to all

employees in DPS. However, lower-level management and customer-facing

employees were unclear about what had happened to that initiative. While

managers were supposed to have an “open door” policy for communication with

their employees, employees said that this policy was only effective as long as the

manager was effective. Individual managers would implement individual initiatives

to increase worker engagement, but these best practices were not implemented

across the board and there were limited formal opportunities for these practices to

be shared among employees and among managers.

1.2.3.2.8. Career advancement at DMV

DMV has also made changes to their hiring, career advancement, and management

training programs. They specifically recruit and advance employees with different

leadership styles and backgrounds compared to the type of management the DMV

had experienced under TxDOT. Similar to how DMV became its own agency

(created from divisions at TxDOT), DLD would be able to restructure itself and

orient its customer service training and work culture to focus on customer service

improvements as an ongoing goal of the organization.

1.2.3.2.9. Preferences for staying, moving, or creating new agency

DMV and DLD employees said that some customers were confused about where

to go to get certain services and the differences between DMV and DLD. CTACs

relayed this same comment from new Texas residents, who are surprised that a

county tax office processes VTR transactions, or that registration stickers can be

purchased at some grocery stores or other businesses.

There were concerns that, if DLD was moved out of DPS, they may not have as

many back-office support resources they currently have working within the agency.

1.2.3.2.10. Disadvantages of moving DLD

Based on the discussions during the breakout sessions, the following disadvantages

were identified:

• Form another governmental entity could confuse customers—though

opportunities do exist to clearly identify the correct office for driver license

and ID card services if DLD is part of DMV or is a stand-alone agency.

• DLD receives support from DPS law enforcement officers and structures.

DLD or DMV would need to work with DPS to ensure these connections

are retained if a move occurs.

• DLD has 229 DLO and mega center offices located throughout the state. In

terms of IT, DLD has a massive IT system and security system. Moving

DLD out of DPS will require extensive effort and funding for IT alone.

• DMV senior management indicated that an important efficiency

consideration would be to cross-train customer-facing employees to handle

both VTR and driver license transactions. However, it was pointed out that

this does not imply that DMV would take this action. Combining transaction

types could result in reduced customer service and longer wait times.

Parking lots would also be more crowded.

1.2.3.2.11. Advantages of moving DLD

Based on the discussions during the breakout sessions, the following advantages

are summarized:

• Stand-alone Agency: DLD would not have to compete for resources and

priorities with other departments. An independent agency would be more

nimble in terms of enacting enhancements and ultimately provide better

service to customers, if provided proper resources.

• Move to DMV: DMV is well-known for providing top-notch customer

service.

The list of participants and questions discussed are provided in Appendix F.

1.2.4. Breakout Session on General IT Issues

The study team conducted three breakout sessions on general IT issues with

representatives from DPS, DMV, and county offices. Participants included both

managerial staff and frontline customer-facing employees.

• Session 1: Tuesday, May 12, 2020. 11:30 a.m.–1:00 p.m. The 14

participants included 1 representative from DLD, 3 representatives from

DMV, 5 representatives from county offices, and 5 study team members.

• Session 2: Thursday, May 14, 2020. 10:30 p.m.–12:00 p.m. The nine

participants included one representative from DLD, two representatives

from county offices, and six study team members.

• Session 3: Friday, May 15, 2020. 9:00 a.m.–10:30 a.m. The 19 participants

included 11 representatives from DLD, 7 study team members, and 1

unidentified caller.

For each session, the study team prepared a list of questions associated with IT

issues for discussion.

1.2.4.1. Objectives

The objectives of this breakout session were to:

• Understand current IT status in DMV, DLD, and county offices

• Understand how IT support is provided to the field offices in case of a

problem for DMV, DLD, and county offices

• Gather information on the challenges that are faced by the IT systems

• Outline the ongoing efforts that are made to improve IT services

• Obtain opinions on the three DLD location options from the perspective of

IT services

1.2.4.2. Summary of Key Findings

The breakout sessions yielded the following highlights:

• DLD is undergoing multiple upgrades and transitions to its IT, including

replacing NEMO-Q queuing systems at 73 DLO and mega region centers

with Applus™ Appointment System kiosks (532 Applus kiosks in 226 DLO

and mega centers); installing 1,600 new PC workstations with Windows 10

upgrades; and adopting a new biometric system for taking photos,

thumbprints, and signatures.

• Separating DLD applications and data from DPS servers will be time-

consuming. Successful integration will require adequate infrastructure, data

centers, and attention to cybersecurity.

• IT migration should be planned in a phased manner.

• Because DMV is part of the state’s data center and DPS is not, a

determination will need to be made if legislation is required to allow DLD’s

data to be stored on the state’s data center servers.

• Some customers will prefer visiting a DLD DLO in person, no matter how

well the DLD website is designed.

• DMV provides computers and a network to perform VTR functions at

county tax offices. County offices conduct most of the VTR transactions for

in-office and mail-in customer transactions.

1.2.4.2.1. IT Service Centers

Regional DMV office staff or contracted IT personnel support DMV employees at

regional service centers and county tax office staff at over 500 offices statewide on

DMV workstations. Networks for DMV and for the counties are separated,

although they are monitored in the same building. For statewide issues that affect

multiple county offices, county offices might email DMV’s Austin office to solve

problems at scale.

Otherwise, both DMV employees and county office employees submit tickets to

DMV call centers for customer service issues. Tickets are serviced by DMV staff

and, in some remote locations, contracted personnel. It can take up to 3 days for

county offices to get hardware-related issues addressed, while some minor

problems may be completed within the hour. In the event of an IT issue, many

county offices hold onto the customer’s paperwork and call them back once the IT

issue is resolved. At county offices, DMV IT supports only VTR services. County

employees have their own IT for non-VTR functions.

It is not always clear who is responsible for providing IT support to a given county

office. Many rural counties do not have dedicated staff, and there are often

significant delays responding to service requests. For county offices, IT can either

resolve tickets remotely or visit the county office.

Most network connections to county tax offices are outdated and need to be updated

to Ethernet systems. County offices need prior approval from DMV to begin using

functions like credit card readers.

DLD employees call their support desk to report hardware or network issues to be

solved remotely. All field support employees are DPS employees, but DLD has

equipment—that is owned by vendors—that collect thumbprints, photo, signature,

and credit card data. Those vendors are contacted for issues with their equipment.

Otherwise, the DPS IT network team solves network problems, and the support

desk solves hardware problems.

1.2.4.2.2. DLD Functions and Improvements

DPS is not part of the state’s data center, so DLD does not have the same data

security as DMV. It might be necessary to pass legislation to allow DLD onto the

state’s data center, if DLD moves from DPS. DLD does not have the staff to pre-

screen documents from customers who upload them online. Additionally,

customers are often required to bring original copies of documents for in-person

transactions, limiting options for online upload.

While the DPS website is being upgraded, this website does not have a direct link

to the driver license application. The DPS website will have a direct link to the

Applus™ appointment system. To complete license renewals online, customers are

directed to the Texas.gov website automatically.

1.2.4.2.3. Appointment and Queuing Systems

Many DMV customers wait until the last minute to complete DMV transactions.

They are not accustomed to an appointment-based system, like the one developed

by Applus Technologies that DLD is moving to. Many customers will continue to

show up to offices for same-day appointments, without sufficient planning.

Customers might use an online real-time wait time service once they’re in the

office, but there must continue to be some walk-in capacity, even if offices move

to appointment-based systems.

DLD will use a phased approach for implementing the new appointment system. A

percentage of appointments will be retained in case walk-in customers do not have

an appointment. They will be offered one of the available reserved appointments

for that day or an appointment will be made for them on a future date.

1.2.4.2.4. Transfer to DMV or Stand-alone Agency

If DLD moves from DPS, there will need to be a detailed transition plan to migrate

the driver license servers to the state server. A successful IT transfer to DMV could

take two years or more. Among the many outstanding questions to resolve on server

requirements are how much data must be migrated and how many users are in the

DLD systems. Some DLD applications are hosted on the DPS server, which

interacts with other agencies. If DLD moves from DPS, the DLD IT architecture

will need to be rebuilt at the new destination. This should be a carefully planned,

phased process.

All DLD data is hosted in an in-house data center. If DLD moves from DPS, DLD’s

data will need to be moved to the state’s data center. If DLD becomes a stand-alone

agency, DLD will also need to take some portion of DPS IT employees with them

to the new agency or hire new employees. If new employees are hired, DLD will

lose the expertise of DPS’s cybersecurity expert team and its significant

cybersecurity infrastructure.

Currently, DLD has a 75-year data retention policy. If DLD transfers to DMV, there

will be huge amount of data to transfer, including driver history, law enforcement

components, and communications with other states. This will be a lengthy process,

potentially taking two years or more. The first issue to consider is how to take the

DLD network off of DPS’s network and merge with DMV’s network. The second

issue is to understand DLD’s IT requirements once DLD is at DMV.

If DLD moves to DMV, DMV might not be able to focus as much management

attention on VTR services as they currently do. One issue to consider if DLD moves

to DMV is integrating websites. DMV is looking to roll out a new website which

has been under development. The new DMV website would need to be modified to

include Driver License Program services.

The list of participants and questions discussed are provided in Appendix G.

1.2.5. Breakout Session on Call Center

The study team conducted two breakout sessions on call center issues with

representatives from DPS, DMV, and county offices. Participants included both

managerial staff and frontline customer-facing employees.

• Session 1: Friday, May 15, 2020. 12:30 p.m.–2:00 p.m. The 16 participants

included 10 representatives from DLD and 6 study team members.

• Session 2: Friday, May 15, 2020. 2:30 p.m.–4:00 p.m. The 16 participants

included 1 representative from DLD, 5 representatives from DMV, 3

representatives from county offices, and 7 study team members.

For each session, the study team prepared a list of questions associated with call

center issues for discussion.

1.2.5.1. Objectives

The objectives of this breakout session were to:

• Understand current call center status in DMV, DLD, and county offices

• Understand how call center support is provided to the field offices in case

of a problem for DMV, DLD, and county offices

• Gather information on the challenges that are faced by the call center

• Outline the ongoing efforts being made to improve call center services

• Obtain opinions on the three DLD location options from the perspective of

call centers

1.2.5.2. Summary of Key Findings

The breakout sessions revealed the following insights:

• Low response rates to phone calls stems from the limited number of staff in

relation to annual call volume

• Technology improvements that would allow better data collection on

customers and self-service options for callers would improve efficiency

• There is little anticipated direct benefit from transferring to DMV or

becoming stand-alone agency for the call center, as customer base and call

volumes would stay the same

• There is significant capacity for employees that work remotely at both DLD

and DMV call centers

• Call centers would benefit from improved online services and

communication, as many calls are inquiries regarding information or

services that are available online

1.2.5.2.1. Current State of DLD Call Center

The call center at DLD answers customer and replies to customer email queries.

Some of the main inquiries from customers are about which documents they must

bring to DLOs to process a given transaction. While DLD call center staff cannot

process customer transactions such as license renewals, they do often direct

customers to the correct online location to conduct transactions. The DLD call

center faces high call volume, with more than 7.1 million calls in FY 2019 and

30,000 email inquiries.

There are 90 DPS DLD call center staff, with 61 total call specialists who answer

customer and field staff inquiries. Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 46 of the

61 call specialists worked remotely, with just 14 staff operating from the central

Austin office. New call center staff have four to six weeks of mandatory training,

including a final test to earn a certificate.

The DLD call center is supported by the central DPS IT team, adding to the multiple

competing needs and requirements across the entire agency that the DPS IT team

must juggle.

1.2.5.2.2. Needed Improvements to DLD call center

Currently, nearly 80% of calls to the DLD call center go unanswered, with many

customers giving up and visiting DLOs directly. Wait times to answer a call

averaged around 14 minutes in 2017.

The DLD call center needs new technology and additional staff to meet the needs

of Texans and provide better efficiency and speed in service. Specifically, DLD call

center staff would benefit from technological methods to capture more data on

customers and their needs—in particular, self-service features. A live chat option,

to allow DLD call center staff to field more inquiries at once, would also be helpful.

DLD has already implemented or is planning projects to improve its call center and

call center technology; these plans for improvement should be supported and

funded regardless of where the Driver License Program resides.

1.2.5.2.3. Current State of DMV Call Center

DMV call center staff field inquiries from customers and stakeholders via phone,

email, and sometimes regular mail. The call center serves as the central IT help

desk for the 16 DMV regional offices and 254 county offices. The central DMV

call center fields about 700,000 calls a year, with county offices handling many

calls locally rather than transferring residents to the central call center. The volume

of calls answered locally ranges by county. Only large counties have staff dedicated

to answering DMV-related calls. The DMV call center does not process customer

transactions, and like DLD, cannot process credit cards.

Centrally, the DMV call center has 62 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees,

including 48 customer service representatives. All the 62 employees are based in

Austin, with 17 working remotely from home. All DMV call center staff undergo

mandatory training and evaluation.

The DMV call center would most benefit from improved technological

improvements and better communication and user-friendliness on the DMV

website to divert customer phone calls before they are made. Currently, many DMV

transactions could be conducted online, but are instead conducted in person.

County tax offices also support VTR customer phone calls in over 500 offices

located statewide. Based on a survey discussed later in this technical memorandum,

CTACs from 82 counties estimated their staff answer over 2.6 million VTR-related

customer phone calls per year.

1.2.5.2.4. Considerations for Transfer of DLD to DMV or Stand-alone

Agency

If DLD services transferred to the DMV, a transition plan would need to consider

whether to merge the DMV and DLD call centers and cross-train all staff or keep

the call centers entirely separate. Also, considering how many DMV calls are

handled on the county level, a transition plan would need to determine to what

extent, if any, counties could field DLD-related calls. Regardless of whether DLD

remains at DPS, moves to DMV, or becomes a stand-alone agency, issues with call

volume and efficiency will persist without added investment in technology and

additional FTEs. Improvements that are currently in development at the DLD call

center should continue regardless of any potential transfer, as the need to update

technology is pressing.

1.2.5.2.5. DPS Exceptional Item Request for Fiscal Years 2020-21

During the breakout session 1, DLD mentioned that there was an exceptional DLD

call center capacity increase request in order to answer more customer calls. The

study team requested the document from DLD after the breakout session.

In FY 2017, the call center received 6,721,258 phone calls, or 26,462 calls per day.

The average time to address the customer’s concerns during the call is 6 minutes 2

seconds. At that rate, the staff of 124 FTEs are able to answer only approximately

14% of these calls (942,588 calls answered annually, or 3,711 answered per day).

The Legislative Budget Board (LBB) performance measure defines the target time

to answer a call as 5 minutes. In order to answer 100% of calls received at the call

center at the legislatively prescribed service level, DLD management directed that

an analysis be conducted to estimate resource requirements to meet this

performance measure. It was determined that call center personnel would need to

be increased by 580 FTEs, including:

• 3 Managers (Manager III)

• 11 Assistant Managers (Manager I)

• 5 Administrative Assistant II – III

• 32 Program Supervisor III (Office Supervisor)

• 32 CSR Team Lead (CSR V)

• 21 CSR V Quality Control/Assurance

• 476 CSR II – IV

In addition, a customer relations management (CRM) software was identified and

requested by the call center. The CRM will enable DLD call center personnel

determine the trends in call types, allowing them to develop a set of self-service

options for customers. This tool also offers the ability to establish a profile to better

understand individual customer needs and tailor resources to meet those needs.

This exceptional item is a request to fund 580 new FTEs for the DLD call center,

along with the related authorized positions and the CRM software. The estimated

FY 2020–21 cost for 580 DLD call center FTEs is $107,679,496.00 and the one-

time cost of the CRM software is $750,000. DLD call center management expected

that, if funded, every call would be answered and handled in an acceptable amount

of time as prescribed in the Legislative performance measure.

The list of participants and questions discussed are provided in Appendix H.

1.3. Interviews Conducted

The study team conducted a series of interviews with agency executive leadership,

senior managers, commissioners, and board members from DPS, DLD, and DMV,

as well as Secretary of State (SOS) senior staffers. Due to the COVID-19 sheltering,

these interviews were conducted online through Cisco WebEx.

1.3.1. Interview with DPS Commissioners and DMV Board

Members

The study team conducted one-on-one interviews with four DPS commissioners

and three DMV board members to gather perspectives from the leaders to inform

the analysis and the six ranking criteria (customer service, compliance/security,

accountability/trust, efficiency/cost, culture/staffing, and organizational disruption)

used in this study. These interviews took place in June 2020.

Six general questions were asked of all these interviewees:

1. What do you think the goal was behind SB 616?

2. Are there any changes that you think could address the criticisms of DLD?

3. What are the benefits, costs, and challenges you see in the three options

that this study is reviewing (stay at DPS, move to DMV, become a stand-

alone state agency)?

4. If a move were to occur, do you have a perspective on a timeframe for

this?

5. Do you have a perspective on how the commission should be constructed

for the move to DMV or to a new agency?

6. Are there any issues regarding the voter registration data-sharing with the

Secretary of State that should be taken into account in the scenarios?

The study team used a thematic analysis to review all the responses to questions.

This allowed for responses to be anonymized to ensure the study met the

requirements under the University of Texas at Austin’s IRB authorization regarding

research with human subjects.

The following key themes emerged from the interviews:

• Stakeholders expressed appreciation for the goals of study and the use of an

independent group to conduct it.

• The legislature wants the process for issuing driver licenses to be improved

and to be efficient for the residents of Texas.

• Some expressed concern that DLD might not be a “good fit” within DPS

and should be placed into an agency with customer service as a core

mission.

• Population growth and REAL ID compliance has significantly increased the

number of in-office transactions.

• Ensuring data integrity is vital no matter where DLD resides.

• Finding ways to increase online transactions is an imperative.

• The disruption that COVID-19 has created requires the state to consider

new ways to run its business. Zoom, WebEx, and Microsoft Teams have

become a part of doing business.

• DLD needs to be properly resourced.

• Moving DLD will involve challenges and costs to integration of systems

and people.

• DLD frontline staff are dedicated; once customers reach the service desk,

they are generally happy with the service they receive.

• A major theme from all interviewees is that if DLD is moved without

changes, problems would be inherited and would set up the receiving

agency for failure.

1.3.1.1. The Perceived Goal of SB 616

The media covered many challenges customers experienced with driver licenses

prior to the session and legislators heard from their constituents. The legislature

may believe DPS is best focused on law enforcement and customer service best

handled by someone else. Citing mitigating factors, interviewees did not feel that

criticisms of DPS (DLD) are legitimate, despite the perception of poor customer

service, including long wait times, multiple trips, and a call center that has poor

performance and has generated complaints. The call center has seen higher call

rates due to COVID-19.

Interviewees noted that the REAL ID Act increased wait times—DLD has to use

more steps in the driver license process function (and they cannot drop steps to

streamline the process), which has led to complaints to the legislature on wait times,

customer service, and the need for multiple trips due to confusion on what

documents to bring.

Interviewees noted that processes need to be more efficient and scalable, and

provide customer-focused service. They noted that ensuring services are provided

statewide, working with what at times is a moving target given the population

increases and seasonal variations, is always challenging for state agencies and leads

to criticism.

1.3.1.2. Changes to Address the Criticisms of DLD

All interviewees responded that improving options for customers to renew online

would help. While frontline offices are always needed, finding ways to let

customers know that they do not have to come into an office to renew their license

would help to improve customer service. The more customers can accurately renew

online, the better it will be for both customers and staff.

Just as with a doctor’s office, an appointments system is necessary. Customers need

to be certain about the time when they will be served. Interviewees felt that the new

appointment system is going to address much of the wait time and line problems.

Customer service focus should be the key cornerstone criterion that feeds into all

other elements in terms of addressing the concerns that have arisen around DLD.

This leads into focusing on how customer service can be improved through data

analysis of process, training of staff and how they conduct processes, and the use

of technology to speed up processes. One interviewee noted that the DLD should

be “always in training mode, looking to be better trained, to offer better customer

service and transaction times and reducing the need to ask for a supervisor helps.”

Interviewees felt the need to do what is right for the taxpayer. If the program is not

properly resourced, performance will suffer. Ensuring efficient resources for DLD

was a consistent element mentioned across all the answers. This flowed into the

conversation about the challenges in terms of the relationship of building capacity

to service, given constraints on office space and staffing. State agencies have to

meet the expectations of service from Texas residents—and be ready to deliver the

maximum service, even though the capacity is not at maximum occupancy or

utilization.

The pandemic has emphasized that the residents of Texas, especially young people,

expect to access many services online.

1.3.1.3. The Benefits, Costs, and Challenges of the Three Options

The interviewees conveyed that the Driver License Program will not necessarily

improve merely through a move to DMV or to a stand-alone agency. The main

reason for suggesting DLD move to DMV was the perception that DMV is where

customers expect to find driver license functions. The interviewees felt that this is

not a sufficient reason to move it.

However, other interviewees also noted that as a stand-alone agency, DLD would

have only one program, potentially allowing it to focus upon customer service and

other data-driven optimizations. Some interviewees stated that benefits in either of

the move scenarios should be determined according to how improvements in

different areas occur. For example, it was noted that because DMV is driven by

customer service, a move there could confer benefits in that arena. Another

perspective voiced was that having DLD located in a law enforcement agency

discourages fraud, and DPS can immediately use its resources and send in Rangers

or investigators without having to go through another chain of command.

