Program Evaluation
Prepared For The Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
Department of Motor Vehicle Safety Driver Examiners

November 2001

Russell W. Hinton, State Auditor Performance Audit Operations Division 254 Washington St. S.W.

Department of Audits and Accounts

Atlanta, GA 30334-8400

Background
In July 2001, Driver Examiners responsible for issuing new or renewal licenses were moved from the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to the newly created Department of Motor Vehicle Safety (DMVS). The Department of Motor Vehicle Safety was created in the 2000 session of the General Assembly to assume responsibilities for issuing drivers' licenses (formerly the Department of Public Safety), registering and titling motor vehicles (formerly the Department of Revenue), enforcing and regulating the size and weight of motor vehicles (formerly the Department of Transportation), and regulating motor carrier and limousine carrier operations (formerly the Public Service Commission).
To issue a drivers' license, examiners must verify the identity of applicants; conduct written, vision, and road test examinations to determine an applicant's ability to drive; prepare the license; collect licensing fees; and finally issue the license. License renewals normally only require a vision exam, collection of licensing fees, and preparing and issuing the license. Examiners also issue identification cards, issue handicap-parking permits, register organ donors, collect donations for the prevention of blindness, conduct voter registration, and conduct selective service registration.
As shown in Appendix A, licensing sites are located across the state. Under DPS, 10 Region Chiefs, a Program Director, and 14 uniformed officers supervised these facilities. The types of licensing sites and their staffing levels as of May 2001 are described below:
26 Renewal Sites staffed by 32 examiners. These sites issue renewal licenses. (Most are located in space in grocery stores in metropolitan areas.)
40 Testing Sites staffed by 190 examiners. These sites issue both new and renewal licenses. In addition to these sites, a new testing site will open in Effingham County in November 2001.
11 Travel Teams staffed by 38 examiners. The Travel Teams issue both new and renewal licenses. They visit 117 cities in 113 counties as often as five days a week to as

Driver Examiners

Page 1

infrequently as once a month. Of the 113 counties visited by the travel teams, three have a permanent renewal site and one has a permanent testing site.
1 Georgia Licenses On Wheels (GLOW) Bus staffed by two examiners. Currently, the GLOW bus is stationed at the testing site in Cobb County to take appointments from previously licensed individuals from other states needing a Georgia drivers' license. Before this assignment, the GLOW bus traveled to various businesses in the Metro Atlanta area as a mobile testing unit.
10 Reinstatement/Testing Sites staffed by 67 examiners. In addition to issuing new and renewal licenses, these sites offer reinstatement services to restore driving privileges to individuals that have had their licenses revoked or suspended. The Licensing Section's headquarters site in Atlanta offers only reinstatement services.
Under the newly created Department of Motor Vehicle Safety, there has been little change in Driver Examiner personnel or facilities. The headquarters was moved to Conyers and the 10 Regions have been reorganized into 11 Districts (the Metro Atlanta area was broken-out as an additional District). Licensing Services are supervised by 11 District Supervisors and a Program Director.
Activity Data and Funding
As shown in Exhibit 1, Driver Examiners issued over 2.3 million documents in fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year 2001, fees associated with the issuance and reinstatement of licenses totaled approximately $40 million, which was remitted to the State Treasury.
Exhibit 1 Activity At Drivers' License Facilities 1
(Fiscal Year 2001)

87.3%

2,064,200 Drivers' Licenses

8.5% 4.2%

201,746 Identification Cards
99,490 Handicap Parking Permits

1 Driver Examiners also registered 811,611 organ donors, registered 188,438 persons to vote, and collected $451,112 for the prevention of blindness.
SOURCE: Program Monthly Activity Reports
Driver Examiners

Page 2

Drivers' Licensing Services are funded entirely with state funds. Fiscal year 2001 expenditures for the drivers' licensing function totaled $23.8 million; of this amount $18.6 million (78%) was for personal services.
Evaluation Scope and Methodology
This evaluation was conducted in compliance with O.C.G.A. 45-12-178 enacted in 1993. The evaluation was conducted under the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee's calendar year 2001 theme, "Public Safety and Sentencing Offenders." The scope of the evaluation focused on the issues identified by BROC that are listed below:
How do Georgia examiners compare to other states with respect to workload, total compensation, turnover, and other personnel issues?
What security measures are in place at driver license facilities? Are facilities located in a State Patrol barrack more secure than other facilities? Are cash deposits handled in a secure manner?
During the course of the evaluation, the evaluation team visited 17 permanent license facilities (eight testing sites, five reinstatement/testing sites, four renewal only sites) and three Travel Teams. Three of the permanent sites that were visited were located at a Georgia State Patrol barrack. The evaluation team distributed 117 questionnaires to Driver Examiners at the sites visited, and 86 examiners (74%) returned the questionnaire; however, some examiners did not complete all the questions on the questionnaire. The evaluation team also interviewed the Program's 10 Region Chiefs and the Program Director.
The entire report was discussed with appropriate personnel at the Department of Motor Vehicle Safety (DMVS) and the Department of Public Safety (DPS). Personnel from each agency were invited to provide a written response to the report, and DMVS was also invited to indicate areas in which they planned to take corrective action. Pertinent responses from the agencies are reflected in the report as appropriate.