Some opined that the stand-alone agency option is not viable: why have two other

back-office functions (DPS and DMV) that can already perform support and then

create a third agency that requires a back-office function? However, other

interviewees noted that the public often does not know which agency provides

which service, or confuses the services provided by DMV or DLD. Ultimately, the

public doesn’t care which agency provides which service, as long as the service is

provided efficiently and courteously—and they currently perceive that this is not

the case.

One factor to be considered is moving in the direction of greater efficiency. Security

is important—the most efficient option might not be the most secure option.

Interviewees noted that any move should entail more than just a name change on

the door. If there is no improvement on customer service and processes, the

problems will persist regardless of where DLD resides.

Another issue noted was that required resources that may suffer if a move to DMV

occurs; the legislature will need to ensure that frontline staff and IT resources are

properly funded.

1.3.1.4. Perspective on a Timeframe for a Move

On interviewee thought that if the legislature decides to move the agency, it should

be done as quickly as possible to begin reaping benefits, especially if a thorough

plan is created first. However, other interviewees that that it is best not to rush the

transition, as there will be growing pains.

Fluidity should be factored into the plan and any milestones. The timeline should

include time for training and to review workflow processes in both scenarios to

ensure customer service goals are met.

Another suggestion was to delay the three-option decision by one year—that is, the

legislature should consider “hitting the pause button,” In a perfect world, a move

would take place over two fiscal biennia. More than one interviewee thought that

this decision could not have occurred at a worse time—especially as the budget for

incoming biennium is going to be hard hit by COVD-19. A pause would allow DLD

time to demonstrate customer service impacts from the 700 new License and Permit

Specialist (LPS) hires in addition to the new Applus appointment system and other

IT upgrades. This would also give the legislature time to assess the financial

landscape, and estimate the economy losses into the next biennium

1.3.1.5. Perspective on Constructing a DLD Commission

Feedback on this topic included the statement that the current DPS commission

knows its job, but still receives criticism. While the commission understands that

customers wish the agency provided the customer service features of, say, a retail

business, they cannot operate DLD like a business due to constraints that all state

agencies face.

Interviewees felt that the current DMV board works well, and recommended that

the Board not expand appreciably: no more than two new stakeholder members if

a move to DMV occurs. Consider bringing in people who have expertise and

understand relying on data, e.g., driver training organizations might be a good

stakeholder.

Creating a stand-alone agency allows the agency’s administration to start with a

clean slate in terms of operations and oversight; however, a newly comprised

Commission should be consistent with other state commissions for civilian

agencies that include key stakeholder group representation.

1.3.1.6. Issues/Concerns about Voter Registration Data-sharing with

SOS

Ensuring the integrity of the Texas election system, including voter registration, is

paramount, interviewees felt. The REAL ID program must be competently and

accurately run, so that DLD can assure the residents of Texas that IDs are verified.

If a move occurs, there should be a stakeholder on board representing the county

elections clerks or administrators.

1.3.2. Interview with DPS Executive Management

The study team conducted interviews with executive leadership of DPS in June

2020 with the same goals in mind as discussed in Section 1.3.1.

The same six general questions were asked of all interviewees from DPS executive

management:

1. What do you think the goal was behind SB 616?

2. Are there any changes that you think could address the criticisms of DLD?

3. What are the benefits, costs, and challenges you see in the three options

that this study is reviewing (stay at DPS, move to DMV, become a stand-

alone state agency)?

4. If a move were to occur, do you have a perspective on a timeframe for

this?

5. Do you have a perspective on how the commission should be constructed

for the move to DMV or to a new agency?

6. Are there any issues regarding the voter registration data-sharing with the

Secretary of State that should be taken into account in the scenarios?

The study team used a thematic analysis to review all the responses to the six

questions. Following are the key themes that emerged from the interviews:

• The program must be fixed—no matter where it resides, simply changing

the name on the door won’t solve the problem. Management needs to

understand the problems.

• Agency needs to be properly resourced, and in case of a move this may

mean more resources for back office functions.

• Waiting in lines is hard for customers to endure and for frontline employees

to manage.

• The call center is a known problem; they have tried different approaches to

fix it.

• Moving to DLD to DMV would triple its number of employees overnight;

its Commission will need to restructure.

• Ensuring integrity and cyber security of ID data is absolutely vital. Access

to personal information is extremely profitable—the state must invest in

cyber security.

1.3.2.1. The Perceived Goal of SB 616

There is a level of frustration among legislators regarding poor customer service,

which the executive team echoed. Waiting in line for hours is hard on customers.

There are not enough staff to effectively run all 229 offices. The legislature told the

agency to close inefficient offices, but this became political, as legislators received

calls from constituents.

1.3.2.2. Changes to Address the Criticisms of DLD

Interviewees stated that many offices in urban areas have up to 200 customers

waiting outside the door at opening time. This means DLOs and mega centers start

their day already behind and stay behind. An appointment system was needed to

address this and has been implemented in all offices just before the COVID-19

shutdown. Customers will now know with certainty that they will be served at a

specific time. It is anticipated that DLOs will reopen in July 2020 to take customers

who are renewing their licenses or ID cards; DLD can then determine the impacts

of appointments on wait times and line length.

Encouraging people to renew online is needed, interviewees noted. The REAL ID

Act did increase wait times, as the process has more steps now, and these cannot be

skipped.

DLD resources are not growing at a sustainable rate to match state’s ever-increasing

population. DPS cited a specific example: in one year, 164,000 new residents

moved to DFW—all these individuals need driver licenses and ID cards and have

to be processed one at a time.

Another sentiment shared was that the call center does not function well, and they

had to limit the number of calls allowed to enter the queue in the hold system (when

the queue limit is reached, the system stops allowing more calls).

The bottom line is that the Driver License Program needs to be well received and

well run, regardless where it’s located. DPS noted that it’s “not that we don’t want

the function—but it is more important that it succeeds.” DPS could be highly

successful with the proper resources—quality people are the key. However, public

safety will always be the topic priority for DPS.

1.3.2.3. The Benefits, Costs, and Challenges of the Three Options

Driver License Program security is essential as REAL ID compliance requirements

are mandatory. The balance between security and efficiency will need to be closely

studied.

If DLD is moved to DMV, there could be an impact on CTACs if DMV leverages

them. Some county tax offices may not be able to double up with the driver license

function.

As a stand-alone agency, DLD may see some extra costs. Space issues will arise

with a transfer, as a move would also impact DPS (some of the DPS support staff

would likely move, so replacement personnel would have to be funded).

1.3.2.4. Perspective on a Timeframe for a Move

Interviewees stated that if a move of DLD is required by the legislature, DPS could

process a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to move DLD to another agency

immediately.

1.3.2.5. Perspective on Constructing a DLD Commission

If a move to DMV occurs, the DMV Commission will need to be reworked—the

current Commission is primarily structured to ensure there is no competition among

the groups they represent. The new merged agency would need the Commission be

structured so that representation is equitable. Interviewees noted that if DLD

becomes a stand-alone agency, such an issue will not arise.

1.3.2.6. Issues/Concerns about Voter Registration Data-sharing with

SOS

Interviewees urged consideration of voter registration support: if DLD moves, DPS

will have half the information the SOS needs—the new agency will have to provide

the other half. In either of the move scenarios, DLD will need to comply with the

‘Motor Voter’ laws, which means that voter registration can only occur in office—

it can’t be handled online—as the Texas SOS has ruled that voter registration must

be done in person to prevent voter fraud. A concern has been raised that increasing

the numbers of people who renew their licenses online may inadvertently decrease

levels of voter registration. This is why DLD currently does not advertise online

license renewals.

1.3.3. Interview with Secretary of State Senior Staffers

The study team interviewed senior staff members of the SOS to inform the analysis

and the six ranking criteria. This interview was conducted on June 22, 2020.

The following seven questions were asked of all senior SOS staff members

interviewed:

1. Does SOS have any concerns or comments about a possible move of Motor

Voter services in DLD to another agency?

2. How would an agency move of current Motor Voter and issuance of election

identification certificates (EIC) affect the voter registration deadlines, data

transmission, data format, data security, and information-sharing aspects of

your interagency interactions with DLD/DPS?

3. Do you expect future technology or legal requirements (federal or state) to

increase the costs of this interagency services interaction?

4. How are any problems in this interagency interaction (SOS-DLD) handled

once they arise and how does this affect your opinion on a possible move

of EIC and other DLD services to another agency?

5. Given that voter data, such as the applicants’ “stored electronic signatures”

were specifically mentioned in the most recent Motor Voter case (see

Stringer case, January 30, 2020, Order for Preliminary Injunction), do you

anticipate any difficulties in future voter registration procedures, including

the training of staff or communication to the public on these procedures?

Would a move to another agency affect your answer on this?

6. What are the benefits, opportunities, costs, and challenges you see in the

three options that this study is reviewing—stay at DPS, move to DMV,

become a stand-alone state agency—especially with regard to how

information is sent from DPS to SOS after an in-person transaction?

7. Are there legal issues that you can see will be forthcoming around voter ID

that we should take into account in our recommendation for where DLD

should reside?

Similar to Section 1.3.1, the study team used a thematic analysis to review all the

responses to questions. Following are the key themes that emerged:

• DPS is an important partner for voter ID issuance, voter registration, and

other processes in terms of data held by DLD that the SOS uses.

• There is a good working relationship with the current DLD and DPS staff.

If these personnel move with the program, it should be ensured that the

relationship would not be impacted.

• In assessing a move, there’s a need to determine what is meant by “move”—

transferring all the DLD resources along with the Driver License would not

cause issues in the way that constructing a new system might.

• Training will be necessary if a move occurs.

• Statutory deadlines need to be taken into account during a move.

• Currently nightly batches of data are transferred—this cannot be interrupted

if a move occurs. The other data transfers between the SOS, DLD, and the

county elections sections cannot be impacted either.

• Other stand-alone processes also tie into the data held by DLD, e.g., jury

management.

• The current court cases may lead to new requirements regarding technology

use and agency interaction and could increase costs. These cases are

anticipated to have outcomes that will occur just before or during the next

legislative session.

1.4. Chapter Conclusion

This chapter summarizes all the customer focus group meetings, breakout sessions,

and interviews the study team conducted to gather information and insight from

diverse stakeholders.

Chapter 2. Database Analyses

The study team collected and conducted various data analyses during this study.

This chapter documents the findings of data analyses, including NEMO-Q

database, DLD High-Value Dataset (HVD), and county office VTR transactions.

2.1. NEMO-Q Database Analysis

The NEMO-Q queuing system was implemented to manage and improve customer

service and waiting time experiences. In this self-service system, customers are

issued a numbered ticket based on transaction type. The system also creates a

database that stores all the transaction data categorized by service type (e.g.,

original driver license or ID card application or renewal) and customer type (e.g.,

in person, by phone, or online). The system provides information to DPS regarding

the wait time and transaction time. Both walk-in customers and customers who

scheduled online (and arrive at the appointed time) will get a numbered ticket with

timestamp. Estimated wait time can be printed on the ticket as well so that the

customer knows the progress of the wait queue. The NEMO-Q system cannot

record the wait time a customer spent outside DLO or mega center offices.

The study team obtained NEMO-Q data from DLD for the period of January 2017

to March 2020. One of the main purposes of NEMO-Q data analyses is to evaluate

the effectiveness of the new LPS employees who were hired starting September

2019. The study team divided the NEMO-Q data into a ‘before period’ and ‘after

period.’ Considering the time needed to post jobs, conduct interviews, check

backgrounds, and perform training prior to facing customers, the study team

selected October 1, 2019 as the split point. The study team used data from January

1, 2019 to September 30, 2019 as the before period to reflect the most recent

statistics, and October 1, 2019 to March 18, 2020 as the after period.

The detailed NEMO-Q data cleaning process can be found in Technical

Memorandum 4. After examining and eliminating invalid records from the NEMO-

Q database, the study team calculated the number of short transactions (i.e., license

or ID renewal) and long transactions (i.e., original license or ID transactions),

average wait times, average service times, average transaction times, and the

percentage of transactions under 45 minutes and 30 minutes for the 73 DLOs

equipped with the NEMO-Q system. The comparisons were made for both

completed transactions and incomplete transactions. Incomplete transactions are

marked in the NEMO-Q database, including duplicate tickets, no-shows, etc. The

comparison results of complete transactions, incomplete transactions, and total

(completed + incomplete) transactions are presented in Table 2.1, Table 2.2, and

Table 2.3, respectively.

Table 2.1 Comparison Results of Completed Transactions

Before

Period

1/1/2019–

9/30/2019

After Period

10/1/2019–

3/18/2020

Comparison

(before – after)

Short

Transaction

Completed short transaction

2,076,710

1,315,522

761,188

Completed short transaction

per working day

11,225

11,852

-626

Percentage of transactions

under 45 mins

32.7

38.6

-5.9

Percentage of transactions

under 30 mins

19.7

24.6

-4.9

Average wait time (s)

4,598.7

4,001.4

597.3

Average service time (s)

504.7

550.4

-45.7

Average transaction time (s)

5,103.4

4,551.8

551.6

Long

Transaction

Completed long transaction

1,018,481

546,139

472,342

Completed long transaction

per working day

5,505

4,920

585

Percentage of transactions

under 45 mins

29.0

34.8

-5.8

Percentage of transactions

under 30 mins

16.6

20.2

-3.6

Average wait time (s)

4,998.1

4,034.6

963.5

Average service time (s)

764.8

825.7

-60.9

Average transaction time (s)

5,762.9

4,860.3

902.6

Short + Long

Transaction

Completed transaction

3,095,191

1,861,661

1,233,530

Completed transaction per

working day

16,731

167,72

-41

Percentage of transactions

under 45 mins

31.5

37.5

-6.0

Percentage of transactions

under 30 mins

18.7

23.3

-4.6

Average wait time (s)

4,730.1

4,011.1

719

Average service time (s)

590.3

631.2

-40.9

Average transaction time (s)

5,320.4

4,642.3

678.1

Table 2.2 Comparison Results of Incomplete Transactions

Before

Period

1/1/2019–

9/30/2019

After Period

10/1/2019–

3/18/2020

Comparison

(before – after)

Short

Transaction

Completed short transaction

538,221

353,667

184,554

Completed short transaction per

working day

2909

3186

-277

Percentage of transactions under

45 mins

31.6

42.3

-10.7

Percentage of transactions under

30 mins

21.9

31.1

-9.2

Average wait time (s)

5,635.4

4,524.7

1,110.7

Average service time (s)

184.8

190.1

-5.3

Average transaction time (s)

5,820.2

4,714.8

1,105.4

Long

Transaction

Completed long transaction

606,326

312,563

293,763

Completed long transaction per

working day

3,277

2,816

462

Percentage of transactions under

45 mins

31.3

42.0

-10.7

Percentage of transactions under

30 mins

21.3

30.0

-8.7

Average wait time (s)

5,928.4

4,371.4

1,557

Average service time (s)

224.5

249.8

-25.3

Average transaction time (s)

6,152.9

4,621.2

1,531.7

Short + Long

Transaction

Completed transaction

1,144,547

666,230

478,317

Completed transaction per

working day

6,187

6,002

185

Percentage of transactions under

45 mins

31.4

42.2

-10.8

Percentage of transactions under

30 mins

21.6

30.6

-9.0

Average wait time (s)

5,790.6

4,452.8

1,337.8

Average service time (s)

205.8

218.1

-12.3

Average transaction time (s)

5,996.4

4,670.9

1,325.5

Table 2.3 Comparison Results of Total Transactions

Before

Period

1/1/2019–

9/30/2019

After Period

10/1/2019–

3/18/2020

Comparison

(before – after)

Short

Transaction

Completed short transaction

2,614,931

1,669,189

945,742

Completed short transaction

per working day

14,135

15,038

-903

Percentage of transactions

under 45 mins

32.5

39.4

-6.9

Percentage of transactions

under 30 mins

20.2

26.0

-5.8

Average wait time (s)

4,812.1

4,112.3

699.8

Average service time (s)

438.8

474.1

-35.3

Average transaction time (s)

5250.9

4586.4

664.5

Long

Transaction

Completed long transaction

1,624,807

858,702

766,105

Completed long transaction

per working day

8,783

7,736

1,047

Percentage of transactions

under 45 mins

29.8

37.4

-7.6

Percentage of transactions

under 30 mins

18.3

23.7

-5.4

Average wait time (s)

5,345.3

4,157.2

1,188.1

Average service time (s)

563.2

616.1

-52.9

Average transaction time (s)

5,908.5

4,773.3

1,135.2

Short + Long

Transaction

Completed transaction

4,239,738

2,527,891

1,711,847

Completed transaction per

working day

22,918

22,774

144

Percentage of transactions

under 45 mins

31.5

38.7

-7.2

Percentage of transactions

under 30 mins

19.5

25.2

-5.7

Average wait time (s)

5,016.4

4,127.5

888.9

Average service time (s)

486.5

522.3

-35.8

Average transaction time (s)

5,502.9

4,649.8

853.1

As Tables 2.1 to 2.3 indicate, after the new hiring, the average waiting time and

average transaction time for completed, incomplete, and total transactions

decreased. The percentages of transactions within 45 minutes and 30 minutes both

increased. The average service time increased slightly. The details can be

summarized as follows:

• For completed transactions:

 The average waiting time and transaction time decreased for both short

and long transactions:

▪ For short transactions, the average wait time decreased from 4,598.7

seconds (1 hour 16 minutes) to 4,001.4 seconds (1 hour 6 minutes),

with a reduction of 597.3 seconds (about 10 minutes). The average

transaction time was reduced by 551.6 seconds (9.2 minutes).

▪ For long transactions, the average wait time decreased from 4,998.1

seconds (1 hour 23 minutes) to 4,034.6 seconds (1 hour 7 minutes),

with a reduction of 963.5 seconds (about 16 minutes). The average

transaction time was reduced by 902.6 seconds (about 15 minutes).

▪ Overall (short + long), the average wait time decreased from 4,730.1

(1 hour 19 minutes) seconds to 4,011.1 seconds (1 hour 7 minutes),

with a reduction of 719 seconds (about 12 minutes). The average

transaction time was reduced by 678.1 seconds (11.3 minutes).

 The average service time slightly increased for both short and long

transactions:

▪ For short transactions, the average service time increased by 45.7

seconds.

▪ For long transactions, the average service time increased by 60.9

seconds.

▪ Overall, the average service time increased by 40.9 seconds.

 The percentage of transactions (short + long) completed within 45

minutes increased from 31.5% to 37.5%.

 The percentage of transactions (short + long) completed within 30

minutes increased from 18.7% to 23.3%.

• For incomplete transactions:

 The average waiting time and transaction time decreased for both short

and long transactions:

▪ For short transactions, the average wait time decreased from 5,635.4

seconds (1 hour 33 minutes) to 4,524.7 seconds (1 hour 15 minutes),

with a reduction of 1,110.7 seconds (18.5 minutes). The average

transaction time was reduced by 1,105.4 seconds (18.4 minutes).

▪ For long transactions, the average wait time decreased from 5,928.4

seconds (1 hour 38 minutes) to 4,371.4 seconds (1 hour 12 minutes),

with a reduction of 1,557 seconds (about 26 minutes). The average

transaction time was reduced by 1,531.7 seconds (25.5 minutes).

▪ Overall (short + long), the average wait time decreased from 5,790.6

(1 hour 36 minutes) seconds to 4,452.8 seconds (1 hour 14 minutes),

with a reduction of 1,337.8 seconds (22.3 minutes). The average

transaction time was reduced by 1325.5 seconds (22.1 minutes).

 The average service time slightly increased for both short and long

transactions:

▪ For short transactions, the average service time increased by 5.3

seconds.

▪ For long transactions, the average service time increased by 25.3

seconds.

▪ Overall, the average service time increased by 12.3 seconds.

 The percentage of transactions (short + long) completed within 45

minutes increased from 34.1% to 42.2%.

 The percentage of transactions (short + long) completed within 30

minutes increased from 21.6% to 30.6%.

• For total (completed + incomplete) transactions:

 The average waiting time and transaction time decreased for both short

and long transactions:

▪ For short transactions, the average wait time decreases from 4,812.1

seconds (1 hour 20 minutes) to 4,112.3 seconds (1 hour 8 minutes),

with a reduction of 699.8 seconds (11.7 minutes). The average

transaction time was reduced by 664.5 seconds (11.1 minutes).

▪ For long transactions, the average wait time decreased from 5,345.3

seconds (1 hour 29 minutes) to 4,157.2 seconds (1 hour 9 minutes),

with a reduction of 1,188.1 seconds (19.8 minutes). The average

transaction time was reduced by 1,135.2 seconds (18.9 minutes).

▪ Overall (short + long), the average wait time decreased from 5,016.4

(1 hour 23 minutes) seconds to 4,127.5 seconds (1 hour 8 minutes),

with a reduction of 888.9 seconds (14.8 minutes). The average

transaction time was reduced by 853.1 seconds (14.2 minutes).

 The average service time slightly increased for both short and long

transactions:

▪ For short transactions, the average service time increased by 35.3

seconds.

▪ For long transactions, the average service time increased by 52.9

seconds.

▪ Overall, the average service time increased by 35.8 seconds.