Driver Examiners

Page 3

During the evaluation, the newly created Department of Motor Vehicle Safety acknowledged the need for action to reduce the long lines present at some of the testing facilities. In addition to workload factors addressed in subsequent findings, the long lines also appear to be influenced by inadequate testing facilities and problems with equipment.
During visits to field sites, the evaluation team observed many drivers' license facilities that were besieged with lines that took customers hours to finish. The pictures below show the lines outside and inside a testing facility in August 2001. Each of the five testing facilities in the Metro Atlanta area visited by the evaluation team had lines similar to the ones pictured. In addition to workload factors addressed in subsequent findings, the long lines also seem to be influenced by problems with the Program's existing facilities and equipment as discussed below.
Line Outside a Facility (August 2001)

Lines Inside a Facility (August 2001)

Problems with Testing Facilities The testing facilities for several large metropolitan counties are inadequate, which contributes to long lines at those facilities. DeKalb County, Cobb County, and Gwinnett County, for example, have over 500,000 residents with drivers' licenses, but each of these counties only has one

Driver Examiners

Page 4

testing facility. Also, these facilities are not large enough to accommodate the number of customers they need to process. The facility in DeKalb County, for example, has seating for 88 customers but on the day that the evaluation team visited the facility there were 154 people waiting in line before the office opened. Examiners at this location reported that the line of customers is typically between 100 and 200 but swells to over 300 on Saturdays. When the evaluation team visited the testing facility in Cobb County, the team found that the facility had no waiting area for customers and had 108 people waiting in line when the facility opened. As a result, the majority of customers had to wait outside. If large volume counties are going to be served by a single testing facility then the facility must be large enough to adequately serve the number of customers that the facilities attract or more facilities should be made available. When asked by the evaluation team, the 10 Region Chiefs thought that two additional testing sties were needed in the Metro Atlanta area.
Customers also appear to be inundating some Travel Teams at temporary sites. Walton County, (in the Metro Atlanta area) for example, was visited by the evaluation team in August 2001 and had a line of 92 customers when the site opened. As can be seen in the picture below, the site was in an old gymnasium, was not air-conditioned, did not have adequate seating, and was not conducive to serving such a large number of customers. Furthermore, the Travel Team serving this site did not have computers for testing and was staffed with only three examiners (one of which was working her first day as an examiner). Region Chiefs also reported heavy customer volume in Fayette County and Henry County and recommended that permanent testing facilities be built in these counties to meet the demand for services.
Line for Travel Team Walton County (August 2001)

In its response to the evaluation, DMVS noted that the current facilities in the Atlanta metropolitan area are inadequate to provide service to the citizens of Georgia. DMVS reported that it would seek funding for four new 10,000 square foot centers for identified high-density areas around Atlanta. DMVS also indicated that it would like to establish three additional customer service centers in Henry County, Fayette County, and Walton County in the near

Driver Examiners

Page 5

future. DMVS noted that they hoped that by meeting the workload demand in the Atlanta area customers would no longer need to travel to remote locations to obtain service.
Problems with Equipment Reviews of Program records and on-site visits to drivers' licensing facilities identified the following problems with equipment that influenced long lines at drivers' license facilities.
Of the 49 permanent testing sites, only 34 (69%) had testing computers. Twelve of these sites were using outdated computers, which have become nearly impossible to repair due to a scarcity of spare parts. The remaining 15 permanent sites and all of the 117 sites visited by the travel teams used a paper test for the written examination. Examiners and Region Chiefs indicated that administering the paper test is more time-consuming, which results in longer waits for customers.
Additionally, the paper tests that are being utilized are outdated; since the English version of the paper test was last updated in 1991 there have been many changes to state law. The evaluation team reviewed the 40 questions on two of the six versions of the paper test and found that three (8%) of the questions were no longer current. Furthermore, the evaluation team found that the Spanish, Chinese, and Korean test versions were even more outdated than the English version, since these tests have not been updated since 1979.
The license printing equipment at the facilities frequently breaks-down, which delays customer processing. While records were not maintained on equipment "down time", 50% of the sites visited by the evaluation team reported problems with their equipment, and 59% of the examiners that responded to our questionnaire did not feel that their computerized systems were adequate. The original five-year contract for the Program's license printing and issuing system was extended in July 2001 for an additional two years due to uncertainty regarding transfer of the function to the new Department of Motor Vehicle Safety. One of the contractor's two repair technicians indicated the useful life of the equipment was probably around five years, which would explain the increasing frequency of problems with the equipment. In addition, the technician also noted that the computer processor used in the system only operates at a small fraction of the speed of current processors.
Only eight sites were reported to have "Q-matic" equipment, which allows customers to take a number to provide for better control over lines. This equipment also provides customers and staff with information on wait times to help customers make informed choices and to help facilities identify improvements to reduce customer lines and waiting.
In its response to the evaluation, DMVS noted that budgetary restraints have prevented updating and replacing testing equipment in full service offices. They also noted that it would not be practical to have testing computers for the Travel Teams because of the logistics involved with transporting the computers. DMVS recognized the need to update and replace the various written tests and has formed a committee to identify incorrect test questions and design new tests. DMVS also noted that it had appointed a project team to handle the replacement of their