 The percentage of transactions (short + long) completed within 45

minutes increased from 31.5% to 38.7%.

 The percentage of transactions (short + long) completed within 30

minutes increased from 19.5% to 25.2%.

The data analyses based on the NEMO-Q database show that after the additional

new employees and salary increases in September 2019, both wait time and

transaction time decreased by over 14 minutes on average. The reduction in wait

time after the new hires added can be verified by the wait time rating obtained from

the customer surveys presented in Chapter 3.

The study team noted that during discussions at regional centers, the DLD

employees indicated that it typically takes one year for a new employee to be fully

trained and experienced to handle most all license/ID card transactions. Thus, it is

anticipated that further reductions in wait times and transactions times will accrue

as new employees become more experienced.

2.2. DLD High-Value Dataset

The DPS is required to maintain HVDs for evaluation of issues of importance to

the state legislature. The DLD maintains an HVD on the DPS main webpage that

consists of a series of monthly reports (in PDF format) providing statistics about

DLD operations. The study team downloaded all the monthly reports and created

an Excel database by transcribing the monthly report data to the Excel spreadsheet.

Data is available for:

• 2017: September–December

• 2018: January–December

• 2019: January–December

• 2020: January and February

Due to the COVID-19 sheltering and closure of DLOs and mega centers by the

Governor in March (except for commercial driver licenses), monthly reports have

not been issued for March through June of 2020.

The data provides statistics for driver license in-office, online, and mail-in

transactions. Based on a comparison of NEMO-Q queuing system data and the in-

office transactions reported in the HVD, it is apparent that the monthly reports only

record the number of completed in-office, customer-facing transactions for each

month. In-office customer-facing transactions that are incomplete, and thus require

an additional trip to a DLO to complete, are not recorded. This information is

considered essential by the study team since the number of customers that DLOs

and mega centers process each month includes both completed and incomplete

transactions. Both types of transactions involve the physical presence of customers,

potentially exceeding the waiting room seating capacity, and thus resulting in a line

that forms outside the building. In addition, the presence of more customers would

impact wait times and processing times and increase workload for all LPS

employees that perform transactions. It is apparent from the NEMO-Q data that an

incomplete transaction takes nearly the same amount of total wait and processing

time as a completed transaction. It is recommended that the HVD be updated to

include incomplete transactions for a more comprehensive record of numbers of

customers served and numbers of transactions performed on a monthly basis.

In total, the HVD reports forty data types, categorized as follows:

• Transactions: Number of transactions by type

• Customer Service Center (the DLD call center): Number of telephone

calls processed by type and transaction times

• Enforcement & Compliance Services: Enforcement actions taken

regarding driver license legal issues

• CDL Program: Number of commercial driver license (CDL) skills, road,

and inspection tests

• Impact Texas Driver Programs: A program established to educate teens

about driving safety

• License & Records Services: Number of driver license record requests and

customer contacts

This information provided a reference database for evaluation of different types of

activities performed by DLD and services provided to DPS law enforcement agents

and the public.

2.3. DMV/County Offices VTR Transactions

Based on interviews and a breakout session with CTACs, the study team sought

additional information about the VTR Program. The VTR Program is considered

to be of comparable size and complexity to the DPS Driver License Program and

provides opportunities for insights about management and operation of a large

program currently under DMV. DMV develops policies and guidelines that are

used to conduct VTR transactions, including data collection, data storage, data

distribution, and documentation necessary to validate each transaction type.

Although both DMV and CTAC offices perform VTR transactions, the types and

numbers of transactions, as well as staffing levels, are quite different. DMV

employs approximately 146 personnel who primarily perform heavy truck and

truck fleet VTR transactions at DMV regional centers and operate the centralized

DMV VTR call center. The DMV VTR call center processes approximately

650,000 to 700,000 calls per year and is a well-run, efficient operation.

DMV processes the following average number of in-office customer facing and

mail-in certified copy of original (CCO) title transactions at DMV regional service

centers (RSCs) annually:

In-RSC, customer-facing transactions 317,323

In-RSC, mail-in transactions 126,961

Bonds, permits, and International Registration Plan transactions 493,171

Annual total 937,455

CTACs operate 514 county tax offices, and hire and manage approximately 3,000

employees statewide who support both tax office and VTR functions. In larger

offices, a portion of these county employees may be dedicated solely to in-office

VTR transactions, mail room and mail-in transaction processing, accounting, and

handling VTR-related phone calls. In addition, CTACs work to develop partner

locations in grocery stores and other businesses that sell vehicle registration

stickers.

Based on information provided by DMV, CTACs perform the following average

numbers of VTR transactions annually:

• 18,138,275 customer-facing transactions, in office

• 728,655 mail-in transactions, processed in office

• 4,103,623 online transactions (does not require direct CTAC employee

involvement)

• 1,539,040 registration sticker transactions at partner locations

• In total: 24,509,593 VTR transactions

Thus, according to interview and breakout session comments, CTACs process

greater than 95% of annual VTR transactions. County tax offices maintain two

computer systems—one to process county tax business and a DMV computer

workstation for processing VTR transactions. The DMV computer system is

maintained by DMV-contracted IT personnel.

In addition to county tax office and VTR transactions, CTACs can choose

voluntarily to process driver license replacement and renewal transactions as a

result of SB 1756. SB 1756 granted authority for counties to perform driver license

replacements or renewal transactions for a $5 fee per transaction.

During discussions with the Expert Working Group (EWG) of CTACs, it was

emphasized that they are elected officials who manage county tax offices and the

county employees who conduct VTR transactions according to DMV policies. It is

important that decision-makers understand the difference between elected officials

who manage millions of VTR transactions and state agency directors who manage

VTR or driver license transactions.

2.4. Chapter Conclusion

This chapter summarizes various data analyses efforts made by the study team. The

NEMO-Q database analyses indicate that the average wait time and transaction time

decreased after the additional new hires and salary increases implemented by DLD.

The analyses of DLD HVDs and DMV/county office VTR transactions also provide

insights to the study.

Chapter 3. Survey Analyses and DLD

Customer Service Enhancements

To build the study knowledge base and collect individual opinions from DLD

customers and CTACs, the study team conducted three surveys with different

objectives and distributed the surveys to appropriate target groups. This chapter

presents the detailed analyses of these surveys and summarizes the findings. In

addition, the ongoing efforts made by DLD to improve customer service are

documented in this chapter.

3.1. Customer Survey on DLD Experiences

The population of licensed drivers or ID cardholders in Texas exceeds 23.8 million

people (20.3 million hold driver licenses; the remainder have ID cards)—the sheer

numbers make it infeasible to conduct a survey in which every licensed driver or

cardholder responds to provide their experiences and opinions regarding the Driver

License Program. In such situations, the common approach is to obtain a random

sample of the population, which is expected to represent the same characteristics as

the population. However, other factors come into play for this particular survey, as

outlined below.

3.1.1. Survey Design

During the 86

Legislative Session, which ended in May 2019, a bill was passed

that increased the driver license renewal period from 6 to 8 years. Previously, a new

driver license obtained in person at a Texas DLO could be renewed online after 6

years by eligible individuals—with the exception of certain license classes,

including Class A, B, AM, BM, and CDLs (CDL-A, CDL-B and CDL-C). An in-

person renewal was required at a DLO after an additional 6 years. The new law has

changed the renewal period to 8 years for online-eligible individuals (or in-person

renewal if it is the person’s preference), with a required appearance at a DLO after

16 years.

Thus, of the over 23.8 million licensed drivers and ID cardholders in Texas, some

portion of these individuals would have gotten a new or renewed license or ID card

in person at some point within the past 1 to 6 years. The study team considered how

long a person could be expected to retain a memory of their last visit to a DLO or

online renewal with sufficient accuracy necessary to fill out a survey of their

experiences and opinions.

Though literature was consulted on autobiographical memory recall and related

topics, this information was not considered directly applicable to the type of survey

being conducted or survey questions being asked in this study [Wagenaar 1986;

Bradburn et al. 1987; Krosnick et al. 2015].

To further consider this question, pilot surveys were taken by individuals within

and outside the study team whose last DLO visit ranged from 6 months to 4 years

in the past. Though this was not a scientific study of the ability of a person to

remember details of their last visit to a DLO, the group consensus was that a 2-year

time frame met the practical goals of the survey.

Therefore, though there are more than 23.8 million licensed drivers or ID

cardholders in Texas, the study team began with a set of approximately 7.3 million

email addresses provided by the Driver License Division for individuals who had

visited a DLO within the last 2 years. This pool of survey candidates formed the

basis for further analysis.

Although 7.3 million email addresses represents a large pool of candidates, this

pool might not actually include every person who obtained a new or renewal driver

license or ID card within the past 2 years. Customers are asked to provide an email

address voluntarily on the application form when they get a new or renewal driver

license or ID card. Thus, a person who renewed a driver license or card might have

chosen to not provide their email address, or not had one at the time. About 2

million Texans do not have access to broadband internet, or may not have access to

a computer or cell phone, and thus have not obtained email addresses. In addition,

according to information gained in the focus group meetings with DLO employees,

it is not uncommon for a customer to be unable to read or write at a level necessary

to fill out the driver license application form due to language, education, or other

barriers. Therefore, we cannot determine how many drivers or ID cardholders were

excluded from the pool who met these conditions.

Is it possible to obtain a sufficiently large random sample of surveys from a pool of

7.3 million email addresses to represent the population? Following are some factors

to consider:

1. Taking a random sample means that every licensed driver or ID cardholder

in a pool of candidates has an equal chance of being selected to take the

survey. This would require sending an email survey invitation to all 7.3

million candidates. However, the study team cannot know what the

response rate will be for a given number of emailed invitations. The study

team conducted a literature review to investigate the issue but no definitive

information was available on response rates.

2. Thus, even if every candidate received an email invitation and has an equal

chance to take the survey, this does not mean every customer will take the

survey. It is the person’s choice to take the survey or not—it is not feasible

to force someone to take a survey. In some cases, a small payment can be

made to encourage a person to take a survey, but this is not legal when

conducting surveys in studies that use Texas state funds.

a. Mailing a survey form to every licensed driver would be cost-

prohibitive as well as time- and labor-intensive and was considered

infeasible.

b. A telephone survey would also be time- and labor-intensive and

was considered infeasible. In addition, the number of completed

surveys would be insufficient to provide meaningful results.

As a result, the study team chose to use an online survey platform (Qualtrics™) and

distribute a survey link to all 7.3 million email addresses provided by DLD. The

survey was made available in English and Spanish—a toggle switch at the top of

the survey page allowed switching between languages. Full details of this customer

survey and distribution email message (English/Spanish versions) are provided in

Appendix I.

3.1.2. Survey Distribution

The survey distribution began on November 12, 2019, and ended on April 3, 2020,

though surveys continued to be received well past the last distribution date. The

study team received 44,544 completed surveys out of the 7.3 million email

invitations, covering the following periods when customers had gotten a new or

renewal driver license or ID card:

• January–December 2018: 11,852 completed surveys

• January–September 2019: 19,587 completed surveys

• October 2019–February 2020: 13,105 completed surveys

• In total: 44,544 completed surveys received

It is believed that three issues affected the number of completed surveys received.

1. The Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year holiday periods

2. COVID-19 onset in early to mid-March may have reduced interest in taking

a survey. Personal concerns affecting survey invitation recipients in this

time include finances, sheltering, lack of time for a survey due to children

being home from school, etc.

3. According to numerous individuals who were sent the survey invitation,

filters put in place by email providers automatically sent the emailed

invitations to customers’ spam or junk mail folders because the email

contained hyperlinks. The study team consulted the literature and Qualtrics

regarding this and learned there is no solution to prevent this automatic

filtering. Thus, an unknown number of email invitations were routed to

spam or junk email folders.

After an extensive review of surveys received, the study team decided to accept

surveys that were at least 86% to 100% complete. A survey that was 86% complete

may have contained questions left blank, but still provided useful information for

the analysis. Therefore, the number of valid responses to each question might be

less than the number of total completed surveys, although sufficient for analysis

purposes. The reader will note that the number of valid observations in the survey

analyses presented in Section 3.1.3 varies for this reason.

The email addresses were provided to the study team in Excel spreadsheet files with

no other confidential information. When preparing mass emails, the study team did

not know the name, address, city, county, sex, race, ethnicity, or any other personal

information about the individuals who were sent a survey invitation.

Under these conditions, many survey invitations can be distributed to licensed

drivers and ID cardholders with the expectation that a sufficient number of

responses will be received to represent the population based on various

demographic factors, such as gender, age, location, race and ethnicity, household

income, and level of education.

3.1.2.1. Gender

Statewide there are about 49.7% male and 50.3% female drivers, although there

was no prior expectation that differences in survey responses might exist based on

sex. The following number and percentages of male or female survey responses

were obtained.

Male = 22,688 completed surveys. 51.7%

Female = 21,185 completed surveys. 48.3%

In Figure 3.1, a slightly greater percentage of ‘Very Good’ and ‘Good’ and lower

percentages of ‘Poor’ and ‘Very Poor’ wait time rating responses were obtained

from male compared to female survey respondents.

Figure 3.1 Percentages of Surveys vs. Female and Male Wait Time Ratings

The survey responses were further disaggregated to show the variations in wait time

rating responses for the male and female components of race and ethnicity groups

included in the survey (shown in Figure 3.2 and 3.3). These graphs also show

slightly higher ‘Very Good’ and ‘Good’ wait time ratings for males compared to

females; however, the relationship varies somewhat for specific groups.

Figure 3.2 Male Wait Time Ratings for Different Race and Ethnic Groups

Figure 3.3 Female Wait Time Ratings for Different Race and Ethnic Groups

To further explore factors that could contribute to these differences, the study team

evaluated the wait time ratings for males and females of different race and ethnicity

groups with respect to other factors. The factors included whether a customer stood

waiting outside the DLO building, and/or lost pay, and/or lost vacation time during

their wait, which are presented in Figures 3.4 to 3.15. For example, Figure 3.4

shows the wait time ratings for Male ‘Asian’, ‘Black or African American’,

‘Hispanic or Latino’, individuals of ‘Two or more races’ and ‘White’ customers

who did not stand outside the DLO and did not lose pay or vacation time. Though

in a later section of this technical memorandum, information is provided for

additional Races including ‘American Indian or Native Alaskan’ and ‘Native

Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander’, the number of respondents for these two

groups, when additional factors were applied to determine wait time ratings, were

such small percentages as not to be easily compared to the larger race and ethnicity

groups.

Figure 3.4 Male Wait Time Ratings - Did Not Stand Outside the DLO Building

and Did Not Lose Pay or Vacation Time while Waiting

Figure 3.5 Female Wait Time Rating - Did Not Stand Outside the DLO Building

and Did Not Lose Pay or Vacation Time while Waiting

Figure 3.6 Male Wait Time Ratings - Did Not Stand Outside the DLO Building

but Lost Pay while Waiting

Figure 3.7 Female Wait Time Ratings - Did Not Stand Outside the DLO Building

but Lost Pay while Waiting

Figure 3.8 Male Wait Time Ratings - Did Not Stand Outside the DLO Building

but Used Vacation Time while Waiting

Figure 3.9 Female Wait Time Ratings - Did Not Stand Outside the DLO Building

but Used Vacation Time while Waiting

Figure 3.10 Male Wait Time Ratings – Did Not Lose Pay or Vacation Time, but

Did Stand Outside the DLO Building while Waiting

Figure 3.11 Female Wait Time Ratings – Did Not Lose Pay or Vacation Time, but

Did Stand Outside the DLO Building while Waiting

Figure 3.12 Male Wait Time Ratings - Had to Stand Outside the DLO Building

and Lost Pay while Waiting

Figure 3.13 Female Wait Time Ratings - Had to Stand Outside the DLO Building

and Lost Pay while Waiting

Figure 3.14 Male Wait Time Ratings - Had to Stand Outside the DLO Building

and Used Vacation Time while Waiting

Figure 3.15 Female Wait Time Ratings - Had to Stand Outside the DLO Building

and Used Vacation Time while Waiting

Figures 3.4 to 3.15 clearly show that if a customer does not have to stand outside

the DLO building and does not lose pay or vacation time, there are higher

percentages of ‘Very Good’ and ‘Good’ wait time ratings and lower percentages of

‘Poor’ and ‘Very Poor’ wait time ratings. However, if a customer is losing pay

during the wait inside the DLO, their wait time ratings shift toward ‘Poor’ and

‘Very Poor’ ratings. This trend continues with greater percentages of ‘Poor’ and

‘Very Poor’ wait time ratings if a customer has to stand outside the DLO building

and either loses pay or is using vacation time.

Of the 21,122 individuals who had waited outside a DLO or mega center over the

years when they’d gotten a new or renewal driver license or ID card, 12,371

(58.9%) expressed concern that they did not know how long they would be waiting.

Figure 3.16 and Figure 3.17 show wait time ratings for these customers.

Figure 3.16 Male Wait Time Ratings – I had to stand outside the DLO building

and I didn’t know how long I’d be waiting

Figure 3.17 Female Wait Time Ratings – I had to stand outside the DLO Building,

and I didn’t know how long I’d be waiting

An analysis was performed on total transaction times for survey customers who

either did or did not have to stand outside the DLO or mega center, not controlling

for any other factors described in the previous sections. These analyses were

performed for the periods January–September 2019 and October 2019–February

2020 to determine if a difference in transaction time could be detected after the new

hires and salary increases occurred.

The analysis showed that the average transaction time for survey customers who

did not have to wait outside a DLO or mega center is approximately 1 hour 30

minutes for both time periods. The average transaction time for survey customers

who did have to stand outside a DLO or mega center was computed to be

approximately 2 hours 40 minutes for both time periods.

The NEMO-Q data analysis in Section 2.1 has exact wait, processing, and

transaction times reported in seconds, which are then converted to hours and

minutes for the analysis. The NEMO-Q data is available from 74 DLOs or mega

centers based on ticket pulls, and the analysis showed a 14.2-minute decrease in

average transaction times between the two periods. The average wait time inside

the DLO prior to the hiring and salary increases was 1 hour 23 minutes and 1 hour

8 minutes after the hiring and salary increases (14.8 minutes). The average

processing time increased slightly between these two periods, resulting in a lower

reduction in overall transaction time reduction compared to the wait time reduction.

The NEMO-Q transaction time calculations compare well with the customer

service transaction time that occurred within the DLO building. NEMO-Q data can

only report wait, processing, and transaction times for customers who were inside

the DLO or mega center, since wait time begins when a ticket is pulled, and it

cannot record the wait time spent outside the DLO or mega center building.

Survey customer responses for these periods did not show a change in transaction

times as did the NEMO-Q data. This is because the survey customer’s wait and

processing time categories were reported on 15-minute increments. The wait and

processing time for each customer were added to obtain transaction time, which

was also reported on a 15-minute increment. Thus, it is not possible to identify an

improvement in transaction time (NEMO-Q = 14.2 minutes) that is less than the

interval time increment (survey customers = 15 minutes). However, as will be

discussed later in this chapter, survey customer ‘Very Good’ and ‘Good’ wait time

ratings increased after the new hiring and salary increases were implemented.

3.1.2.2. Age

Though it was not known beforehand whether age might affect a person’s

experiences with and opinions on the Driver License Program, this might in fact be

the case. Thus, the age demographics of Texas were obtained and the ages of drivers

determined from the survey were collected for later comparison. Figure 3.18 and

Figure 3.19 show the age distribution of Texans by age category and survey

respondents, respectively. Note that the category ‘17 or younger’ in Figure 3.18

was calculated to include teenagers from 15 to 17 years old.

Figure 3.18 Distribution of Percentage of the Texas Population by Age Group

(TDC 2018a)

Figure 3.19 Distribution of Percentage of Survey Respondents by Age Group

During review of the first several thousand survey responses, it was evident that

very few responses were being received by customers who were 17 years old or

younger, or between 18 and 20 years old. To help increase the response rate for

these age groups, the study team began sending email requests to every high school

principal and most independent school district (ISD) superintendents in all 254

Texas counties. The email explained the purpose of the driver license and ID card

study and requested the principal or ISD superintendent to make the survey link

available to their driver age students. The study team sent emails to all school

officials in 55 counties and began receiving increased numbers of completed

surveys from young drivers from these counties. However, this process was ended

when COVID-19 sheltering resulted in all schools being closed for the remainder

of the study.

Further, the study team had determined to increase the number of surveys received

from customers of certain race or ethnicity who were under-represented based on

Texas population percentages. However, again, COVID-19 sheltering and the

closure of most if not all gatherings, clubs, college campus, and high school

campuses restricted the possibility of sending email invitations directly to various

clubs or groups. Additional information is given later in this chapter about the

numbers and percentages of survey responses based on race and ethnicity.

3.1.2.2.1. Cross-Tabulating and Filtering Results

As Appendix I shows, respondents were asked to provide ratings regarding DLD

wait time and the overall Driver License Program performance based on their

experiences. A Likert 5-point scale rating was applied, using these five rating

levels: ‘very good’, ‘good’, ‘fair’, ‘poor’, and ‘very poor’. For comparison

purposes, the Likert 5-point scale rating for wait time and the Driver License

Program performance ratings by age group are presented in Figure 3.20 to Figure

3.28 and Figure 3.29 to Figure 3.37, respectively.

Figure 3.20 Percentage of Survey Responses for Wait Time Ratings: Age Group

17 or Younger

Figure 3.21 Percentage of Survey Responses for Wait Time Ratings: Age Group

18–20

Figure 3.22 Percentage of Survey Responses for Wait Time Ratings: Age Group

21–29

Figure 3.23 Percentage of Survey Responses for Wait Time Ratings: Age Group

30–39

Figure 3.24 Percentage of Survey Responses for Wait Time Ratings: Age Group

40–49

Figure 3.25 Percentage of Survey Responses for Wait Time Ratings: Age Group

50–59

Figure 3.26 Percentage of Survey Responses for Wait Time Ratings: Age Group

60–69

Figure 3.27 Percentage of Survey Responses for Wait Time Ratings: Age Group

70–79

Figure 3.28 Percentage of Survey Responses for Wait Time Ratings: Age Group

80 or Older

Figure 3.29 Percentage of Survey Responses for Driver License Program

Performance Ratings: Age Group 17 or Younger

Figure 3.30 Percentage of Survey Responses for Driver License Program

Performance Ratings: Age Group 18–20

Figure 3.31 Percentage of Survey Responses for Driver License Program

Performance Ratings: Age Group 21–29

Figure 3.32 Percentage of Survey Responses for Driver License Program

Performance Ratings: Age Group 30–39

Figure 3.33 Percentage of Survey Responses for Driver License Program

Performance Ratings: Age Group 40–49

Figure 3.34 Percentage of Survey Responses for Driver License Program

Performance Ratings: Age Group 50–59

Figure 3.35 Percentage of Survey Responses for Driver License Program

Performance Ratings: Age Group 60–69

Figure 3.36 Percentage of Survey Responses for Driver License Program

Performance Ratings: Age Group 70–79

Figure 3.37 Percentage of Survey Responses for Driver License Program

Performance Ratings: Age Group 80 or Older

Figure 3.20 to Figure 3.37 show that there are differences in wait time and Driver

License Program performance ratings based on age group. The tendency is that

younger customers give a lower percentage of ‘Very Good’ and a higher percentage

of ‘Very Poor’ ratings than customers in older age groups. This same tendency

exists for overall Driver License Program performance ratings.

3.1.2.3. Location

The experiences of driver license or ID cardholders might be different from city to

city, county to county, or other regional boundary as a function of the number and

types of DLOs, size of the population (crowding at metro offices, but not at rural

locations), and other factors. Thus, each survey taker is asked to provide their

residence zip code, the county, and city where they last visited a DLO for services.

The study team prepared tables showing the population rankings of counties and

cities or towns in relation to the number of surveys received. A table (Table 3.1)

was created showing the 50 top-ranked Texas counties by population in relation to

the number of surveys received from each county. Of this list, 42 top-ranked

counties by survey number were included in the list with 8 of the top 10 largest

population counties also listed in the top 10 counties in terms of number of surveys

received. Based on this information, the top 50 counties comprised 85.8% of the

Texas population, and 87.2% of the total surveys.

A similar table (Table 3.2) was prepared for the top 50 Texas cities and towns

showing populations in relation to the number of surveys received from each city

and town. Of this list, 43 of the top-ranked cities and towns by population were

among the top cities and towns in terms of survey numbers. Seven of the top ten

largest population cities and towns were also listed in the top 10 cities or towns in

terms of number of surveys received. Based on this information, the top 50 cities

comprised 53.3% of the Texas population, and 60.0% of the total surveys.

The study team also evaluated survey representation of urban and rural areas of the

state based on counties. The study team evaluated Texas counties based on the U.S.

Census Bureau Table of Texas County ‘rurality’ designations, including ‘urban’,

‘mostly rural’ and ‘completely rural’ [Ratcliffe et al. 2016; Ratcliffe n.d.; U.S.

Census Bureau n.d.]. In addition, the study team obtained the Texas Association of

Counties dataset for county statistics, which includes land area, water area, total

area, percentage urban, and percentage rural (Texas Association of Counties, n.d.).

This information was comparable to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 Texas county

population distribution according to urban and rural portions of a county’s

population.

Based on these designations, there are 118 urban, 84 mostly rural, and 52

completely rural counties. The Census Bureau provides population estimates for

the rural and urban portions of each county’s total population. Based on this data,

the rural portions of all Texas county populations were calculated to be

approximately 15.3%; thus, the urban percentage of county populations is 84.7%.

Since the Census Bureau county designations (urban, mostly rural, and completely

rural) apply to the entire county, the rural and urban population calculations will

vary from the more detailed analysis mentioned previously. Based on the three

Census bureau designations, urban counties comprised 89.7% of the population and

91.2% of the surveys. Mostly rural and completely rural counties comprised 10.3%

of the population and 8.8% of the surveys. Thus, the study team determined that

the survey responses are generally representative of rural/urban populations in

Texas.

Table 3.1 List of the Top 50 Texas Counties by Population and the Number

of Surveys Received

Population

Rank

County Rank

Order by

Population

2010 Census

Population

County Rank Order -

Number of Surveys

County Rank Order -

Population

County Rank

Order by

Number of

Surveys

Number of

Surveys

1 Harris 4,602,523 1 1 Harris

6,149

2 Dallas 2,586,552 2 2 Dallas

3,990

3 Tarrant 2,019,977 3 3 Tarrant

3,058

4 Bexar 1,925,865 4 5 Travis

2,947

5 Travis 1,203,166 5 6 Collin

2,835

6 Collin 944,350 6 4 Bexar

2,297

7 Hidalgo 849,389 7 9 Denton

2,199

8 El Paso 837,654 8 12 Williamson

1,310

9 Denton 807,047 9 10 Fort Bend

1,274

10 Fort Bend 739,342 10 11 Montgomery

1,179

Montgomery

554,445 11 8 El Paso

915

12 Williamson 527,057 12 17 Galveston

744

13 Cameron 421,750 13 15 Brazoria

602

14 Nueces 360,486 14 16 Bell

536

15 Brazoria 353,999 15 24 Hays

470

16 Bell 342,236 16 31 Comal

448

17 Galveston 327,089 17 7 Hidalgo

433

18 Lubbock 301,454 18 14 Nueces

429

19 Webb 272,053 19 23 Brazos

412

20 Jefferson 255,210 20 18 Lubbock

399

21 McLennan 248,429 21 22 Smith

388

22 Smith 225,015 22 35 Grayson

367

23 Brazos 219,193 23 21 McLennan

338

24 Hays 204,150 24 27 Johnson

299

25 Ellis 168,838 25 25 Ellis

292

26 Midland 164,194 26 20 Jefferson

283

27 Johnson 163,475 27 41 Rockwall

268

28 Ector 158,342 28 32 Randall

264

29 Guadalupe 155,137 29 30 Taylor

246

30 Taylor 136,348 30 13 Cameron

244

31 Comal 135,097 31 34 Parker

230

32 Randall 132,475 32 58 Hood

216

33 Wichita 131,818 33 39 Tom Green

209

34 Parker 129,802 34 29 Guadalupe

207

35 Grayson 128,560 35 74 Kendall

207

36 Gregg 123,494 36 26 Midland

207

37 Potter 120,899 37 38 Kaufman

183

38 Kaufman 118,910 38 126 Deaf Smith

171

39 Tom Green 117,466 39 63 Kerr

160

40 Bowie 93,858 40 33 Wichita

157

41 Rockwall 93,642 41 28 Ector

148

42 Hunt 92,152 42 71 Polk

147

43 Victoria 91,970 43 43 Victoria

131

44 Angelina 87,607 44 46 Bastrop

126

45 Orange 84,047 45 36 Gregg

125

46 Bastrop 82,577 46 50 Walker

125

47 Liberty 81,862 47 54 Wise

123

48 Henderson 80,460 48 19 Webb

121

49 Coryell 75,389 49 72 Burnet

120

50 Walker 71,539 50 103 Aransas

118

Table 3.2 List of the Top 50 Texas Cities and Towns by Population and

Number of Surveys Received

Figure 3.38 and Figure 3.39 show the Driver License Program performance rating

for urban or rural customers who either did or did not have to stand outside the

DLO while waiting.

Figure 3.38 Driver License Program Performance Rating for Urban Customers

Who Either Did or Did Not Have to Stand Outside the DLO or Mega Center while

Waiting

Figure 3.39 Driver License Program Performance Rating for Rural Customers

Who Either Did or Did Not Have to Stand Outside the DLO or Mega Center while

Waiting

3.1.2.4. Race and Ethnicity

There was no specific prior knowledge about how race and ethnicity could affect a

person’s perception of the Driver License Program. The race and ethnicity

categories used in the survey were based on trial U.S. Census race and ethnicity

categories under consideration in late 2019. Table 3.3 shows the percentage of the

Texas state population by race and ethnicity, which is based on the U.S. Census

2010 projections, and the numbers and percentages of surveys received for

comparison purposes. The U.S. Census Bureau 2019 race and ethnicity percentage

projections were not used due to a caution statement that accompanied the data and

the fact that the sum of all percentages was greater than 100%.

Table 3.3 Race and Ethnicity by Texas Population Percentage Compared to

Number of Surveys Percentage

Figure 3.40 to Figure 3.47 show the relationships of the performance ratings given

to the Driver License Program based on whether individuals had to stand outside

the DLO or not. These figures are given for all responses and for the different race

and ethnicity categories that were provided in the survey. Though ‘Two or more

Races’ was not a specific choice, survey takers could select two or more race and

ethnicity categories according to their preferences.

Figure 3.40 Driver License Program Customer Performance Ratings Depending

on Whether the Customer Did or Did Not Have to Stand Outside while Waiting –

All Groups

Race and Ethnicity

% Texas Population

(U.S. Census Bureau

2010 census)

Number of Surveys

Received

% Total Surveys

American Indian or Alaska Native 0.3%

235

0.6%

Asian

4.9% 1,658

3.9%

Black or African American

11.9% 2,374

5.6%

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

0.1% 70

0.2%

White

41.4% 31,652

74.4%

Hispanic or Latino

39.6% 4,821

11.3%

Not Hispanic or Latino

189

0.4%

Two or more Races 1.7% 1,385 3.3%

Other 0.2% 0 0.0%

Blank

139

0.3%

Total Responses 100.00% 42,523 100.00%

Figure 3.41 Driver License Program Customer Performance Ratings Depending

on Race and Ethnicity – American Indian or Alaskan Native Customers

Figure 3.42 Driver License Program Customer Performance Ratings Depending

on Race and Ethnicity – Asian Customers

Figure 3.43 Driver License Program Customer Performance Ratings Depending

on Race and Ethnicity – Black or African American Customers

Figure 3.44 Driver License Program Customer Performance Ratings Depending

on Race and Ethnicity – Hispanic or Latino Customers

Figure 3.45 Driver License Program Customer Performance Ratings Depending

on Race and Ethnicity – Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Customers

Figure 3.46 Driver License Program Customer Performance Ratings Depending

on Race and Ethnicity – Chose ‘Two or More’ Race and Ethnicity Categories

Figure 3.47 Driver License Program Customer Performance Ratings Depending

on Race and Ethnicity – White Customers

As can be observed from Figure 3.40 to Figure 3.47, there are lower percentages of

‘Excellent’ performance ratings for Asian, Black or African American, and

customers who chose ‘two or more’ race and ethnicity categories compared to the

cumulative performance ratings for all customers. However, there are lower

percentages of ‘Poor’ or ‘Very Poor’ performance ratings for Asian and Black or

African American customers who stood outside. The study team found that lower

percentages of ‘Excellent’ and higher percentages of ‘Very Poor’ ratings were

given for all races if a customer stood outside waiting and lost pay. The total number

of customers who rated Driver License Program performance and the percentage

who stood outside a DLO and also lost pay while waiting were American Indian or

Alaskan Native: 84 (31.6%); Asian: 215 (13%); Black or African American: 428

(18.0%); Hispanic or Latino: 873 (18.1%); Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific

Islander 36 (51.4%); Two or More Races 277 (20%); and White, 3,268 (10.3%).

Additional analysis is needed to further examine factors that affect Driver License

Program performance ratings.

The study team had planned to conduct an outreach program to contact high school,

college, professional, and other community groups that include members from

these under-represented race and ethnicity groups. The team planned to conduct a

special email invitation campaign as had been done with high school principals and

ISD superintendents in 55 counties. However, just as the high school outreach

campaign was ended by COVID-19 sheltering, the team found it impossible to

conduct an outreach campaign due to closure of meetings, conferences, university

campuses, and other venues that would have provided opportunities. It is suggested

that a future study is conducted to obtain additional survey responses from these

groups.

3.1.2.5. Household Income Group

There was no specific prior knowledge about how household income could affect

a person’s perception of the Driver License Program. The study team developed

household income groups using an approximate $10,000 increment, as shown in

Table 3.4

Table 3.4 Annual Household Income Categories and Number of Survey

Respondents

The study team evaluated different household income data sources and elected to

compare the survey responses to the Texas State Senate district profile household

income data. Thus, a table of 31 salary distributions from the district profiles was

developed.

However, the income groups and increments are different for the district profiles

compared to the survey data household income categories; thus, the survey data

categories were grouped to approximate the same income groups in the district

profile household income data categories. A comparison of the two household

income groups with numbers of surveys or, in the case of the profile data, Texas

households including percentages, is presented in Table 3.5

Annual Household

income

Number of Survey

Respondents

less than $15,000 1,059

$15,000 - $25,000 1,455

$26,000 - $35,000 1,894

$36,000 - $45,000 1,454

$46,000 - $55,000 2,687

$56,000 - $65,000 2,676

$66,000 - $75,000 2,890

$76,000 - $85,000 1,541

$86,000 - $100,000 2,516

> $100,000 14,858

Total 33,030

Table 3.5 Household Income Data—Number of Surveys and Number of

Households*

* Household income data obtained from Senate District profiles [Texas Legislature Online 2020]

Figure 3.48 through Figure 3.57 show the wait time ratings for survey customers

according to the household income category in Table 3.4.

Figure 3.48 Wait Time Ratings for Customers with an Annual Household Income

of Less Than $15,000

Figure 3.49 Wait Time Ratings for Customers with an Annual Household Income

from $15,000 to $25,000

Household Income

Categories

Number of

households

Percentage of

Households

Less than $15,000

1,059 3.21% Less than $10,000 614,378 6.65%

$15,000 - $25,000

1,455 4.41% $10,000 - $24,999 1,291,311 13.97%

$26,000 - $45,000

3,348 10.14% $25,000 - $49,999 2,149,218 23.25%

$45,000 - $100,000

12,310 37.27% $50,000 - $99,999 2,760,681 29.86%

> $100,000

14,858 44.98% $100,000 - > $200,000 2,429,904 26.28%

Total surveys with

Household income data

33,030 100.00% Total Households 9,245,492 100.00%

Customer Surveys

Senate District Profiles

Figure 3.50 Wait Time Ratings for Customers with an Annual Household Income

from $26,000 to $35,000

Figure 3.51 Wait Time Ratings for customers with an Annual Household Income

from $36,000 to $45,000

Figure 3.52 Wait Time Ratings for Customers with an Annual Household Income

from $46,000 to $55,000

Figure 3.53 Wait Time Ratings for Customers with an Annual Household Income

from $56,000 to $65,000

Figure 3.54 Wait Time Ratings for Customers with an Annual Household income

from $66,000 to $75,000

Figure 3.55 Wait Time Ratings for Customers with an Annual Household Income

from $76,000 to $85,000

Figure 3.56 Wait Time Ratings for Customers with an Annual Household Income

from $86,000 to $100,000

Figure 3.57 Wait Time Ratings for Customers with an Annual Household Income

More Than $100,000

Small variations in wait time ratings appear in Figure 3.48 to Figure 3.53, which

collectively represent household incomes from less than $15,000 to $65,000.

Increased percentages of ‘Poor’ and ‘Very Poor’ ratings begin with Figure 3.54

representing a household income of $66,000 to $75,000 and continue with this trend

through Figure 3.57 for households with more than $100,000 annual income, which

shows the highest percentage of ‘Very Poor’ wait time ratings.

3.1.2.6. Level of Education

The Texas Demographic Center (TDC) provides information about the number of

individuals according to various education levels ranging from some high school to

graduate degree. However, there was no prior knowledge of how level of education

might affect opinions of the Driver License Program. Figure 3.58 shows the

percentages of the Texas population over 25 years old with different education

levels [TDC 2018b]. Figure 3.59 shows the level of education for customer survey

respondents.

Figure 3.58 Texas Level of Education for Persons Aged 25 or Older in 2015

(TDC 2018b)

Figure 3.59 Level of Education for Driver License Program Survey Respondents

of All Age Groups

Note that the TDC combines the percentages of Texans with ‘Some college’ and an

‘Associate, or 2-year College Degree’ in the same category and does not include

statistics for individuals with ‘Technical, Vocational or Trade School Training’. In

addition, the TDC evaluates these categories for individuals who are at least 25

years old, whereas the customer survey included individuals in age groups who can

legally hold a learner permit, driver license, or ID card. Thus, a direct comparison

is not possible though some observations can be made.

Figure 3.60 to Figure 3.66 show the wait time rating for customers of different

education levels.

Figure 3.60 Customers with up to High School Level, No Diploma – Wait Time

Rating

Figure 3.61 Customers with a High School Diploma or Equivalent – Wait Time

Rating

Figure 3.62 Customers with Technical, Vocational or Trade School Training –

Wait Time Rating

Figure 3.63 Customers with Some College but No Diploma – Wait Time Rating

Figure 3.64 Customers with a 2-Year College Degree – Wait Time Rating

Figure 3.65 Customers with a 4-Year College Degree – Wait Time Rating

Figure 3.66 Customers with a Graduate or Professional Degree – Wait Time

Rating

Figure 3.67 to Figure 3.73 show the Driver License Program performance rating

for customers of different education levels.

Figure 3.67 Driver License Program Performance Rating for Individuals with an

Education up to High School Level, No Diploma

Figure 3.68 Driver License Program Performance Rating for Individuals with an

Education High School Education or Equivalent

Figure 3.69 Driver License Program Performance Rating for Individuals with

Technical, Vocational or Trade School Training

Figure 3.70 Driver License Program Performance Rating for Individuals with

Some College but No Diploma

Figure 3.71 Driver License Program Performance Rating for Individuals with 2-

Year College (Associate) Degree

Figure 3.72 Driver License Program Performance Rating for Individuals with a

4-Year College Degree

Figure 3.73 Driver License Program Performance Rating for Individuals with a

Graduate or Professional* Degree

*Medical Doctor, Lawyer etc.

Figures 3.60 through 3.73 are consistent with other analyses shown in this section

regarding wait time rating and Driver License Program performance rating. Though

a customer may rate wait time ‘Poor’ or ‘Very Poor’, this is apparently not the only

factor that is used to evaluate overall Driver License Program performance rating.

Other factors are taken into consideration by the customer, such as the processing

time, DLO customer service (including the friendliness and knowledge of LPS

employees), and acknowledgement that DLO employees are often working under

difficult circumstances with a heavy work load, among other factors.

Figures 3.60 through 3.66 show that different education levels have a more

significant effect on ‘Poor’ or ‘Very Poor’ wait time ratings for higher levels of

education, especially four-year college and graduate or professional degrees.

However, overall performance rating of the Driver License Program for these same

education levels show a shift toward ‘Excellent’, ‘Very Good’, ‘Good’ and ‘Fair’

ratings. This finding suggests that although level of education is confounded with

household income level regarding wait time ratings, especially for higher education

levels, this does not appear to be the case for overall program performance ratings.

These survey demographics are consistent with the TDC finding (TDC 2018b) that

higher education levels are also associated with higher income levels.

In terms of impact on overall Driver License Program performance rating, failure

to manage customer expectations has a greater impact on performance rating than

the actual wait time—customers do not respond well when they do not know when

they will be served or how long the wait time will be. Thus, an appointment system

that a customer can use to choose a time that fits their schedule will be a very

effective tool. An appointment system will give customers control over when their

visit to the DLO will occur, and let them know exactly when they can be expected

to be served and how long they must wait before service.

3.1.3. Survey Analyses and Results

The following summary provides short descriptions of survey questions and the

insight or information that was obtained based on an analysis of the responses.

Q12 The last time you visited a driver license office, how long did you have

to wait until you were called to have your paperwork processed?

Figure 3.74 Histogram Showing Number of Survey Responses for Wait Times on

a 15-minute Interval

Referring to Figure 3.74, the first interval shown as ‘0’ is from 0 to 14 minutes with

3,993 responses. The second interval is from 15 to 29 minutes with 5,449 responses;

the third interval is from 30 to 44 minutes with 5,151 responses; the fourth interval

is from 45 to 59 minutes with 2,909 responses. The next interval is from 1 hour to

1 hour and 14 minutes with 4,537 responses. This time interval is of particular

interest since the responses form a near-perfect normal distribution, as shown in

Figure 3.75.

Figure 3.75 Wait Time Ratings for All Survey Respondents Who Reported a Wait

Time between 1 Hour and 1 Hour 14 Minutes

The first notable point about Figure 3.75 is that exactly the same wait time resulted

in nearly the same number of ‘Very Good’ responses as ‘Very Poor’ responses;

approximately as many ‘Good’ as ‘Poor’ responses, and the larger number of rating

responses reported as ‘Fair’. This particular time interval is not unique in this

regard. In fact, there were ‘Very Poor’ wait time ratings for wait times between 0

and 14 minutes (though few in number) and ‘Very Good’ wait time ratings for wait

times that exceeded 3 hours.