Driver Examiners

Page 6

current computer systems by July 2003. Finally, DMVS endorsed the use of the Q-matic system as an effective workload and customer management tool but indicated that they would need to seek funding in order to provide this equipment at each permanent location given its current cost of approximately $75,000 per location.

Issue: How do Georgia examiners compare to other states with respect to workload, total compensation, turnover, and other personnel issues?
Workload Based on information collected by the evaluation team, Georgia's overall workload per examiner ranked 22nd out of 41 states. However, Georgia's workload has seasonal peaks that are as much as 55% higher than seasonal lows and the current distribution of staff has resulted in excessive workloads at some facilities while the staff at other facilities appear to be underutilized.
Information obtained from reports issued by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and the Federal Highway Administration indicated that Georgia's workload would rank 22nd highest out of 41 states (for which data was available) in 1999. As shown in Appendix B, Georgia's workload was 5,426 licenses per examiner. New York had the highest workload (19,860 per examiner), and Louisiana had the lowest workload (1,764 licenses per examiner). It should be noted that comparisons of state workloads should be done cautiously unless there is an in-depth review of the operations of every state to ensure that the numbers used in the analysis are comparable. For example, the work required to issue a license may not be the same in every state, and some states may have operations that are significantly different than Georgia's (e.g. some states may rely more on clerical staff or use a third party to conduct testing).
Georgia's workload over the 24 months ending in June 2001 (see Exhibit 2 on the next page) has shown a gradual increase (indicating workload problems that have existed for some time) and considerable variance from month-to-month. The Program's highest monthly workload (March 2001 238,975 items processed) is 55% higher than its lowest monthly workload (November 2000 154,087 items processed). In addition, as also shown in Exhibit 2, the workload at facilities outside the Atlanta Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is increasing at a slightly faster rate than the workload at Metro Atlanta facilities, as reflected by a narrowing of the gap between the red and blue lines at the bottom of the graph.
One factor possibility influencing the increasing workload outside of the Metro Atlanta area could be that Metro area residents are going outside the metropolitan area to have their license or identification card processed. The testing site in Stephens County (located in Northeast Georgia), for example, has an unusually high workload--8,317 licenses/identification cards per examiner, which is 43% greater than the average workload per examiner at all testing sites. In calendar year 2000, 5,645 Stephens County residents had their license issued at the Stephens County site; however, the site also issued 18,096 licenses to residents of other counties (321% more than the number of licenses issued to Stephens County residents). On the other hand, testing and renewal sites in Cobb County only processed 125,539 licenses in calendar year 2000,

Driver Examiners

Page 7

which was 11% lower than the 140,880 Cobb County residents who had their license processed in calendar year 2000.

250,000

Exhibit 2 Monthly Workload
High (238,975)

200,000 150,000

Low (154,087)

Items Processed

100,000 50,000 0

TOTAL Atlanta MSA Outside Atlanta MSA Trend Line

Jul-99 Aug-99 Sep-99 Oct-99 Nov-99 Dec-99 Jan-00 Feb-00 Mar-00 Apr-00 May-00 Jun-00 Jul-00 Aug-00 Sep-00 Oct-00 Nov-00 Dec-00 Jan-01 Feb-01 Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01

Source: Program Monthly Activity Reports

Licensing and identification services are provided through three types of permanent licensing facilities (Reinstatement/Testing Sites, Testing Sites, and Renewal Only Sites) and by Travel Teams. The workload per examiner at the various categories of facilities varies due to the type of service offered at the facilities. For example, examiners at Renewal Only Sites can issue many more licenses than examiners at the other types of sites since they only renew current Georgia drivers' licenses or identification cards and do not have to conduct any written examinations or road tests. As shown in Exhibit 3 on the next page (and in more detail in Appendix C), comparisons of workloads between facilities providing similar services identified large differences in workloads. The Reinstatement/Testing facility with the highest workload had more than twice the workload of the lowest, the highest Testing facility had nearly four times the workload of the lowest, the highest Renewal facility had more than seven times the workload of the lowest and the highest Travel Team had almost eleven times the workload of the lowest. These large differences in workload indicate that the current distribution of examiners has resulted in excessive workloads at some facilities, while the staff at other facilities appear to be underutilized.

Driver Examiners

Page 8

48,000

Exhibit 3 Facility Workload
(Licenses and IDs Issued Per Examiner During Calendar Year 2000)

44,000

44,073

40,000

36,000

32,000

28,000

24,000 20,000

23,502 Average

16,000

12,000 8,000 4,000

6,591
5,035 Average
3,193

11,824
5,806 Average
3,118

6,119

9,404
3,715 Average
864

Reinstatement/ Testing
(9 sites a) Testing
(39 Sites b) Renewal Only
(26 Sites) Travel Teams
(11 Teams)

a Figures for Headquarters not included since the site does only reinstatements and no examiners work at Headquarters. b Figures for Capitol site and the GLOW Bus not included since these sites do not conduct road tests. The Capitol site issued 4,764 licenses/IDs per examiner and the GLOW Bus issused 6,027 licenses/ IDs per examiner.
Source: Program Monthly Activity Reports

Driver Examiners

Page 9

In its response to the evaluation, DMVS concurred with the workload issue and finding. DMVS indicated that it is analyzing workloads and is in the process of redirecting positions (as vacancies occur) to high volume areas in order to address staffing shortages.
Other actions that could result in reduced Driver Examiner workloads.
Currently, a Georgia driver's license must be renewed every four years and must be renewed inperson at a licensing facility (except for active military personnel and full-time students outside of Georgia). A 1999 survey done by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) found that 30 (67%) of the 45 states (that responded to the survey) allowed customers to renew their drivers' license through the mail. A survey done by the evaluation team found that 8 (16%) of 49 states allowed customers to renew their license over the phone or through the Internet. Another option to reduce workload is to lengthen the validity period of the license. According to AAMVA's survey, 22 (47%) of 47 states offered longer validity periods than Georgia's period of four years. An Arizona driver's license, for example, is valid for 12 years until the person reaches age 60.
In its response to the evaluation, DMVS reported that it is seeking funding and enabling legislation authorizing mail-in and Internet renewals to enhance customer service. In the mean time, it reported that is was moving forward with the planning and infrastructure needed for mail-in and Internet renewals. DMVS reported that it was not in favor of extending the validity period of a license given that legislation proposing such a change failed last year and it feels the current four-year cycle enhances the State's ability to more quickly update the drivers' database with new license requirements or security features.
Total Compensation
A salary survey by the Merit System in May 2000 found that the average salary of driver examiners in Georgia was 7.7% (Driver Examiner 2) to 13.9% (Driver Examiner 1) lower than the average salaries of examiners in other Southeastern states.
A survey conducted by the Georgia Merit System found that the average salary of Georgia Driver Examiners (the positions of Driver Examiner 1 and Driver Examiner 2) was below the market median salary of driver examiners in other Southeastern states. The survey found that the average salary for the position of Driver Examiner 1 was 13.9% below the market median salary and the average salary for the position of Driver Examiner 2 was 7.7% below the market median salary of examiners in the Southeastern states surveyed. The average salaries reported by the other states in the Merit System's survey are shown in Exhibit 4 on the next page.

Driver Examiners

Page 10

Exhibit 4 Salary Survey of Southeastern States
May 2000

Driver Examiner 1

States 1

Average Salary

Driver Examiner 2

States 2

Average Salary

State A State B State C Georgia State D State E State F State G State H

$16,738 $16,811 $19,471 $20,366 $21,296 $22,079 $24,465 $25,877 $26,260

State A State B State C Georgia State D State E State F State G

$21,296 $23,586 $24,961 $25,113 $25,394 $27,708 $29,263 $29,963

State I

$29,544

1 Salary information by state considered confidential Survey included Alabama, Florida, Kentucky,

Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia. 2 Salary information by state considered confidential Survey included Alabama, Florida, Mississippi,

North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

Source: Georgia Merit System

When asked in our questionnaire if they felt they were fairly compensated, 60 of 71 (85%) examiners responded that they were not. Eight of the 10 Region Chiefs thought that the starting salary should be at least $25,000. The last time that the Driver Examiner position was examined by the Georgia Merit System to determine if its salary range was appropriate was in 1988. Due to changes in the law, the duties of Driver Examiners have changed significantly since 1988. For example, Driver Examiners are now required to process organ donors (1990), conduct voter registration (1994), take fingerprints of applicants (1996), accept donations for the prevention of blindness (1999), and conduct selective service registration (2001).

DMVS reported that it has proposed a $5,000 across-the-board pay increase for Driver Examiners of all levels. DMVS felt that such an increase would move Georgia Driver Examiners more in-line with the salaries identified in the survey conducted of the Southeastern states.