Figure 3.76 shows the cumulative distribution of wait time percentages according

to wait time intervals of 15 minutes. Thus, the ‘0’ on the x-axis represents a wait

time of 0 to 14 minutes and so forth. Approximately 41% of customers reported a

wait time of 45 minutes or less. Almost 52% (51.7%) reported a wait time of 1 hour

or less (corresponding to the normal distribution graph shown above).

Approximately 76.8% of customers reported a wait time of 2 hours 30 minutes or

less.

Figure 3.76 Cumulative Distribution of Wait Times – Percentage of Survey

Takers Who Experienced a Wait Time Equal to or Less Than the Intersecting

Percentage Shown on the ‘Y’ Axis

The cumulative distribution curve for processing times, not shown here, indicated

that approximately 70% of survey respondents were processed in 15 minutes or

less. The percentage of ‘Very Good’ and ‘Good’ ratings for processing time

constitutes 64.8% of all survey responses, while the percentage of ‘Very Good’ and

‘Good’ wait time ratings was 37.3%.

Survey responses for Driver License Program performance ratings are shown in

Figure 3.77.

Figure 3.77 Number of Survey Responses for Driver License Program

Performance Ratings

The performance rating of the Driver License Program is necessarily based on a

customer’s experiences and opinions of the DLOs they have visited. Thus, the DLO

management and operation, wait times, processing times, customer service,

employee friendliness and knowledge, whether a customer had to wait outside the

building, and other factors are all taken into consideration when arriving at program

performance. This was a prior assessment of the study team and was supported by

comments from survey takers, who indicated that their only experience of program

performance was related to their local experience. A few customer comments about

the service they received are provided below. In total, over 11,850 comments were

received from survey respondents. A few selected comments regarding program

performance are given below for each of the six performance rating choices from

‘Excellent’ to ‘Very Poor’.

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Excellent’

“The Driver License office in Longview is well organized. The staff is courteous,

knowledgeable, and professional in the performance of their duties. The agent working

with me was very thorough in the details of my transaction, and my transaction was

completed in a timely manner!!”

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Excellent’

“I live in 2 places Deer Park & Fredericksburg Tx. I went to the closest DPS mega center

and was told to come back and try the next day, I believe there was close to 300 people

already there. When i got back home to Fredericksburg, I went to the DPS center there and

was first in line and was out and finished in about 30 minutes. There were probably 4-5

people behind me. I'm sure this is due to small town vs larger city. I would go back there

again, great staff, helpful, personable and very knowledgeable!”

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Excellent’

“I live in a rural area and very much appreciate DPS keeping our small office open. We

are elderly and it is difficult to drive to one of the larger cities. I also appreciate that I

have, in the past, been able to renew online.”

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Excellent’

“I lost my TDL in an airport so I had to go the physical office to renew. I can't remember

how I picked the Rosenberg location but I did not understand in advance that there was

such a thing as a Mega center. When I saw the line I thought I would be there all day. But

no! I was in and out within an hour or so. I was super-impressed by how organized they

were and how they had obviously optimized the workflow. Somebody in leadership was

actually doing their job! Using DPS for voter roles and registration is a nasty bit of

partisan politics. If ever given a chance I will vote for automatic voter registration. I will

certainly ask for support of automatic registration from my state legislative

representatives.”

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Very Good’

“I like the idea of being able to request an appointment to arrive; I wish this was available

at more than just the mega centers. It was my first time visiting a mega center, I was pleased

with the amount of time the process took. I got concerned that my number got skipped

because the numbers started getting called out of order for some reason, but everything

worked itself out without having to speak to anyone.”

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Very Good’

I live in Houston where several DPS offices have been closed and the ones that are left are

overwhelmed all of the time. I went to Rockport/Aransas Pass because there is normally

no wait time. The day I was there, the national system that DPS checks for outstanding

warrants was down for several hours. I left and when I returned the system was back up

and the DPS employees were handling the small backlog with alacrity. Even having to go

twice, it was a much better experience than the overcrowded Houston sites, where the staff

has always been polite but is harried and visibly exhausted by end of day.

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Very Good’

“I live in Dallas. I visited a mega-center near my home in Garland. Line was wrapped

around building. Chuckled, drove off and headed 30 miles to Terrell location. Lickety split

easy. Took all of 15 minutes to for my new picture to be taken etcetera. I do not have to

renew license until birthday 2024. If a picture is needed, I will drive to a small town DPS

license renewal location. I requested a new license on-line a few weeks ago because I lost

mine. I now have my replacement DL. I didn’t lose the previous, I misplaced it. I found it

and have destroyed it.”

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Very Good’

“I logged into Get in Line Online early in the morning and was able to get a slot at a Mega

Center far (30-40 min drive) from my home. Previous days my attempts were unsuccessful,

so I took the appointment. Once I arrived and checked in at the kiosk my renewal was

processed in about one half hour. Probably would have been quicker, but I was unsure

which line to be in. A staff member asked me why I was there and I showed him my check-

in information. He immediately showed me to a line. Said I could have joined that line

when I arrived, but that was unclear to me. I appreciate his assistance.”

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Good’

“I had to renew in person the last time due to my age, I guess as the system would not let

me renew on line again. Several months prior to go for my renewal, I had cataract removed

from one eye. I tried to pass the vision but couldn't do so with one eye still needing the

cataract removed. I was given several chances to pass and almost could but not quite. They

gave me a 90 day extension and that gave me time to get the other eye done and then I

passed the vision test with flying colors. So, my first visit to the mega center in Rosenberg

was quick because I signed up on my phone and got a short wait time, then failed the vision

test and came back during the extension period and went straight in on a re-do and passed

the vision test and got my temporary license and shortly later received my new license in

the mail.”

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Good’

“I live in Irving, TX. We are a city of 250,000 people, but yet they closed our office and I

had to drive 15 miles to Carrollton, who has 2 offices and about 150,000 people. Lewisville

has 1 office that even has less people than Carrollton. There is NO reason why Irving,

which is the center of the Metroplex, does not have an office to go to. It's ludicrous we don't

have an office since we have more people than Carrollton who has two and Lewisville has

1 and they have even less people than Carrollton. We would like to have our own office.”

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Good’

“I made an appointment online at a Mega Center in Mesquite as I could get a time

convenient for me! I still waited nearly an hour. I brought the documents listed online and

had no problem getting everything approved. If people choose to stand in long lines outside

rather than make an appointment, which is their choice. I think more appointments should

be available and honored. If an appointment doesn’t show, then the clerk can help a

waiting customer with no appointment. Maybe schedule 50% of employees to handle

appointments and 50% to handle walk-ins! Also make PSAs about appointment availability

so more know about them and make it easier to renew online. I have had a TX license over

60 years!”

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Good’

“I misunderstood the document requirements that came in the mail, so when I was finally

able to hand in my paperwork (after waiting 3.5 hours), I was told I needed a birth

certificate. The employee and the person he was training explained the new gold star

system. I left and went home to get my birth certificate. When I returned, the DPS employee

saw me standing in line and got up from his station and had me come over to his desk and

proceeded to take care of the renewal process. I was very grateful for his kind attention

and professionalism. Therefore, my second visit to the DPS office that day was very brief

and I was very grateful.”

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Fair’

“I made the appointment to take my skills test online, but the earliest available test dates

were weeks in the future, which was inconvenient. Other than that, the process went

smoothly, though I will say that I had to take the written test twice and there were many

questions on the first version that I took which asked questions like how much the fine for

underage drinking was, how long the surcharge for having a DUI lasted, and other

questions about administrative issues that are not relevant to actual driving. I had studied

the entire driver's handbook, but never imagined that I needed to memorize the amounts of

fines and the lengths of time for various sanctions. It still strikes me as a less than

productive use of a prospective driver's time.”

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Fair’

“I had to make 3 attempts to get my license renewed - I tried multiple days to get checked

in online and there were never any spots. Then I tried to drive an hour outside of Dallas

bc (because) the media had said to go to smaller DPS offices bc (because) the Mega centers

were too crowded. But when I arrived there was a line out the door and it was raining and

they wouldn't let anyone inside bc (because) there waiting room was full. Then I tried again

at a smaller South Dallas office and I got lucky and it was not crowded and was able to

get it done in 1 hour. It was quite a process but once I did get to an uncrowded office my

experience was a positive one.”

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Fair’

“I have visited DPS locations many times in my life. The office I went to in Richardson has

since closed down. When I needed to get my address updated I had to go to a Mega Center

and experienced every bad experience in this list. I ended up mailing it in, which I had

never tried before, but was pleasantly surprised by the success. Because of all this I was 4

months late in getting my address changed.”

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Fair’

“I liked that driver license services are much improved. More space, personnel was always

a factor that DPS seemed to struggle with in the past. I struggled signing in at the self-

service kiosk, but was assisted by a young man who greets you as you enter the building.

Although services have improved considerably, I still feel that the waiting time can be

improved. The region I live in requires more services as the population is more Spanish

speaking and level of education is lower which mandates that staff spend more time

explaining and reviewing documents, etc.”

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Fair’

“I live in Lewisville, went to the DPS there. Unbelievable there was at least a five or more

hour wait. So I was told to go to Roanoke, it was about a 3 hour wait there. Had to go back

a second time, cause my naturalization papers was missing a code. Came from Minnesota

where the wait is maybe half an hour to an hour at the most. Was so surprised it took so

long here.”

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Poor’

“I had to bring my young children with me and was very annoyed about the policy of no

food or drink in the waiting area of the Mega Center on Galveston road in Houston.”

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Poor’

“I have been on 2 separate occasions to renew my license and to obtain my son's initial

permit to drive. Both times, I had to wait a long time. I thought I learned my lesson, when

I went to obtain my son's permit, we arrived an hour and a half before the mega center in

Fort Worth opened. We were 4th in line waiting outside to get into the building. Once the

doors opened and signed in at the kiosk, we still had to wait 45minutes to get the permit. It

was ridiculous. I'm not sure what the problem is with the time management at the DPS

offices. I noticed on both occasions, there were desks/computers open, but not enough staff.

Even with online check in, you have to wait extremely long time to be seen. Should not have

to wait more than an hour to renew a license, get a permit, etc. Ya'll need additional offices/

buildings and staff.”

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Poor’

“I live about 3 blocks from the driver's license location in my city. I had to drive 20 minutes

to another town in order to get my license renewed because the lines in my home city were

very long, every day of the week due to the closings of other locations in other towns. Our

location used to be quick and easily accessible but the secret got out and now everyone is

coming from towns all over the county to ours. New locations need to be opened and the

driver license should be handed to you within 15 minutes. I am a former resident of PA, 40

years ago they had a system that took your picture and printed your license within 10

minutes! Texas can do better and should!”

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Poor’

“I live about 40 miles one way from the nearest DPS Office. The first day I went I took my

hospital birth certificate and was told I had to have an original birth certificate. The second

day I went I was told that the birth certificate I took appeared to be an original but it did

not have a stamped seal on it. I was told I needed to go to the court house and pay $23.00

for a vital statistics birth certificate so I had to do that. The third day I went back and

weighed in line again this time things went well and the person that waited on me

apologized for the trouble I had but said it was because of new federal regulations. It took

me three days 240 miles and $23.00 plus the cost of the license so at the time I was not a

happy camper. The only thing on the certificate that I paid $23.00 for was me fathers name

and date of birth my mother’s name and date of birth my name and date of birth and the

county I was born in and that’s all what a rip-off. I have had a driver license for 57 years

and this time was harder that the first time. They need to tell you all this before telling you

that you need to come in. The only thing that makes me feel like it was worth it is maybe

illegals and the dead want be able to Vote. I have said my peace now I feel better.”

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Very Poor’

“I have teenagers so I have been through this process multiple times in the last few years.

IT IS RIDICULOUS and inexcusable how long the wait is and how overworked the

employees are. Every time though the staff has been AMAZING, especially given the

situation they are working in. They are severely under-staffed but have great attitudes and

do the best they can to make it go as quickly as possible. Something needs to be done. To

get my license "gold star" compliant I drove 60 minutes to Sherman and still waited 90

minutes but that was better than the 5 HOURS my daughter and I waited in line when she

had to get her license changed when she turned 18. There needs to be somewhere that you

can call to ask questions. That would avoid a lot of the problems. No one ever answers any

of the phone #'s I could find for them. Some of the offices have people that check your

paperwork at the door which is extremely helpful. The Garland, Carrollton, and Sherman

offices are all well organized and the staff tries to be very helpful and accommodating but

they are just in an impossible situation of being ridiculously under-staffed. They work long

hours but still have good attitudes. The waits are ridiculous though and something needs

to be done to fix it. Either pay them more so they can fill their empty staff positions or open

it up to private entities. I'm concerned about private entities doing a good job on verifying

the paperwork though. I'd rather the government just fix the existing system. I'm glad they

are doing this surgery. It's very much needed. Between learner's permit, getting their

license, changing it when they are 18, it is all very difficult to get all of that in after school,

even with the mega centers being open late. It is also a lot of times to have to go to the DPS

office in a few year period knowing that you are going to wait for hours and hours and

hours. Please fix this. The DPS employees are not at fault here. The system is the problem.”

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Very Poor’

“I have two teens that have recently started driving. In the last three years, I have visited

the DPS office 4 times. Each time the wait has been 4-5 hours long, and the mega centers

are under staffed. We left on two occasions and went back the next day because we had to

wait outside standing in the sun in July. No shade. They do honor the getting in line online.

We still had to wait for hours. The way the DPS is run is disgraceful. I have NOTHING

GOOD to say about my experiences there, except that the staff is polite...slow as molasses,

but polite.”

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Very Poor’

“I live 2 minutes away from the newest mega center in Carrollton but drove 15 minutes

away to go to a smaller facility, which had moved and was supposed to be faster. You

cannot make an online appointment for this new facility unless you do it at 7:00 am - I

wasn’t sure what my afternoon schedule was at that hour of the day! Checking for an

appointment at lunchtime doesn’t work! I drove over there and there was a line around the

building in the heat of the day! Very sad Texas!”

Driver License Program performance rating ‘Very Poor’

“I live in Fort Worth TX. None of the mega centers could book me on line for an in line

appointment. I went to the closest Ft Worth office that was not a mega center, and the line

was a block long outside, so I drove 40 miles to the small town of Weatherford TX and the

office there had a short line outside. There is something drastically wrong with the TX

system to renew one's driver's license when you are required to appear in person (I'm 79

and not allowed to renew on line anymore). For elderly people to have to wait in line for

over an hour is too stressful. Some consideration/special handling should be given to those

that are required to renew in person and are age 70 or older.”

Regarding comments made by these and other individuals, survey respondents were

asked the following questions, which further inform the rating given for Driver

License Program performance. Figure 3.78 provides ratings of the Texas Driver

License Program compared to programs in other states. Approximately 21,011

survey respondents have lived in other states and were able to compare the Texas

Driver License Program to these previous experiences.

Figure 3.78 Comparison of the Texas Driver License Program to Programs in

Other States based on Experience (21,011 responses)

Survey responses and comments indicated that Texans may need to make more than

one trip to a DLO to complete a transaction. The most frequent reasons mentioned

for a return trip were:

1) Over-crowding, particularly at mega centers;

2) The customer did not have all documents required to meet the REAL ID

compliance program requirements; and

3) Inability to ask a question prior to entering a DLO or mega center with a

line that stretched outside the building.

Based on responses to Q21 (see Appendix I), it was found that almost exactly 50%

of individuals who had to make more than one trip to complete their transaction

attributed the need for a repeat trip to a mistake they had made; the remaining 50%

attributed the repeat trip to a mistake DPS had made.

Approximately 1,000 survey respondents mentioned problems regarding their birth

certificate and that they had not realized that a birth certificate issued by a hospital

was not considered acceptable by “DPS”—actually, this requirement is set by the

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) REAL ID compliance program. During

the course of this survey, several phone calls were received by the study team from

individuals who had taken the survey and were born in a U.S. military base hospital

either in the U.S. or overseas. These individuals were often very frustrated that the

DLO did not accept their military hospital birth certificate as an acceptable

document proving their citizenship. The study team contacted DHS to learn if a

birth certificate from a U.S. military hospital was considered legitimate for REAL

100

ID documentation purposes. The following email excerpt summarizes the DHS

response.

------------------------------------- Begin email message -----------------------------------

Question regarding whether a birth certificate issues by a military hospital in the US or

overseas is valid for REAL ID requirements

REAL ID <[email protected]>

Thu 2/27/2020 10:30 AM

To: Murphy, Michael R

Thank you for contacting the Department of Homeland Security/REAL ID Program Office.

Birth certificates issued by hospitals (military or civilian) are not acceptable. It must be

issued by the state in which the birth occurred.

A Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) issued by the State Department is required for

births overseas.

Thank you,

REAL ID Program Office

Department of Homeland Security

-------------------------------- End of email message ------------------------------------

Regarding Questions 25 through 27, it was noted that 13.6% of the respondents

preferred going to a DLO or mega center in person even if there was a long wait

line. Approximately 12.1% preferred going to a DLO or mega center in person even

if there were other options (such as renewing online) and 15.5% preferred to

conduct business at a DLO or mega center in person because they believe it is more

secure that conducting business online. This suggests that 13% to 15% of the Driver

License Program customers will visit a DLO or mega center because they prefer

doing business in person and/or believe that doing business at the DLO or mega

center is more secure.

Following are additional statistics about the number of survey respondents who

replied to the options in Q21 through Q23.

Q21 I lose pay if I have to take off work to conduct business at a Driver

License Office.

7,629 responses representing 17.1% of the total responses

I must use vacation time to conduct business at a Driver License

Office.

8,675 responses representing 19.5% of the total responses

I was told I had to stand outside the DLO building with others even

through there were empty chairs in the waiting area.

3,023 responses representing 6.8% of total responses.

I was told I would have to wait outside the DLO building because all

of the waiting area chairs were full.

101

8,640 responses representing 19.4% of total responses

Q23 The DPS employee at the front desk checked my documents for

accuracy and completeness.

24,923 responses, representing 56% of total responses

No one at the Driver’s License Office answers the telephone when I

call.

5,377 responses, representing 12.1% of total responses

Driver License staff stopped serving before closing time though

customers were still waiting.

1,902 responses, representing 4.3% of total responses

I was not permitted to bring food or drink into the DPS-office waiting

area.

5,499 responses, representing 12.3% of total responses

I was at a DPS Mega Center

11,509 responses, representing 25.8% of responses

I used a sign-in kiosk after I arrived.

21,000 responses, representing 47.1% of total responses

The sign-in kiosk was not working when I arrived.

1,155 responses, representing 2.6% of responses

A DPS employee told me that my birth certificate was not valid and

that I was not a resident.

679 responses, representing 1.5%

During meetings with Driver License Division executive leadership, the study team

learned that the seating capacity of a DLO office is determined by subtracting the

number of DLD employees who work in the office from the maximum building

occupancy as determined by Fire Marshals. DLD employees work to ensure that

the maximum building occupancy is not exceeded and monitor the number of

available waiting room seats to determine when additional customers can be

admitted to the building. Some DLO offices or mega centers have capacities that

exceed 100 to 300 people. Thus, DLD employees must manage the number of

customers inside the DLO by taking head counts and considering that some

individuals may have taken a rest room break, leaving empty chairs. This could

appear to a customer waiting outside the DLO that there are empty waiting room

chairs, though more customers are not be admitted to the building.

Regarding responses to Q23, the study team discussed responses to these questions

with DLD executive and mid-level management staff. In addition, the responses to

these questions were in some cases further informed by customer comments. It was

102

learned that DPS staff might close the DLO or mega center doors before closing

time if the number of customers waiting inside the building would require an

estimated total service time beyond closing time. In fact, during focus group

discussions with DLO staff, the study team learned that staff may need to work as

late at 7:00 p.m. to service all customers who were waiting inside the DLO even if

the doors were closed before normal closing time.

DLD executive staff also indicated that food or drink is not permitted in waiting

areas due to the difficulty in retaining reliable janitorial staff contracts for many

DLOs and mega centers. DLOs do not have the staff needed to keep the waiting

area clean if spills or other debris are left in chairs or on the floor; thus, the ‘no food

or drink’ policy is observed.

A small percentage of customers (1.5%) indicated that a DLO employee had told

them their birth certificate was not valid (discussed previously) and that they were

not a resident. It should be emphasized that there is a distinct difference between

the customer being told they are not a resident (or have not provided sufficient

documentation to prove residency) and being told they are not a citizen. Residency

documentation includes recent utility bills, lease agreements, rental agreements,

and other related documents with the customer name listed; a new resident to Texas

might not yet have such documents, according to customer comments. Some

customers commented that they needed a Texas ID card to be able to sign a lease

contract, but needed the lease contract to obtain an ID card. During focus group

discussions with DLO staff, staff indicated that customers who do not present the

proper documents to establish residency are not sent away without guidance. The

DLO staff suggest other types of documentation customers can obtain to help

provide the proper documentation.

Issues regarding the DPS call center were discussed during breakout sessions with

DPS Central Office call center employees and during a combined breakout session

with DPS and DMV call center staff. DPS receives over 20,000 calls per day, which

overwhelms the call center staff. An automated call answering system has been

implemented, but call volume still results in longer than expected wait times. The

DPS call center operation is recognized as an area needing attention by DPS and

DLD executive leadership. Leadership also recognizes that correcting this issue

will require significant resources.

Based on responses to Q35, the study team learned that approximately 8,061 survey

respondents or approximately 18.1% had brought a friend or family member with

them so that they had someone to talk to during their wait or other reasons.

Discussions with DLD regional managers further informed the study team that it

was not uncommon for a customer to bring from one to five individuals with them,

including family members or friends. Often, these individuals were not at the DLO

to obtain a driver license or ID card, but were providing companionship, or were

103

there to celebrate that a teenager was obtaining their learners permit or due to

necessity. Comments from survey respondents also pointed out that they had

noticed individuals taking up waiting room seats who were not there to conduct

business, though there were customers waiting outside the building. If

approximately 18% of customers bring at least one, and possibly more, family

members or friends who are not at the DLO for business purposes, this suggests

that the waiting room capacity would need to be increased to accommodate

companions of customers.

It is not feasible that DLO employees can tell a customer that they may not bring

family or friends into the waiting area unless they plan to conduct business. Further,

during telephone discussions with survey respondents, the study team learned that

in cases, the companion has a medical problem and must be attended to by the

customer during the DLO visit. During one discussion, a survey respondent was

asked by a study team member:

“If you were told that your spouse could not come into the DLO waiting room with

you unless she is also conducting business, what would you do?”

His response was:

“I would have to turn around and leave, because my wife has a medical condition

and cannot be left alone.”

Attempting to sort out individuals who are entering the waiting room area as

companions, family, or friends of customers, but who are not themselves customers,

would add complexity and potential negative public reactions. Thus, as stated a

significant percentage of waiting room seating capacity is likely taken by

individuals who are not waiting to conduct Driver License Program business. This

factor may need to be considered when designing future DLO waiting rooms.

Additional questions and responses were provided that help in evaluating the Driver

License Program performance:

Q34 I chose the DLO I visited without reading online reviews or talking to

family or friends.

19,516 responses representing 43.8% of the total responses

I read Google, Yelp or Facebook or other online reviews before

choosing the DLO I went to. + After reading online reviews, I drove to

a DPS Driver License Office in another town instead of the closest

Office.

5,615 responses + 4,097 responses = 9,712 responses or 21.8% of the total

responses

104

My Experience was better than the reviews I read.

6,046 responses representing 62.3% of applicable (9,712) responses.

My Experience was worse than the reviews I read.

3,764 responses representing 37.7% of applicable (9,712) responses

I talked to family or friends before choosing the DLO I went to.

10,305 responses representing 23.1% of total responses

My Experience was better than my family or friends advice.

4,719 responses representing 45.8% of total responses.

My Experience was worse than my family or friends advice.

4,170 responses representing 40.5% of the total responses

I wrote a positive online review comment after completing my

transaction

819 responses representing (6,046 + 4,719 = 10,765 positive experiences)

= 7.6 % of total positive referred experiences

I wrote a negative online review comment after completing my

transactions

717 responses representing (3,764 + 4,170 = 7,934 negative experiences) =

9.0% of total negative referred experiences

Thus, of individuals who took the time to seek advice about the DLO they planned

to visit, approximately 16.6% had an experience that motivated the person to

provide an online review comment after the transaction, with a slightly greater

number of negative online comments provided.

The following questions relate to use of the online renewal process. Note that the

experiences survey respondents reported having while using a smartphone or PC to

use the online renewal process does not necessarily apply to their last Driver

License Program transaction. These responses are included to obtain a sense of how

many survey respondents have accessed and used the online renewal process over

their program experience, which might be several years.

Q22 I was able to find the online renewal web page on the DPS website with

no problem

12,619 responses representing 28.3% of the total responses

Q29 I have used the DPS Driver License online website to renew my license

using a Smart phone.

9,025 total online uses with a Smart Phone (2,988+1,104+4,933)

105

Yes, I was able to renew

2,988 responses = 33.0% of total Smart Phone use responses successful

I tried but the website was too difficult to use (with a Smart Phone)

1,104 responses = 12.2% of Smart Phone use responses unsuccessful

I tried but the website said I wasn’t eligible to renew

4,933 responses = 54.6%

Q30 I used the DPS Driver License online website to renew my license using

a desktop, laptop or tablet PC

25,538 responses (18,574+555+6,409)

Yes, I was able to renew

18,574 responses = 72.7% of responses

I tried but the website was too difficult to use (with a desktop, laptop or

tablet PC)

555 responses = 2.1% of total PC use responses

I tried but the website said I wasn’t eligible to renew

6,409 responses = 25.09% of responses

Additional information about using the DPS website to obtain information is

summarized in the following sections.

Q22 It is difficult to find information on the DPS Driver License Program

website

4,149 responses or 9.3% of total responses

It is difficult to understand information provided on the DPS Driver

License Program website

4,148 responses or 9.3% of total responses

The DPS website is well designed and easy to use

6,482 responses or 14.6% of total survey responses

When I tried to Google the DPS website, there were other privately

owned websites that popped up first which I thought were the DPS

website.

4,646 responses or 10.4% of total responses

I tried to “Get in line online” but no appointments were available

8,731 or 19.6% of total responses

106

I tried to “Get in line online” but the appointment time I was given

didn’t fit my schedule.

1,944 responses or 4.3% of total responses

Reviewing this information, about 14.6% of respondents think the DPS website is

well designed and easy to use; however, smaller percentages indicated the website

was difficult to find (9.3%), difficult to understand (9.3%), or that other, privately

owned sites appeared first when an online search was performed (10.4%), which

were misleading. It is apparent that only a low percentage of survey respondents

find the DPS website easy to use or navigate; further evaluation of the website

design and information arrangement is warranted.

An analysis was performed of the three cohorts of data that were obtained for the

time periods discussed in a previous section of this analysis. The funding increase

and new hires were first implemented in September 2019. Thus, the datasets were

maintained in separate Excel workbooks in order to analyze customer responses

during the period of January–December 2018, January 2019–September 2019, and

October 2019–February 2020.

Figure 3.79 shows that survey respondent ratings of wait times for these three time

periods.

Figure 3.79 Comparison of Wait Time Ratings for the Three Time Periods for

This Study including Prior to and After the New Hiring and Salary Increases

Authorized in September 2019

It is apparent from the graph that the percentage of ‘Very Good’ customer wait time

ratings increased and the percentage of ‘Very Poor’ customer wait time ratings

decreased after October 2019. This is taken as an indication that the additional LPSs

hired starting in September had a positive impact on customer wait times and

customer service at DLOs and mega centers.

107

A concern raised by the legislature regarding Driver License Program operations

and performance is the fact that crowding at urban DLOs and mega centers has

resulted in customers standing outside the building. In some cases, long wait times

outside the DLO have occurred during hot, cold, or rainy weather, which resulted

in customer complaints to DPS and legislators. The following statistics provide a

summary of the experiences of customers who reported having to wait outside a

DLO or mega center. It is important to note that the survey taker was not asked if

they had to wait outside the building during their last visit. Rather, they were asked

if they had ever had to wait outside a DLO building, including during all previous

visits. Thus, these experiences might have taken place over a period of years, and

multiple visits.

Q33 Please check all of the following choices that are true about your wait

in line outside the DLO.

21,115 responses for one or more of the following experiences while

waiting

The weather was hot

10,284 responses or 48.7%

The weather was cold

4,564 responses or 21.7%

It was raining

3,193 responses or 15.1%

I needed to use the restroom, but I was afraid I’d lose my place in line.

5,741 responses or 27.2%

I got thirsty.

5,491 responses or 26.0%

I got tired.

8,203 responses or 38.8%

I did not know how long I’d be waiting outside the building

12,365 responses or 58.6%

I had a question about my paperwork and documents, but could not

ask a question until I got inside the building.

6,311 responses or 29.9%

Figure 3.80 to Figure 3.82 show the Driver License Performance rating percentages

for customers who did or did not have to stand outside the DLO or mega center.

These graphs show the same information for the three periods discussed in a

108

previous section. These include the periods of January–December 2018, January–

September 2019, and October 2019–February 2020.

Figure 3.80 Driver License Program Performance Ratings for Customers Who

Did or Did Not Have to Stand Outside – January to December 2018

Figure 3.81 Driver License Program Performance Ratings for Customers Who

Did or Did Not Have to Stand Outside – January to September 2019

109

Figure 3.82 Driver License Program Performance Ratings for Customers Who

Did or Did Not Have to Stand Outside – October 2019 to February 2020

Figure 3.80 to Figure 3.82 clearly show the impact of a customer having to wait

outside a DLO or mega center on the Driver License performance rating. There are

perceptible reductions in ‘Excellent’, ‘Very Good’ and ‘Good’ Performance ratings

for customers who had to stand outside a DLO, when comparing the graphs from

2018 and January through September 2019. It is apparent that prior to the new

hiring and salary increases for LPSs, which helped reduce turnover rates and

increase the number of employees serving customers, performance ratings were

continuing to decrease.

Further, comparing the ‘Poor’ and ‘Very Poor’ performance ratings for customers

who had to stand outside a DLO or mega center for these two graphs, higher

percentages of these lowest ratings increased in early 2019. Thus, the increase in

funding provided by the legislature, and used by DLD to hire new employees and

increase wages, did help stabilize and in fact improve customer perception of

program performance over this time period.

When comparing the time periods represented by the graphs, it is apparent that a

higher percentage of ‘Excellent’ performance ratings were given for the period

October 2019–February 2020, which would be after the new FTE hiring would have

been underway and additional LPSs located at DLOs and mega centers. There also

a small but perceptible increase in ‘Excellent’ performance ratings even for

customers who had to stand outside during the October–February timeframe.

3.1.4. Survey Conclusions

A survey was conducted of Driver License Program customers to obtain their

experiences and opinions of the program. A total of 44,544 completed surveys were

received from 248 counties. The survey is representative of the urban and rural

110

populations of Texas, though the age distribution of respondents is not

representative of the Texas population. In any case, thousands of survey responses

were received for each age group category, except for the less-than-18-years-old

category for individuals with learner permits, and the 18–20-year-old category for

customers with a learner permit or who have just received their first driver license.

Following are some key observations:

• Customers who experience exactly the same wait time interval might rate

the wait time anywhere from ‘Very Good’ to ‘Very Poor’. This is true for

wait time intervals as short as 0 to 14 minutes up to wait time intervals of 3

hours to 3 hours 15 minutes; customer wait time ratings varied from ‘Very

Good’ to ‘Very Poor’ though the distribution of numbers of responses

shifted from a right skewed (higher numbers of ‘Very Good’ ratings) to left

skewed (higher numbers of ‘Very Poor’ ratings) as wait times increased.

• Though the current performance measure baseline for transaction time is 45

minutes total (wait time + processing time), survey responses indicated that

a wait time interval of 1 hour to 1 hour 15 minutes produced a near normal

distribution of wait time ratings. There were approximately as many ‘Very

Good’ as ‘Very Poor’ ratings and ‘Good’ as ‘Poor’ ratings; the greatest

number of wait time rating responses was ‘Fair’. Thus, further consideration

might be given to the actual feasible performance of the Driver License

Program based on the number of offices, employees, and other resources.

• Driver License Program ratings are significantly affected depending on

whether the customers had to stand outside the DLO.

• Wait time, though important, is not the only factor a customer considers

when determining their rating of overall Driver License Program

performance. Other factors, such as customer service (including friendly

and knowledgeable employees) and an indication of about how long they

will have to wait, are more important in determining the overall

Performance Rating.

• Over 11,800 customer comments were received and provided a wealth of

information on specific aspects of their experiences, which helped identify

issues of concern or appreciation.

 Many comments complimented DLD staff on the help and support

provided though working under difficult conditions.

 Some comments were not as positive toward DLD staff—though the vast

majority of survey responses indicated that DLD staff are friendly and

knowledgeable.

111

 Frustration was expressed with the complex documentation and numbers

of documents required to prove citizenship and verify residency

associated with the federal REAL ID Compliance Act. However, many

customers wrongly fault DLD for these requirements and complain that

DPS is not accepting birth certificates and other documents that the

customer thinks are valid.

 The call center was identified as an area of frustration. Customers could

not directly call their local DLO, but were instead linked to a call center

in Austin. Customers complained that their calls were not answered or

they were placed in an endless automated loop.

 Some customers think mega centers perform extremely well and think

more mega centers should be built. However, other customers avoid

mega centers and would prefer more, smaller offices in suburban areas

of their city or in local towns. Many customers indicated that they

traveled to another town or city to conduct driver license business due to

the large crowds at mega centers.

 Overall, median wait time ratings were ‘Poor’, processing time ratings

were ‘Good’ and over Driver License Program performance was ‘Fair’.

These are median ratings in which 50% of ratings are above and 50% are

below the median rating. However, in a Likert scale rating system, it is

not possible to calculate a rating that lies in between one of the five or

six rating categories provided. Thus, a median rating that lies above

‘Fair’ and just below ‘Good’ is still considered ‘Fair’; there is not a rating

between ‘Fair’ and ‘Good’.

 Based on improvements shown for wait times and program performance

after October 2019, it is apparent that the additional funds authorized by

the legislature to hire 700 FTEs in LPS positions and increase salaries

had a definite, positive effect on customer ratings.

The next section documents other improvements that DLD has made to IT

equipment and installation of a new appointment system that are anticipated to

further improve customer service. However, due to COVID-19 sheltering and the

September 1, 2020, deadline for submission of this study’s final report to the

legislature, there is not sufficient time to provide analysis of data or findings for

these upgrades.

3.2. DLD Customer Service Enhancements

According to information presented in the previous sections, the primary DLD

customer service issues have included failure to achieve wait time performance

measures as well as wait lines that extend outside DLO offices or mega centers,

112

exposing customers to the elements. In addition, the Sunset Advisory Commission

Report indicated that DPS had failed to implement new technologies to address

customer service.

During the 86th Legislative Session a $212.4 million appropriation was made to

DLD to support hiring 700 additional LPS employees and to increase LPS pay,

thereby helping reduce employee turnover rates and funding other improvements.

The DLD has taken several actions to improve driver license customer service, as

outlined in Table 3.6.

In addition, during a recent interview with DPS executive leadership and a follow-

up teleconference with DLD senior management, the study team learned that DLD

had implemented an email management system in September 2019. Enterprise Chat

Email (ECE – CISCO Systems) is an email management system that is used to route

incoming DLD customer emails to individuals in the call center for response. The

long-term plan is to further implement ECE to route customer emails to DLO and

mega center employees by fall 2020. The idea is that LPS employees cannot

effectively answer phone calls due to office customers who require immediate

attention—thus interrupting a call. However, since an email can be worked on, put

aside if a customer appears, then resumed when time is available, an LPS can work

on answering emails, thus increasing customer communications and email response

rate. In addition, when answering an email, the DLD employee can take time to

research the question and talk with subject matter experts as necessary to provide

the most accurate response. This may be difficult to do during a phone conversation.

Thus, it is anticipated that the number of emails that receive successful responses

will increase in the future.

113

Table 3.6 Actions Taken by DLD to Improve Customer Service

Action Action Type Intended Goal Scope of Action Implementation Status / Results

Hire 670 new Driver License & Permit

Specialists

Personnel & Staffing

Reduced wait time and control

formation of wait lines

Most new hires at large

DLOs or megacenters

Approximately 320 new employees hired, Hiring

still underway due to COVID-19 impacts

Increase DLPS salaries across the

board

Personnel & Staffing

Reduce DLPS turnover rates - increase

staffing stability. Attract new

employees

Reduce turnover at large

DLOs or megacenters

Impact to turnover rates unknown at present

due to COVID-19 sheltering and impacts to work

schedules

Install customer appointment kiosk

system

New IT Technology

Equalize customer volumes and reduce

peaks, reduce wait times and control

formation of wait lines

Kiosks and appointment

ability at all 230 DLOs

Kiosks installed at all DLOs

Upgrade DLPS workstation PCs from

Windows 7 to Windows 10

New IT Technology

Reduce workstation PC downtime due

to outdated Windows operating

system. Improve system reliability

New Windows software

upgrades at all 230 DLOs

New Windows software upgrades underway -

planned completion August, 2020

Install 1,600 new PC Workstations for

DLPS use

New IT Technology

Improve workstation available power

for multiple programs and pieces of

equipment. Reduce system failures

that result in increased customer wait

times.

New workstation PCs at all

230 DLOs

New workstation pc installations underway -

planned completion August, 2020

Install new Biometric Data systems at

each Workstation including signature

pads, thumb print pads and DL photo

camera and support systems

New IT Technology

Implement new IT technologies that

improve data and image capture and

data transfer rates

New Biometric Data

systems at all 230 DLOs

New Biometric equipment and data systems

underway, planned completion August, 2020

114

Based on an analysis of NEMO-Q queuing system data from 73 large DLOs or

mega centers (Section 2.1), the study team found that after the hiring of new LPS

employees began, the average transaction times in these locations had reduced by

over 14 minutes. Figure 3.79 from the customer experience and opinion survey

(Section 3.1.4) shows that customer “Very Good” wait time rating percentages

increased after the new hiring began. The graph also shows that the percentage of

“Very Poor” wait time ratings percentages increased from January–December 2018

to January–September 2019, but decreased from October 2019 to February 2020.

It is also important to note that DLD customers may rate the exact same wait time

quite differently. Figure 3.75 in Section 3.1.4 indicates that for a wait time from 1

hour to 1 hour 15 minutes, as many customers rated this wait time “Very Good” as

rated it “Very Poor”, or “Good” or “Poor”. The largest number of customers rated

this same wait time “Fair”. The study team found that customers gave ratings from

“Very Good” to “Very Poor” for exactly the same processing time or the same wait

time over a wide range of values. However, as can be expected, higher percentages

of customers gave short processing and wait times higher percentages of “Very

Good” or “Good” ratings while longer processing and wait times were given higher

percentages of “Poor” or “Very Poor” ratings.

Please refer to Appendix I, Chapter 1, and Chapter 2 for additional detailed

information about the customer experience and opinion survey, customer focus

group meetings, and breakout sessions.

3.3. CTAC Survey on Three DLD Location Options

In order to make an informed recommendation on whether to keep DLD at DPS,

move it to DMV, or create a stand-alone agency, the study team sought the input of

CTACs as stakeholders.

CTACs play a crucial role alongside DMV in the provision of VTR services.

Additionally, due to SB 1756 (84th Legislature), county tax offices now have the

option to issue renewal and duplicate driver licenses, election identification

certificates, and personal identification certificates. County offices offering driver

license and personal identification certificate services may collect an additional fee

per transaction of up to $5. Currently, 11 CTACs provide driver license services.

In order to obtain CTACs’ perspectives on SB 616’s provisions, the study team

developed a short survey to:

• Gather input from CTACs on the three scenarios the study was to assess

(whether DLD should stay at DPS, move to DMV, or become a stand-alone

agency).

115

• Identify the benefits, opportunities, challenges, and costs associated with

expanding or reducing the role of CTACs inside the driver license program.

• Establish contact with CTACs to provide input on the project.

The survey was distributed, with the assistance of an EWG CTAC member, to 31

CTACs, which resulted in 22 responses. Given the survey’s small sample size, these

responses cannot be considered representative of all CTACs’ opinions across the

state. Rather, these responses represent some of the concerns and questions

pertaining to the involvement of county tax offices with driver license services.

These responses were utilized as part of the criteria analysis that the study team

applied in Tasks 6, 7, and 9. This criteria analysis was then used to look at the

benefits, opportunities, challenges, and costs of the three options in order to develop

the recommendation for the final report. This CTAC survey is provided in

Appendix J.

Overall, the main findings from this survey include:

• CTACs should retain the voluntary option to service driver license

transactions regardless which of the three options is selected by the

legislature.

• CTACs think that counties should be consulted regarding the three options

under consideration during the decision process.

• Seventeen of twenty-two CTACs recommended keeping the Driver License

Program at DPS, with changes to improve the program in place, or to make

DLD a stand-alone agency. One CTAC recommended moving DLD to

DMV and four CTACs offered no opinion.

As to where DLD should be located, CTACs shared the following observations.

The comments below are summarized and combined for clarity:

• DLD can likely function as a stand-alone agency.

• We should first see whether recent funding and staff improvements at DLD

yield better results. Creating another agency is adding bureaucracy at the

expense of the taxpayer.

• The primary focus for improving driver license services should be to

increase staffing at existing DPS offices.

• Many county tax offices currently do not have the space or staff to offer

driver license services.

116

• It might be easier for county tax offices that do not collect property taxes

and/or handle voter registration to offer driver license services.

• County tax offices should not receive an unfunded mandate to offer driver

license services.

• DMV is not at a point where it can manage another important service like

DLD. Attempting to do so might decrease DMV’s support for VTR

services. DMV should focus its resources on improving VTR services.

On the potential future roles of CTACs and DMV if DLD moves to DMV, CTACs

shared the following observations. The comments below are summarized and

combined for clarity:

• If DLD moves to DMV, CTACs should continue to have the option to offer

driver license services, rather than be mandated to do so. Any legislation

should say “may”, not “shall”.