Turnover
While comparable figures on Driver Examiner turnover in other states were not available, Georgia's Driver Examiner 1 turnover rate of over 30% is high. Region Chiefs and examiners attributed the high turnover to low pay, stress, and heavy workloads. The Region Chiefs also thought that the career ladder needed more steps and that it took too long to promote employees to Driver Examiner Chief.
The fiscal year 2001 State of Georgia Workforce Salary Report by the Georgia Merit System reported that the turnover rate for Driver Examiner 1 was 30.2% in fiscal year 1999. It also reported that the turnover rate for Driver Examiner 2 was 13.3%. It should be noted that the turnover rate among all state employees was approximately 16% in fiscal year 2001, and the

Driver Examiners

Page 11

Merit System indicated that industry sources consider a turnover rate of 10% or more to be of great significance.

DPS did not conduct exit interviews that might be used to determine the reasons for the high turnover for the Driver Examiner 1 position. To obtain more information on turnover, the evaluation team interviewed the 10 Region Chiefs and included a question on turnover in the questionnaires given to Driver Examiners. The main reasons cited by the chiefs and the examiners for turnover in Driver Examiner positions are summarized in Exhibit 5. Sufficient detail was not available to break-down the results based on the positions of the personnel responding.

Exhibit 5

Reasons for Turnover Cited by

Driver Examiners and Region Chiefs

August 2001

Reason cited

Percent of Responses

Low Pay

73%

Stress

38%

Inadequate Staffing/Workload

36%

SOURCE: Questionnaires completed by 86 Driver Examiners and

interviews of 10 Region Chiefs.

While it was not identified as one of the main reasons for turnover, eight of the 10 Region Chiefs indicated that they were disappointed with the Program's current career ladder and its impact on lower level employees. As can be seen in Exhibit 6, under DPS there were two levels of Driver Examiner, four levels of Chief Driver Examiner and a Program Director. The Georgia Merit System created these levels in 1988 to form a career ladder for examiners. In addition to this career ladder, DPS added an incentive pay program in 1998 to provide for additional compensation at some facilities in order to reduce turnover in counties with high workloads (see the footnote in Exhibit 6 for the counties with incentives).

Exhibit 6

Driver Examiner Positions and Salary Ranges

June 2001

Position

Salary Range a

Number of Number of Employees Vacancies

Driver Examiner 1

$18,162 to $31,778

65

17

Driver Examiner 2

$20,010 to $35,041

158

25

Driver Examiner Chief 1

$22,044 to $38,650

41

6

Driver Examiner Chief 2

$24,174 to $42,432

41

3

Driver Examiner Chief 3

$26,646 to $46,591

20

1

Region Chief License Examiners

$29,382 to $51,411

10

1

Driver's License Program Director $42,852 to $75,192

1

0

Totals

336

53

a Examiners that work in Carroll, Chatham, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Douglas,

Fayette, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Rockdale, and Spalding counties receive a 10% pay

incentive. Examiners that work in Bibb, Clarke, Dougherty, Houston, Muscogee, Richmond,

and Whitfield counties receive a 5% pay incentive.

SOURCE: Department of Public Safety Records

Driver Examiners

Page 12

All examiners start at the entry-level examiner position of Driver Examiner 1 and are eligible for promotion to Driver Examiner 2 after two years. After an examiner has been a Driver Examiner 2 for two years, he/she is eligible to be promoted to a Driver Examiner Chief position (1, 2, or 3) provided a vacant position is available. A Driver Examiner Chief 1 supervises a site that issues less than 15,000 licenses annually or works under a Driver Examiner Chief 2 or 3 at a larger site.
The evaluation team could not tell if dissatisfaction with the career ladder resulted in significant turnover because DPS did not conduct exit interviews that could be reviewed to determine if slow promotions influenced turnover and DPS did not have readily available information on length of time employees had been employed at the Driver Examiner 2 level. A review of the questionnaires completed by the Driver Examiners found that the 27 examiners in the position of Driver Examiner 2 reported an average tenure of 6.6 years and six (22%) of these driver examiners had been at the level of Driver Examiner 2 for more than 10 years.
DPS personnel also thought that some turnover might be attributable to employees that took positions as Driver Examiners as a "stepping stone" to going to Trooper School in order to become a State Trooper. The evaluation team identified six individuals in the two Trooper Schools that started in fiscal year 2001 that were former Driver Examiners; however sufficient information was not available to determine how these transfers impacted Driver Examiner turnover. Additional work to further analyze this concern was not conducted since under DMVS the Driver Examiner positions would no longer be considered to be "stepping stones" to State Trooper positions.
In its response, DMVS noted that it felt that the department's ability to attract and retain competent and qualified personnel is directly attributable to the salary levels of entry-level positions. DMVS believes that the proposed $5,000 across-the-board pay increase will greatly improve retention rates. DMVS also felt that the concerns with the career ladder were primarily an indicative of dissatisfaction with salaries. DMVS indicated they would start requiring exit interviews and would re-evaluate the career ladder after salaries increases were implemented to determine if any concerns remained.