• County tax offices that offer driver license services can be a convenient one-

stop shop for Texans, but smaller county tax offices might struggle more

with funding and equipment issues.

• If DLD moves to DMV, driver license services should be offered in a

separate location than the county tax office. If county tax offices must offer

driver license services, limit these services to only residents of that

particular county.

• More thought should be given to whether the $5 convenience fee to counties

is enough to cover necessary facility upgrades and staffing increases.

• Would county tax offices be supplied with separate workstations to offer

driver license services? How would employees be trained to handle these

new services?

• Small counties might want to only offer driver license services for a few

days per week.

• Some counties do not have a DLD office. It would be helpful for elderly

residents, in particular, if counties that do not have a DLD office offered

driver license services.

3.4. CTAC Survey on VTR Transactions

The objective of this survey was to:

• Understand the county offices’ role in conducting VTR transactions

117

• Obtain the number of VTR transactions (in-person, mail, and online

transactions) conducted by county office employees

• Obtain the number of customer phone calls regarding VTR transactions

answered by county office employees

• Estimate the average wait time and processing time for VTR transactions in

a county office

Similar to the survey in Section 3.3, this survey was also distributed, with the

assistance of an EWG CTAC member, to all 254 CTACs. A total of 81 responses

were received. Thus, the results of this survey, though of interest, do not represent

a statistically valid sample. The CTAC Survey on VTR Transactions is provided in

Appendix K.

Observations from these surveys are summarized below:

• In addition to millions of VTR transactions, CTAC office employees

answer millions of phone calls from VTR customers annually. Based on the

81 CTACs responses (representing 173 county tax offices), these offices

responded to an estimated 2.7 million VTR-related phone calls annually.

• Respondents indicated that CTAC offices do not provide sufficient space to

expand in order to offer driver license transactions (31% of respondents)

and/or have inadequate staff (31% of respondents) and/or do not think the

$5 transaction fee is sufficient (14.8% of respondents). Approximately 40%

of respondents indicated that to their knowledge their county has never

discussed performing driver license transactions based on SB 1756.

• Sixteen of the eighty-one CTACs (19.8%) reported receiving complaints

from VTR customers directly or through county officials about long wait

times, long wait lines, and other issues similar to DLD customer complaints.

The frequency of complaints ranged from ‘Rarely – perhaps once every six

months’, to ‘More than 3 times per day’.

• Long wait times for VTR transactions at CTAC offices are primarily

seasonal and related to:

 New car sales season, which also results in used car sales and VTR

transactions;

 County tax season, may result in longer wait times or lines for VTR

customers.

In summary, under DMV, CTACs manage millions of VTR transactions annually,

which are performed by county employees. The VTR Program is comparable in

118

size and complexity to the Driver License Program, though it is conducted through

514 county tax offices with 3,000 employees and DMV regional offices with an

additional 146 employees focused on heavy truck VTR transactions. CTACs who

the study team interviewed or surveyed suggested that they are stakeholders in the

decision about the three options under consideration and would appreciate the

opportunity to provide input to the decision.

3.5. Chapter Conclusion

This chapter presents three surveys the study team conducted with DLD customers

and CTACs. The objectives of the surveys are introduced and the findings are

summarized. In addition, this chapter outlines the ongoing efforts DLD made to

improve customer services. These findings inform study analyses and help assess

the three options.

119

Chapter 4. Conclusion and Key Findings

This technical memorandum documents the fact-finding process to gather

information to inform the analysis and assess the three options. Chapter 1 presents

the customer focus group meeting, breakout sessions, and interviews conducted by

the study team; Chapter 2 provides various database and dataset analyses, including

NEMO-Q database, DLD HVD, and DMV/county VTR transactions; Chapter 3

discusses the findings from the surveys with customers and CTACs as well as the

ongoing DLD customer service enhancements; the conclusion and key findings are

summarized in this chapter.

The study team has made tremendous efforts in organizing customer focus group

meetings, holding breakout sessions, conducting interviews, and analyzing various

databases and surveys.

While detailed findings are provided in each chapter, following are some notable

findings presented in this technical memorandum:

• Certain areas within DLD operations need to be improved, such as the

website design, long wait times and long wait lines, and the call center

response rate.

• NEMO-Q data analyses show that after the additional new FTE hires and

salary increases in September 2019, both wait time and transaction time

decreased by over 14 minutes on average.

• Results from the customer survey indicate that the additional new FTE hire

and salary increases had a definite, positive effect on both overall

performance and wait time ratings for the Driver License Program.

• DLD made several ongoing efforts during this study to improve customer

service. These include implementation of the Applus appointment system

in 236 DLOs and mega centers; installation of 1,600 new PC workstations

with Windows 10 software upgrade; and the installation of a new biometric

data capture system for obtaining customer photographs, thumbprints, and

signatures electronically.

• Regardless of where DLD ultimately resides, certain mission-critical

practices and enhancement should be implemented to meet the needs of the

growing Texas population.

120

References

Bradburn, N., Rips, L., Shevell, S. (1987) “Answering Autobiographical

Questions: The Impact of Memory and Inference on Surveys”; Science, April

10, 1987, volume 236, page 157 (5); Available at the following website June

29, 2020;

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f5ca/0550e8baba3644da46212af9103156f4ee

55.pdf

Krosnick, J., Presser, S., Fealing, K., Ruggles, S. (2015) “The Future of Survey

Research: Challenges and Opportunities - A Report to the National Science

Foundation Based on Two Conferences Held on October 3-4 and November

8-9, 2012”, Report Presented By The National Science Foundation Advisory

Committee for the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Subcommittee

on Advancing SBE Survey Research; Available at the following website June

29, 2020:

https://www.nsf.gov/sbe/AC_Materials/The_Future_of_Survey_Research.pdf

Ratcliffe, M., Burd C., Holder, K., Fields, A. (2016) ‘Defining Rural at the U.S.

Census Bureau – American Community Survey and Geographic Brief’; Issued

December 2016, ASCGEO-1; U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Economic and Statistics Administration. Available at the

following website 6-29-2020:

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/acs/acs

geo-1.pdf

Ratcliffe, M. ‘A Century of Delineating a Changing Landscape: The Census

Bureau’s Urban and Rural Classifications, 1910 to 2010’ (n.d.) U.S. Census

Bureau Geography Division, [email protected]; Available at

the following website 6-29-2020

https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/ua/Century_of_Defining_Urban.

pdf

Texas Association of Counties (n.d.) ‘County Data Sources – Ethnicity and Race’;

available at the following website 6-29-2020.

https://imis.county.org/iMIS/CountyInformationProgram/QueriesCIP.aspx?Q

ueryMenuSelectedKeyctl01_TemplateBody_WebPartManager1_gwpciNewQ

ueryMenuCommon_ciNewQueryMenuCommon=01024814-3279-4a72-ae86-

91c667f8d2af

Texas Demographic Center (TDC) (2018a) ‘Texas Population Estimates Program

– Population by County’ Data sets available at the following website 6-29-

2020;

https://demographics.texas.gov/Data/TPEPP/Estimates/

121

Texas Demographic Center (TDC) (2018b) ‘Texas Demographics and Higher

Education’ Texas Association of State Senior College and University

Business Officers, San Antonio, Texas, October 23, 2017, Texas

Demographic Center. Available online June 29, 2020;

https://demographics.texas.gov/Resources/Presentations/OSD/2017/2017_10_

23_TexasAssociationofStateSeniorCollegeandUniversity.pdf

Texas Legislature Online – Senate Members (2020) Senate District Profile Data

downloaded from each Senator’s website; Available from the following

website June 29, 2020;

https://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Members/Members.aspx?Chamber=S

U.S. Census Bureau County Rural Lookup (n.d.) 2010 Census; Available at the

following website June 29, 2020

https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/reference/ua/County_Rural_Lookup.xlsx

Wagenaar, W. (1986) ‘My Memory: An Autobiographical Study of

Autobiographical Memory over 6 years”; Institute for Perception TNO,

Soesterberg, The Netherlands, Cognitive Psychology, 18 225-252, 1986;

available at the following website June 29, 2020

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0010028586900137?via

%3Dihub

122

Appendix A. Focus Group Participant Demographics with Anonymity

Table A.1 lists the demographics of the focus groups with anonymity.

Table A.1 Focus Group Participant Demographics with Anonymous

Name

Visited

DLD

Type of Visit

Gender

Education

Service

Level of

Satisfaction

Key Comments

Recruited

From

Speaker 1

Within the

last 9

months

In-person visit

Female

Some college

or associate

degree

Driver

license

services

Dissatisfied

The wait time and how many people there were

that needed services was a lot

Nextdoor

Speaker 2

Within the

last 3

months

In-person visit

Female

Some college

or associate

degree

Driver

license

services

Neither

satisfied nor

dissatisfied

Too many requirements just to renew my license.

Had to wait hours then be told to come back and

wait hours again.

Facebook

Post

Speaker 3

Within the

last 3

months

In-person visit.

Website

Female

Some college

or associate

degree

Driver

license

services

Neither

satisfied nor

dissatisfied

The wait time was very long despite a previous

appointment. Employees seem unhappy.

Texas

Today

Speaker 4

Within the

last 6

months

In-person visit.

Website

Female

Graduate

degree

Driver

license

services

Dissatisfied

While the workers were nice, the system was

discouraging and way too long. I came prepared

with all my paperwork, but it took over three

hours for me to be served. I found the display

especially frustrating. There was no explanation

of what the letters in front of the numbers meant

and why some would advance when one's own

did not. That’s a frustrating and debilitating

process. I tried to schedule an appointment

online and that didn’t work. It was my

impression that the DLD is trying to make

progress, but the new system did not work for

me. Also, I should not have to go the direct

opposite end of town to get to a service center

that is purported to move more efficiently.

Nextdoor

Speaker 5

Within the

last 6

months

In-person visit

Male

4-year college

or bachelor’s

degree

Driver

license

services

Neither

satisfied nor

dissatisfied

Wait time and efficiency needs to be improved

Flyer

Speaker 6

Within the

last 3

months

Over the phone.

In-person visit.

Website

Male

Graduate

degree

Driver

license

services

Satisfied

The people here are nice and really helpful

but the time to wait take some time

Texas

Today

Speaker 7

Within the

last 3

months

In-person visit

Female

Graduate

degree

Driver

license

services

Very

dissatisfied

DL worker was condescending. He did not want

me to ask questions. There were things I did not

understand and the result was not to my

satisfaction.

Facebook

Post

123

Name

Visited

DLD

Type of Visit

Gender

Education

Service

Level of

Satisfaction

Key Comments

Recruited

From

Speaker 8

Within the

last 6

months

In-person visit

Male

4-year college

or bachelor’s

degree

Driver

license

services

Satisfied

Staff were courteous BUT very long waits.

Holding numbers that suggest that waiting is the

normal.

Facebook

Post

Speaker 9

Within the

last 9

months

In-person visit

Female

Graduate

degree

Texas

ID card

services

Satisfied

The wait was extremely long. I made two visits

in the past year. In November, I was there with

my son to get a Texas ID card. In May, I was

there with my other son to get his driver's permit.

I was not aware that I would need additional

proof of my residency to do this. The website

should more clearly state what is needed.

Facebook

Post

Sperker 10

Within the

last 3

months

In-person visit

Male

Some college

or associate

degree

Driver

license

services

Dissatisfied

The DPS in my hometown, which I went to over

the break, does not fulfill people's needs in a

timely manner. I'm dissatisfied with the amount

of time that everyone has to spend at the DPS.

Texas

Today

Speaker 11

Within the

last 6

months

In-person visit

Male

Graduate

degree

Driver

license

services

Dissatisfied

Hectic environment. Announcements that are

hard to understand. Not very friendly customer

service with a real indifference to customer

needs.

Facebook

Post

Speaker 12

Within the

last 3

months

In-person visit

Female

4-year college

or bachelor’s

degree

Driver

license

services

Very satisfied

Even though I didn't have an appointment the

day I went, I was in and out of the Pflugerville

Mega Center in less than an hour, which is much

quicker than I was warned it would be.

Flyer

Speaker 13

Within the

last 3

months

In-person visit

Male

Some college

or associate

degree

Driver

license

services

Very

dissatisfied

What use to be a one day deal has turned into a

multi-month-long ordeal. If I did not need my

driver license I would not have gone back. The

only good part is I only have to do this every

four years

Facebook

Post

124

Appendix B. Satisfaction Group Exercise

Sheet

Figure B.1 and Figure B.2 provide the satisfaction group exercise sheets used in the

customer focus group meeting.

Figure B.1 Screenshot of Satisfaction Group Exercise Sheet 1

125

Figure B.2 Screenshot of Satisfaction Group Exercise Sheet 2

126

Appendix C. Focus Group Discussion Guide

Appendix C presents the detailed focus group guide, which was used to conduct the

focus group meetings.

Time to Complete Rating Sheet (2 minutes)

Before we get the conversation started, here is a rating sheet to get you think about,

how satisfied, you were with different aspects of your recent experience with the

Driver License Division. Please take a few minutes to fill this sheet out.

Review Screener (2 minutes)

Good evening everyone. Thank you for participating in this statewide study

commissioned by the Texas State Legislature to improve the experiences of Texans

who use Driver License Division services, like you.

Before we begin, we want to make sure that everyone who is participating in this

focus group meets the following criteria. You are at least 18 years old. You are

fluent in English. You have interacted with the Texas Driver License Division

within the last nine months. If any of these statements are not true for you, please

let me know now. (Allow screening errors to leave the focus group).

Review Confidentiality (3 minutes)

During these focus groups, we will discuss your recent experiences with the Driver

License Division to better understand how we can improve their services. At this

time, I want to remind you that your participation in this focus group is voluntary

and that you may stop participating in the focus group, at any time, without penalty.

At the end of the session, we will provide each participant with $40 to “thank you”

for your time and help with this important study. Please turn off and refrain from

using your cell phones during this discussion, unless there is something important

you need to stay abreast of, e.g., an emergency situation or someone who is

dependent on you.

I want to let you know that this conversation is being audio-recorded, so that we

can transcribe and analyze the discussion content at a later time. Your identities

will not be affiliated with your responses. We expect minimal risk to you for

participating in this study. However, we ask that all participants keep these

discussions confidential, meaning that whatever we discuss during this focus group

is not discussed outside of this focus group. We have a few researchers viewing this

discussion. (You can wave at them if you want). Researchers in this study will keep

your identities confidential in order to protect your privacy. If you would like to

use a name different from the one on your name card, we have blank cards here.

127

Introduction to Focus Group Guidelines (3 minutes)

My name is Kara Takasaki, and I am here to help facilitate the discussion. We want

to understand the full range of experiences that people have had with the Driver

License Division. To that end, we ask that everyone participate and also if you have

been participating a lot, to allow others the opportunity to speak. We expect that

people will have different experiences and opinions and we want to remind you that

there are no “right” or “wrong” answers in this focus group. Whenever possible,

please avoid discussing the general population and instead, describe the individual

experiences that you, have had with the Driver License Division. We have prepared

a set of questions to help guide the discussion. I will step in to help you remember

guidelines as needed and to keep us on track for the 90-minute session.

Introduction of Focus Group Participants (3 minutes)

Before we get started, let’s go around the table and introduce ourselves. Tell us

what name you’d like to use for this focus group, your favorite product in a grocery

store, very briefly what you do, and what location you went to for your driver

license services.

Activity of Ranking Items by Satisfaction (15 minutes)

Now that we’re all on the same page, we’re going to do an activity on the wall:

ranking these items from least satisfied at the top to most satisfied at the bottom.

We can also add new items to the wall if we think of other important items of

satisfaction.

Other Outcome Probes:

• Overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction with service items (severity of

dissatisfaction)

• Examples to qualify poor, satisfactory, good experiences

• How likely would you be to refer a friend to this location, recommend which

service? Why?

• What are examples of excellent service that you’ve received at other

businesses?

Discussion of Satisfaction with Rating Items

Website (5 minutes)

If you can think back to your most recent experience with the Driver License

Division. Please raise your hand if you used the Driver License Division website in

relation to your last visit to the Driver License Division (count aloud for audio

recording).

128

a. For those of you who did use the website, how did that go for you? (what

was the website like, how was your experience with it, why did you use the

website, how did you find it, was it easy to find, was it easy to use, did you

like using it, did you not like using it, were you surprised by any part of the

website, why)

b. For those of you who didn’t use the website, why didn’t you use the

website?

Phone Service (5 minutes)

Thank you for your responses. Now if you can think back to your most recent

experience with the Driver License Division. Please raise your hand if you called

in by phone to the Driver License Division in relation to your last visit to the Driver

License Division (count aloud for audio recording). (5 minutes)

a. For those of you who did call in, how did that go for you? (what were you

calling about, what was the conversation like, how was your experience

with the phone call, why did you use the phone to contact the division, how

did you find the number, was it easy to find, was it easy to get the

information you needed, did you have any problems getting the information

you needed, were you surprised by any part of the experience, why)

b. For those of you who didn’t call in to the division, why didn’t you call

in?

Preparation for Visit (5 minutes)

Thank you for your responses. How did you know where to go for the kind of

service that you needed from the Driver License Division?

a. How did you find out the information?

b. What was the service that you needed?

c. How did you know what documents you needed for the visit?

Location Choice (6 minutes)

Thank you for your responses. How did you decide which Driver License Division

location to go to?

a. Did you read any reviews online or talk to anyone else for suggestions of

where to go?

b. Had you previously visited the location before?

c. Did the business hours matter to you?

d. Was it easy to get to the location?

e. How did you get there?

129

f. How long did it take?

g. Did you go with other people?

Outside Facility Description (5 minutes)

Thank you for your responses. Now we’ll talk about the qualities of the locations

themselves. What was the location that you went to?

a. What were the business hours?

b. If you drove there, how was the parking?

c. If you waited outside of the building, what was the waiting area like?

Inside Facility Description (8 minutes)

When you entered the building, how did you figure out what you needed to do first?

a. Did anyone greet you at the door?

b. How many of you had to wait before you received the services you

needed? (Count aloud for the audio recording).

i. How long did you wait?

ii. Did you bring or do anything specific to prepare for a long wait

at the facility?

iii. Is there anything you would bring or do in the future to prepare

for a wait?

iv. Could you describe the system that was used to track where you

were in line?

v. For those of you who waited for services, what was the waiting

area like? (Describe)

c. How many of you used the bathroom or the water fountains while you

were there? (Count aloud for the audio recording).

i. what were those facilities like?

d. When you were assigned to a service station, how did you know where

to go?

i. Did you have any difficulty finding the station?

Employee Interactions (5 minutes)

When you were at the service station, how was your experience receiving services

from the Driver License Division employee?

a. how long did it take?

130

b. What was the conversation like?

c. Was it easy to get what you needed?

d. Were there any problems receiving the services you needed?

Driver License Testing (3 minutes)

Please raise your hand if you took a driver’s licensing exam at the Driver License

Division office (count aloud for audio recording).

a. For those of you who did take a test there, how did that go for you?

(where were you tested, how was the testing area where you took the exam,

did you have to wait a long time in order to take the exam, did the staff

know how to help you)

Texas ID Card Services (3 minutes)

Please raise your hand if you went to the Driver License Division for ID card

services (count aloud for audio recording).

a. How did that go for you?

After Effects (if any 2 minutes)

What did you do after visiting the driver license division?

a. Were there any effects for the rest of your day after visiting the driver

license division?

Break and Importance Rating Sheet (5 minutes)

We’ve completed the first portion of the focus group discussing your satisfaction,

with different aspects of your Driver License Division experience. Before we move

into the second part of the focus group, here is a rating sheet to get your thinking

about how important, these different aspects are to you in regard to future visits to

a Driver License Division facility. I’m going to step out for a moment. Please take

5 minutes to fill this sheet out.

(Step out to discuss with observers).

Activity of Ranking Items by Importance on Wall (15 minutes)

Based on our previous discussion and activity with satisfaction. Let’s look at our

rating sheets and talk about how important each aspect of service is to you. Now

the left side of the wall is the least important and the right side of the wall is the

most important.

In the top right corner, we have narrowed down the aspects of the Driver License

Division that have been the least satisfying to you and are also the most important

131

to your decisions about the Driver License Division that you will visit the next time

that you need their services.

Given 100 credits that represent funds you can use toward improving Driver

License Division services, how would you allocate these credits toward improving

the items in the top right corner?

Discussion of the Importance of Performance Analysis (10 minutes)

Suggestions for DLD Service Improvement (5 minutes)

1. Now that we’ve heard about your experiences with the Driver License Division,

is there anything that we didn’t ask you about that is important to you about your

experience with the Driver License Division?

a. Do you have any ideas about how the Driver License Division could improve

its services for customers like you?

- Open discussion: add items to ranking of importance on wall

- Safety, officers, people waiting inside outside, using phone

- Translator, seniors, sex offenders

2. What do you think about online renewals for your driver license?

a. did you know about it?

b. did you have problems with it?

c. would you prefer/not prefer online renewals to the current system? Why?