Other Personnel Issues--Screening of Applicants A stringent screening process for hiring new Driver Examiners appeared to make it difficult to fill vacant positions. As of June 2001, 17 (21%) of the Program's 82 Driver Examiner 1 positions were vacant.
Eight of the 10 Region Chiefs indicated that they were dissatisfied with the current screening process for hiring new Driver Examiners. The Region Chiefs primarily thought that the process was too stringent and took too long to complete. Essentially, the same screening process used for hiring State troopers was used for examiners (except examiners did not have to undergo physical and psychological examinations). In addition to a Merit System application and employment test, applicants for Driver Examiner positions were required to complete a preemployment background packet that included:

Driver Examiners

Page 13

Two sets of inked fingerprints; A certified copy of the applicant's birth certificate; An official copy of the applicant's grade transcripts; A recent full-length photograph; A 15-page pre-employment questionnaire; and, An 18-page personal data form.
The applicant had 30 days to complete the pre-employment background packet. In calendar year 2000, 152 packets were submitted to DPS (301 packets were mailed to applicants). After the pre-employment packet was submitted, the DPS conducted a review of the applicant's driving, criminal, and credit history and the applicant was required to pass a drug test, a polygraph examination, and an employment interview. Sixty-one (40%) of the 152 packets returned were disqualified for failing one of these reviews or tests (DPS thought that most applicants were disqualified due to problems with their credit history). In calendar year 2000, 26 applicants (29%) were ultimately hired from the 91 applicants that were determined to be eligible.
Data was not readily available on the time required for each step in the hiring process that could be used to identify if delays were caused by the Program or the applicants. Interviews with DPS personnel indicted that the hiring process for Driver Examiners was done with the same level of scrutiny as the hiring process for State Trooper positions since some examiners may later transfer to trooper positions and DPS did not want to re-screen these employees. DPS personnel also reported that it took a considerable amount of time and effort to investigate and confirm all the personal information included in the background packet and to check extensive lists of references and acquaintances for each applicant. In addition, DPS personnel indicated that lengthy processing delays in processing Driver Examiner applications sometimes occurred when priority was placed on evaluating applicants for Trooper Schools. The evaluation team reviewed records on 15 applicants hired in calendar year 2000 to estimate how much time it took for an applicant to complete the entire hiring process. The evaluation team found that it took an average of eight months (ranged from 2.9 months to 13.8 months) from when the applicant took the Georgia Merit System employment test to when they were eventually hired.
To simplify and expedite the hiring process, potential employees could be quickly screened based their employment test score, information on their application and an interview. Additional information could be requested of applicants that passed the initial screening. Given the potential value of fraudulent drivers' licenses, the additional requirements necessary for a criminal records check would seem reasonable; however, the need for certified birth and grade transcripts, photographs, and all the information in the pre-employment questionnaire and personal data form is not clear since the potential employees would not be directly involved in law enforcement.
DMVS reported that it is currently reviewing its hiring/screening process and has already implemented a "waiver hire" process in order expedite the filling of current vacancies. DMVS indicated that it expects to complete its analysis of the screening and hiring process before December 2001 and it will remove any unnecessary requirements identified by its analysis.

Driver Examiners

Page 14

Issue: What security measures are in place at driver license facilities? Are facilities located in a State Patrol barrack more secure than other facilities? Are cash deposits handled in a secure manner?
Facility Security While there were no indications of any serious security problems at driver license facilities, security measures at some facilities need to be strengthened before problems occur. The security measures in place at the facilities visited by the evaluation team varied widely and a significant proportion of the Region Chiefs and examiners felt that better security measures were needed.
Reports kept by the Department of Public Safety (which primarily covered the first six months of calendar year 2001) indicated that the only security problems occurring were four break-ins at drivers' license facilities. One of the break-ins resulted in licensing equipment being stolen presumably for the purpose of making fraudulent licenses.
Eight of the 17 permanent facilities visited by the evaluation team did not have any security measures in place except for locks on doors. The level of security at the remaining nine licensing sites varied as described below:
One facility had a panic button that would alert the local police, motion detectors, and metal bars over its windows;
Four facilities had an alarm system;
One facility had an alarm system and a security camera;
One facility had an alarm system and motion detectors;
One facility had an alarm system and an armed officer stationed at the facility; and,
One facility had an armed officer stationed at the facility.
Overall, seven (41%) of the 17 permanent sites visited by the evaluation team had an alarm system. Three of these systems were reportedly installed in response to a break-in or burglary at the facility and the sites located in metropolitan areas also tended to have more security measures in place.
When Driver Examiners were asked on the questionnaire if they felt the security measures at their facility were adequate, 49% of the 69 driver examiners that responded to this question said "no." Examiners were also asked if they had witnessed irate customers because of long lines and 93% of the 84 examiners that responded to this question said "yes." Six of the 10 Region Chiefs felt that the security measures at the facilities were not adequate, and they were particularly concerned with the security at Renewal facilities at Kroger stores and with Travel Teams security. The evaluation team also noted during its site visits that the equipment carried by

Driver Examiners

Page 15

Travel Teams staffed with one person appeared more vulnerable to theft because it had to be left unattended when the examiner conducted road tests.