Review Three DLD Location Options (7 minutes)

Thank you for your ideas. One question that the Texas State Legislature wanted to

explore would be moving the Driver License Division to a different state

department. Currently, the Driver License Division is housed in the Department of

Public Safety. The options that the legislature is considering include keeping the

Driver License Division in the Department of Public Safety, moving the Driver

License Division to the Department of Motor Vehicles, or having the Driver

License Division become a stand-alone agency.

Given that all of these options have their costs and benefits, what do you think the

Texas State Legislature should do, and why do you think that?

What would be the benefits of moving the Driver License Division to DMV?

Do you foresee any problems from moving the Driver License Division to DMV?

Is it more important to improve current services or to move the division to a

different state agency?

Concluding Comments (last 5 minutes)

That concludes the questions that we have prepared for this evening’s focus group.

Is there anything that we haven’t asked about in regard to your recent experiences

132

with the Driver License Division that you think we should have asked you about or

that we should ask other people about in the future?

Thank you for your time and help in this focus group. This information will go on

to inform the decisions of the Texas State Legislature towards improving the

experiences of Texas citizens when they interact with the Driver License Division.

Please be patient while I pass out your “thank you” compensation to everyone and

have a safe drive home.

133

Appendix D. List of Attendees and Questions

for the Breakout Session on DLD

Management, Operations, and Performance

Measures

Date and time: Thursday, May 7, 2020. 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Method: WebEx

Moderator (2):

Michael Murphy CTR Deputy Director

Sherri Greenberg Professor of LBJ School of Public Affairs – UT/CTR

Attendees (12):

Amanda Arriaga DPS Chief of Staff

Sheri Gipson DPS DLD Chief

Mimzie Dennis DPS DLD Deputy Chief

Bridget Barksdale DPS Study POC

Whitney Brewster DMV Director

Shelly Mellott DMV Deputy Director

Jeremiah Kuntz DMV Director of Vehicle Titles and Registration

Tim Thompson DMV Deputy Director of Vehicle Titles and Registration

Division

Ginny Booton DMV Director of Consumer Relations Division

Darren Hazlett CTR Research Fellow

Lisa Loftus-Otway CTR Attorney and Research Scientist

Zhe Han CTR Research Associate

Questions that were discussed during the breakout session:

Question 1: Unconstrained by current performance measures, how should we think

about performance when evaluating the Driver License Program?

Question 2: How should we think about performance when evaluating customer

service provided by a state agency?

Question 3: What are the most important factors to measure when evaluating

Driver License Program performance?

Question 4: What factors, if any, constrain improving Driver License Program

customer service?

134

Question 5: If the Driver License Division remains in DPS what are the

opportunities and challenges for management and operations?

Question 6: If the Driver License Division merges with DMV what are the

opportunities and challenges for management and operations?

Question 7: If the Driver License Division becomes a stand-alone agency what are

the opportunities and challenges for management and operations?

135

Appendix E. List of Attendees and Questions

for the Breakout Session on REAL ID

Compliance and Security

Date and time: Friday, May 8, 2020. 8:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.

Method: WebEx

Moderator (1):

Carolina Baumanis Research Engineering/Scientist Associate – UT/CTR

Attendees (9):

Bridget Barksdale Study Manager, Study POC – DLD

Eugene Coyne Project Manager – DLD

Rebekah Hibbs Senior Manager – DLD

Frances Gomez Senior Manager – DLD

Lisa Daughtry Senior Manager – DLD

Michael R. Murphy Deputy Director of CTR

Randy B. Machemehl Senior Professor – UT/CTR

Meredith Brown Graduate Research Assistant – UT/CTR

Michelle Surka Graduate Research Assistant – UT/CTR

Questions that were discussed during the breakout session:

Question 1. REAL ID Act Sections 202(c) mandates certain minimum standards

that States must adopt when issuing REAL ID-compliant cards. Has the State of

Texas adopted any standards above and beyond the minimum federal required

standards? Are there any standards left up to the Texas’ discretion? If so, what are

some examples of those standards?

Question 2. How is the knowledge of the REAL ID compliance requirements

confirmed at all levels of DLD management? Do you have any thoughts on the way

State and Homeland Security compliance requirements are communicated within

the DLD?

Question 3. How are REAL ID compliance requirements communicated down the

chain of command to the frontlines of DPS employees interacting with the

customers? Some customers may be frustrated about requirements that they believe

are DPS-DLD requirements. For example, persons who have held a driver license

for 40 or more years as a Texas resident have asked why DPS is requiring them to

prove they live in Texas—they’ve had a Texas driver license for 40 or 50 years!

Thus, people quite often do not understand why this additional proof of lawful

residency is being required now.

136

Question 4. How many databases are used to confirm an individual’s identity?

Does Texas use EVVE, NAPHSIS, or other national databases besides SAVE? Has

Texas established secure procedures for using third party databases? How would a

transfer of duties affect things? Is DLD concerned about any ransomware attack on

outdated servers like that suffered by 20 local governments in August 2019? Has

DPS taken steps to defend against this? Does the DLD feel confident in the multiple

levels of security features used to prevent and detect license/ID card fraud? Are

there any concerns about the photographic verification process currently?

Question 5. According to Homeland Security, “Electronic pre-submission of

source documents can help streamline the REAL ID application process by: 1)

ensuring that an applicant has the correct information and, 2) allowing a state to

electronically retain that information prior to the applicant’s in-person visit. This

can have a direct impact on reducing overall applicant wait times and improving

customer satisfaction.” What are the advantages and disadvantages to having a law

enforcement agency implement electronic pre-submission of source documents?

Do you have any other ideas or input on technologies that could assist states and

their residents in the digital submission, receipt, and authentication of documents

and information applicants must provide when applying for a REAL ID compliant

driver license or identification card?

Question 6. Survey results show that the most common reason for a transaction

taking a customer more than one trip is not having the proper documentation.

Results are split 50/50 in terms of being “my fault” and “DPS’s fault”. People have

also stated that they verified their documents using DPS’s online checklist and were

told they did not have the proper documentation in person. What are best practices

for ensuring that Texans arrive to DLOs with proper documentation to compete

their transaction?

Question 7. Homeland Security highlights, “Following a natural disaster, for

reasons beyond a person's control, documents necessary to establish identity and

lawful status may no longer be readily available or obtainable. In such cases, states

may need to rely on alternate documents to establish a person’s identity or U.S.

citizenship.” Does DLD allow alternate documents to establish identity or U.S.

citizenship when applying for a REAL ID? If so, how does DLD decide what types

of alternate documents are allowed? Does DLD have systems already in place to

confirm the validity of these alternate documents? For example, law enforcement

officers have pointed out that individuals can obtain a valid birth certificate by mail

using falsified documents.

Question 8. In some cases, a US citizen may not have a “valid” birth certificate.

Examples of this type of situation are:

• Individuals born on a US military installation

137

• Individuals born overseas

• Individuals with a birth certificate that only states ‘Smith – boy’ or ‘Jones

– girl’ and does not have their actual name on the certificate.

In these cases, the DLO employees will help the person think of other ways to

validate their U.S. citizenship other types of documents.

What are best practices to ensure US citizens without a valid birth certificate are

aware that they will need to bring alternate proof of citizenship to a DLO?

Does DPS publish these alternate forms of acceptable proof of citizenship?

Questions 9. Customers have also noted “loopholes” and/or inconsistencies in the

requirements for proving their identification to obtain a REAL ID. Are

inconsistencies in acceptable proof of citizenship between DPS and Homeland

Security a concern? How are inconsistencies addressed?

For example:

Survey takers have pointed out that proving citizenship for a US passport is

much easier than for a REAL ID in Texas. For example, a person can use an

expired US passport to renew a US passport, but an expired US passport does

not meet the Texas REAL ID criteria listed online.

A survey taker commented that a hospital issued birth certificate was not

considered acceptable and went to the county office to obtain a copy of his ‘real’

birth certificate—the only ID he needed to show was his ‘non-REAL ID’ driver

license.

Question 10. Some people with a standing arrest warrant may try to obtain a driver

license in person, putting DLO workers in a difficult position. Employees may stall

to get a DPS trooper or local police—but delays can tip off the person, who may

run out of the office when they get suspicious. What are ways that encounters with

people that have a standing arrest warrant be addressed more effectively?

Question 11. Several LPS employees have expressed concerns about their physical

security due to abusive customers. Special concerns have been expressed by some

employees about having to walk to their car in a joint-use parking lot with

customers. This is due to potential concerns about abuse; especially if work hours

extend past sundown. How can employee’s security be addressed more effectively?

Question 12. What are the advantages to DLD remaining in a law enforcement

agency? Would these advantages be possible outside of an enforcement agency?

138

Question 13. What are the disadvantages to DLD remaining in a law enforcement

agency? Would these disadvantages be possible outside of an enforcement agency?

Question 14. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the DLD becoming a

stand-alone state agency?

Question 15. The COVID-19 sheltering rules likely have resulted in Texans driving

with expired driver licenses or holding expired ID Cards. Should Texans and

resident or non-resident aliens with expired cards receive priority at DLOs when

offices are reopened? Why or why not? How would you suggest implementing

priority for persons with expired licenses?

139

Appendix F. List of Attendees and Questions

for the Breakout Session on Customer

Service

Session 1:

Date and time: Wednesday, May 13, 2020. 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Method: WebEx

Moderator (1):

Kara Takasaki Graduate Research Assistant - UT/CTR

Attendees (19):

Bridget Barksdale Study Manager, Study POC - DLD

David Barber Regional Manager El Paso - DLD

Lori Carlsson Regional Manager - DLD

Lisa Daughtry Senior Manager Department of Public Spaces - DLD

Amelia Flores Regional Manager - DLD

Frances Gomez Senior Manager - DLD

Tomas Valdez Regional Manager for Lubbock - DLD

Sarah Balderas Regional Manager in the Waco RSC - DMV

Fetina Green Regional Manager in the Dallas RSC - DMV

Deborah Hujar Contact Center Consumer Relations Division - DMV

Charlotte Kirk Manager Houston Regional Office - DMV

Belinda Martin San Antonio Regional Service Center VTR - DMV

Amber Wilson Manager of the Fort Worth Service Center - DMV

Michael Murphy CTR Deputy Director

Matt Kammer-Kerwick Senior Research Scientist - UT/CTR

Lisa Loftus-Otway Attorney and Research Scientist - CTR

Zhe Han Research Associate - CTR

Call-in User 1

Call-in User 2

Questions that were discussed during the breakout session:

Question 1. What are the advantages and disadvantages for customer service

outcomes, if the Driver License Division remains in the Department of Public

Safety?

Question 2. What are the advantages and disadvantages for customer service

outcomes, if the Driver License Division is moved to the Department of Motor

vehicles?

140

Question 3. What are the current customer service issues that your organization

faces?

Question 4. What “best practices” has your organization used to improve customer

service?

Question 5. What made past interventions to improve customer service successful

or not successful?

Question 6. How the public is made aware when your organization makes

improvements to its customer service?

Question 7. What customer service training does your organization provide its

customer-facing employees?

Question 8. How does customer service training vary between different office sites

within your organization?

Question 9. How could customer service training be improved in your

organization?

Question 10. What barriers does your organization face when improving customer

service training?

Question 11. What does your organization do to make employees feel like their

work is valued?

Question 12. What does your organization do to create an organization that

employees want to be a part of?

Question 13. What does your organization do to create a collaborative workplace

for employees?

Question 14. What ways do employees have to provide suggestions about how to

improve their workplace and their work?

Question 15. How does your organization train customer facing employees to

handle unexpected problems at work?

Question 16. What are customer service models that you think DLD could emulate

to improve customer service experience?

Question 17. Are there any aspects of DLD’s customer service experience that

could be privatized? E.g., security, janitorial service, parking attendant

Question 18. What are the advantages and disadvantages for customer service

outcomes, if the Driver License Division becomes a Stand-alone State Agency?

141

Session 2:

Date and time: Thursday, May 14, 2020. 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Method: WebEx

Moderator (1):

Kara Takasaki Graduate Research Assistant - UT/CTR

Attendees (16):

Bridget Barksdale Study Manager, Study POC - DLD

Tessa Cuffy Systems Programmer - DPS

Matthew Ellsworth Program Supervisor - DLD

Amy Krizan Garland Mega Center Supervisor - DLD

Lauri Boen Houston Mega Center (Vet Mem Dr) Supervisor - DLD

Jessica Chewning Supervisor - DLD

Misty Merrill Longview Supervisor - DLD

Courtney Juarez Customer service coordinator Consumer Relations

Division - DMV

Veronica Whitaker Quality Assurance Supervisor Consumer Relations

Division - DMV

Cynthia Fagan Customer service coordinator - DMV

Michael Murphy Deputy Director - CTR

Matt Kammer-Kerwick Senior Research Scientist - UT/CTR

Lisa Loftus-Otway Attorney and Research Scientist - CTR

Darren Hazlett Research Fellow - CTR

Zhe Han Research Associate - CTR

Call in User 1

Questions that were discussed during the breakout session:

Question 1. How does your organization promote an environment that develops

good customer service?

Question 2. What ways could your organization improve the work environment

to improve good customer service?

Question 3. What about in your experience as managers? How do you and other

managers in your organization promote an environment that develops good

customer service?

Question 4. How would you describe the management philosophy of your

organization?

Question 5. Does your organization use a specific kind of management model?

142

Question 6. Does your organization have any management training programs?

What are they like?

Question 7. What does your organization do to make employees feel like their

work is valued?

Question 8. What does your organization do to create an organization that

employees want to be a part of?

Question 9. What does your organization do to create a collaborative workplace

for employees?

Question 10. What ways do employees have to provide suggestions about how to

improve their workplace and their work?

Question 11. How does your organization train customer facing employees to

handle unexpected problems at work?

Question 12. What are the current customer service issues that your organization

faces?

Question 13. What “best practices” has your organization used to improve

customer service?

Question 14. What made past interventions to improve customer service

successful or not successful?

Question 15. How the public is made aware when your organization makes

improvements to its customer service?

Question 16. What customer service training does your organization provide its

customer-facing employees?

Question 17. How does customer service training vary between different office

sites within your organization?

Question 18. How could customer service training be improved in your

organization?

Question 19. What barriers does your organization face when improving

customer service training?

Question 20. What are the advantages and disadvantages for customer service

outcomes, if the Driver License Division remains in the Department of Public

Safety?

Question 21. What are the advantages and disadvantages for customer service

outcomes, if the Driver License Division is moved to the Department of Motor

vehicles?

Question 22. What are the advantages and disadvantages for customer service

outcomes, if the Driver License Division becomes a Stand-alone State Agency?

143

Session 3:

Date and time: Thursday, May 21, 2020. 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

Method: WebEx

Moderator (1):

Kara Takasaki Graduate Research Assistant - UT/CTR

Attendees (11):

Bridget Barksdale Study Manager, Study POC - DLD

Angela King License permit specialist Kerrville - DLD

Alexandria Letty License permit specialist - DLD

Joseph Richardson License permit specialist Houston - DLD

Emory License permit specialist San Antonio - DLD

Jesica Geter Customer service representative - DMV

Sarah Alexander Customer service representative Consumer Relations

Division - DMV

Sandra VeraBenson Customer service representative El Paso - DMV

Michael Murphy Deputy Director - CTR

Matt Kammer-Kerwick Senior Research Scientist - UT/CTR

Lisa Loftus-Otway Attorney and Research Scientist - CTR

Questions that were discussed during the breakout session:

Question 1. How does your organization promote an environment that develops

good customer service?

Question 2. What ways could your organization improve the work environment

to improve good customer service?

Question 3. What are the current customer service issues that your organization

faces?

Question 4. What has your organization done to improve customer service?

Question 5. What made past interventions to improve customer service successful

or not successful?

Question 6. How did your organization tell the public about the changes you had

made?

Question 7. What customer service training does your organization provide its

customer-facing employees?

Question 8. How could customer service training be improved in your

organization?

Question 9. What services are the most difficult to process?

144

Question 10. Describe the last time that you met with a service or situation that

you were not prepared for? What happened?

Question 11. What is the most recent job training that you have had?

Question 12. When are you best able to provide good customer service?

Question 13. What do you think would help you to provide better customer

service?

Question 14. How does your organization know when to make improvements to

customer service?

Question 15. What does your organization do to make employees feel like their

work is valued?

Question 16. What does your organization do to create an organization that

employees want to be a part of?

Question 17. How does your organization bring employees together to create

working relationships?

Question 18. When you have unmet needs at work, how do you give this

feedback to your organization?

Question 19. Do you feel like your organization is responsive to employee

feedback?

Question 20. Have you ever felt burnout from your work? What happened?

Question 21. What are the advantages and disadvantages for customer service

outcomes, if the Driver License Division remains in the Department of Public

Safety?

Question 22. What are the advantages and disadvantages for customer service

outcomes, if the Driver License Division is moved to the Department of Motor

vehicles?

Question 23. What are the advantages and disadvantages for customer service

outcomes, if the Driver License Division becomes a Stand-alone State Agency?

Question 24. Does your organization have any management training programs?

What are they like?

145

Appendix G. List of Attendees and Questions

for the Breakout Session on General IT Issue

Session 1:

Date and time: Tuesday, May 12, 2020. 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

Method: WebEx

Moderator (1):

Zhe Han Research Associate – CTR

Attendees (13):

Bridget Barksdale Study Manager, Study POC

Shelly Mellott DMV Deputy Director

Wendy Barron DMV Deputy Chief Information Officer

Angel Cruz DMV Chief of Information Security

Larry Gaddes Williamson County – Tax Assessor-Collector

Shay Luedeke Bell County – Tax Assessor-Collector

Justin Carothers Coryell County – Tax Assessor-Collector

Adam Ward Bell County – IT Director

Valladares Tiffany Denton County – Application Support Technician

Michael Murphy CTR Deputy Director

Darren Hazlett CTR Research Fellow

Srijith Balakrishnan CTR Graduate Research Assistant

Shidong Pan CTR Graduate Research Assistant

Questions that were discussed during the breakout session:

Question 1. [Updating software and hardware] During DLD employee workshop,

comments were made several times:

• Outdated computer equipment causes slow transactions and delays.

• Too many USBs connected to our computers—each one is for a different

purpose and draws power from the system.

• Outdated software running—Computer memory overloaded, not enough

CPU power.

• Slow or outdated software can lead to a breach or crash.

Question 1.1: How is IT support provided to field office personnel when there

are problems?

146

Question 2. As of August 1, 2019, a total of 73 DLOs are equipped with Kiosks

that comprise the NEMO-Q queuing system. The NEMO-Q queuing system helps

to manage and improve customer experience and waiting experience. By self-

service, customers will be issued a numbered ticket based on transaction type.

However, current NEMO-Q system is a same-day-only appointment system and

not able to capture customer pre-queue time, which is the time between arrival

and check in with the kiosks. In order to improve this, DLD is planning to replace

NEME-Q with a new appointment system developed by Applus Technologies,

Inc. (Applus Technologies, 2019). The new system is an appointment-based

system which gives the customer more flexibility to make appointments up to six

months in advance either online or on site at DLO. Customers have the option to

use a self-serve kiosk at DLO to schedule an appointment for a different day

and/or at a different office.

Question 2.1: Do you expect this will improve DLD customer

experience? Why or why not?

Question 2.2: Can this system be useful for DMV?

Question 2.3: Question: Would a real-time waiting time page online

where customer could check and see real-time waiting time of different

DLOs and decide with one to go be useful?

Question 3. DLD is using DPS servers to restore datasets and provide other

services.

Question 3.1: What capabilities do current DMV/county servers have?

Can they support the current services? What about the cybersecurity?

Interactions with DLD databases and security of sensitive information

(e.g., personal information, SSN)?

Question 3.2: Question: In case of a transfer to DMV or stand-alone

agency, do you think it is feasible to transfer every function from DPS

servers without interrupting regular service or data storing?

Question 3.3: Question: In the case of a transfer to DMV or stand-alone,

how long would the IT transfer require?

Question 4. On February 26, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

announced states can now establish a process for applicants seeking a Real ID to

pre-submit certain materials electronically that verify their identity and lawful

status in the U.S. in advance of visiting their state motor vehicle agency in person.

According to the DHS, “The result will be a faster, more streamlined process for

DMVs and the American public.” Also, we received comments from DLD

employees during workshops: We need a system to allow customer type in basic

information and upload required documents before coming to cashier. We would

147

only need to have the person review and verify information rather than type it

from form to form. It will improve efficiency and reduce service time.

Question 4.1: Will transfer to DMV change current procedure? What

operation system does DMV/county use? What is the capability?

Question 5. In case of a transfer to DMV, has DMV given any thought to how

DLD functions need to be added to DMV website and the timeframe?

Question 6. If DLD transfers to DMV what is the greatest need to improve field

office and Division IT services? What other advantage and disadvantage can you

think if transferring DLD to DMV regarding IT?

Session 2:

Date and time: Thursday, May 14, 2020. 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

Method: WebEx

Moderator (1):

Zhe Han Research Associate – CTR

Attendees (8):

Bridget Barksdale DPS Study POC

Kevin Kieschnick Nueces County – Tax Assessor-Collector

Roonie Keister Lubbock County – Tax Assessor-Collector

Michael Murphy CTR Deputy Director

Darren Hazlett CTR Research Fellow

Srijith Balakrishnan CTR Graduate Research Assistant

Shidong Pan CTR Graduate Research Assistant

John Guttman CTR Graduate Research Assistant