In its response to the evaluation, DMVS indicated that facility security could be improved but noted that budget restraints have prevented some of the facilities from having adequate security measures. DMVS noted that a security strategy consisting of security cameras and intrusion alarm systems has been developed for the four proposed new facilities, which may provide a prototype for security measures to be added at other facilities in the future.

There is little difference between security measures at testing sites located at Georgia State Patrol barracks and security measures at other sites; however, examiners did indicate that they felt that the close proximity of State Troopers seemed to reduce unruly behavior by customers.

During site visits, the evaluation team did not observe any discernable difference in security at testing facilities located at Georgia State Patrol (GSP) barracks as compared to security at other testing facilities. Of the four break-ins at drivers' license facilities that occurred in the first six months of calendar year 2001, one occurred at a site located at a Georgia State Patrol barrack. The level of security offered at GSP barracks visited by the evaluation team did not appear to be extended to the portions of the building housing the drivers' license section. The GSP barrack in Albany, for example, had security cameras over the front and back entrances to the building, and a security code was needed to enter the building, whereas, the entrance to the drivers' license section was only secured by a locked door.

The evaluation team interviewed Driver Examiners to determine if they felt security measures at their facilities were adequate. As can be seen in Exhibit 7 there was no significant difference between the responses given by examiners stationed at facilities located at GSP barracks compared to examiners stationed at other facilities. Likewise, there was no significant difference in responses from examiners when they were asked if they felt their safety was jeopardized while working as an examiner. However, Driver Examiners at two of the three sites located at GSP barracks also stated the mere presence of the State Troopers in the facilities did seem to reduce unruly behavior by customers.

Exhibit 7 Summary of Examiners' Responses to Security Questions
August 2001

Question: Are your security measures adequate?

Total responses a

Yes

No

Examiners at Georgia State Patrol Posts

12

50%

50%

All Other Examiners

57

51%

49%

Question: Have you experienced a situation on the job in which you felt that your safety or

the safety of others in the facility was jeopardized?

Total responses a

Yes

No

Examiners at Georgia State Patrol Posts

10

50%

50%

All Other Examiners

69

51%

a The number of Driver Examiners that responded either yes or no to the question.

49%

SOURCE: Evaluation team questionnaire

Driver Examiners

Page 16

Security over Cash Deposits Although there have been no reported security problems involving cash deposits, better training on the safest methods of making deposits is needed and a risk assessment should be performed to identify additional locations, which collect large amounts of cash, that might justify the use of a courier service for deposits. Additional safes are also needed to better safeguard the petty cash kept by the examiners.
Interviews and reviews of available reports did not identify any instances in which a Driver Examiner was robbed while making a deposit. One of the four break-ins that occurred during the first six months of calendar year 2001 involved the theft of cash from a safe at a facility, while two involved the theft of property at a facility.
Licensing sites only accept cash, money orders, or cashier checks for the exact amount and each site keeps an amount of petty cash on hand in order to make change. All of the testing sites and Travel Teams visited by the evaluation team had Driver Examiners making the cash deposits; however, two (50%) of the four Renewal Only Sites visited used a courier service to make deposits. Nineteen (95%) of the 20 sites visited made the deposits daily, while the remaining site made deposits at least twice a week. The following problems with cash deposits and cash maintained at the licensing facilities were identified.
Nine of the 10 Region Chiefs thought that having examiners make deposits put them at risk. They noted the need for better training on safety procedures applicable to making deposits and the need to expand the use of courier services for making deposits. Fifteen (22%) of the 67 examiners that responded to the questionnaire regarding cash deposit procedures indicated that they did not feel they were sufficiently trained in cash deposit safety procedures.
Only seven (41%) of the 17 permanent sites visited by the evaluation team kept their petty cash in a safe overnight, while the remaining sites kept their cash either in a locked file cabinet or in a locked closet. Additionally, some Travel Teams are staffed with a single examiner who must either lock cash receipts in their van or carry the cash on their person when conducting road tests.
Better training is needed on the safest methods for making cash deposits. Training areas should include topics such as the safest times to make deposits, appropriate use of drop box deposits, when it is appropriate to request a police escort, and what to do if accosted by a robber. In addition, the Program should identify additional locations that because of the average size of their deposits and/or risks associated with a history of criminal activity in their area may justify using a courier service for making deposits.
In its response to the evaluation, DMVS stated that departmental policy requires that all deposits be made daily. DMVS also noted that budget restraints have prevented some drivers' license facilities from having courier services and that courier service is not practical or feasible in some rural areas. DMVS noted that it would include safety procedure training in its basic examiner training classes. Finally, DMVS also agreed that safes are needed in all drivers'

Driver Examiners

Page 17

license facilities and Travel Team vans; however, they noted that budget restraints prevented the installation of safes in most locations.
Legislative Issue
While Travel Team visits to some counties may be justified, the General Assembly may wish to consider changing the requirement of having driving tests offered at least once a month in each county. A majority of the residents of the counties served by Travel Teams are going to permanent sites to get service, and the resources devoted to some Travel Teams could be used better elsewhere.
Under current state law, Driver Examiners are required to provide driving tests at least once each month in each county of the state. Eleven Travel Teams staffed with 38 examiners were created to meet this provision of the law. The Travel Teams visit 117 cities in 113 counties as frequently as five days a week to as infrequently as once a month.
A majority of the residents in counties serviced by travel teams are already going to permanent facilities in other counties to get their licenses. The evaluation team found that in the 109 counties (without a permanent licensing facility) visited by the Travel Teams, only 115,434 (31%) of the 367,793 residents who had their license or identification card processed (in calendar year 2000) were processed by a visiting Travel Team. Based on these figures, it appears that nearly 70% of the residents of counties visited by Travel Teams were going to a nearby permanent testing facility for service. The evaluation team found that 68% of the sites visited by the travel teams were located within 30 miles of a permanent site and 88% of the sites visited by travel team were located within 40 miles of a permanent site.
As shown in Exhibit 3 on page 9, the Travel Teams' average workload was 3,715 licenses/IDs (per employee/per year) as compared to the permanent testing site average workload of 5,806 licenses/IDs. While the Travel Teams averaged approximately 36% less workload than the average permanent site, some loss in productivity might be expected due to the travel and set-up time required of the Travel Teams.
Data was not available to analyze utilization by county in order to identify individual counties whose volume might not justify the costs involved with a travel team visit. However, site visits by the evaluation team indicated that the Travel Teams are visiting some sites were there is virtually no demand for services. Atkinson County, for example, which was visited by the evaluation team in August 2001, had two customers on the day of the visit. Interviews with examiners on Travel Teams revealed that there were several counties that had few (10 or fewer) customers, such as Echols County, Johnson County, Turner County, and Wheeler County. Region Chiefs also reported low volume in Heard County and Talbot County. Region Chiefs were asked if they thought Travel Teams were a good use of resources, and all 10 of the Region Chiefs responded that they did not think they were. Reasons cited by the Region Chiefs were that the Travel Teams were not busy enough and that the equipment used by the teams breaks down more often from the traveling.

Driver Examiners

Page 18

DMVS should analyze workloads of the various counties visited by the Travel Teams to identify those counties that do not have sufficient volume to justify the costs involved with a monthly Travel Team visit. This information should be provided to the General Assembly to support a request to revise provisions requiring driving tests to be offered at least once a month in each county.
In its response, DMVS concurs with the finding that the Travel Teams are not the most efficient use of its resources. DMVS agreed to analyze the workload in counties visited by the Travel Teams in order to support a request that the General Assembly revise provisions requiring driving tests to be offered at least once a month in each county.

Driver Examiners

Page 19

Appendix A Drivers' License Issuing Facilities
(as of August 2001)

Walker

e
Whitfield

Fannin

Stephens

Floyd Polk Carroll

Hall

Bartow

Cherokee

Forsyth

2c

4
Gwinnett

Cobb

3

d

6

De Kalb

Douglas

3 c

d

Fulton Clayton

a

2

Rockdale

Newton

Coweta

Fayette

Henry

Spalding

Clarke

Troup

Baldwin

Upson

Bibb

Permanent Testing Sites
(number within a symbol indicates number of facilities within a county)
10 Reinstatement/Testing Sites a 40 Testing Sites b Testing Site to be opened in November 2001
26 Renewal Only Sites (22 at Kroger stores)

Columbia

McDuffie

Richmond

Travel Team Sites
Counties visited once a month
Counties visited more than once a month

Muscogee

Houston

Sumter

Crisp

Dougherty Tift

Laurens Telfair Coffee

Emanuel

Bulloch

Effingham

Tattnall

2
Chatham
Liberty

Ware

Glynn

Thomas

Lowndes

a-Headquarters does reinstatement only and moved to Conyers (Rockdale) in October 2001 b-Capitol (Fulton) site does not conduct road tests c-Marietta (Cobb) and Sandy Springs (Fulton) sites take appointments for out-of-state transfers. Georgia Licenses On Wheels (GLOW) bus is responsible for taking appointments at the Marietta site. d-Moreland (DeKalb) and Lawrenceville (Gwinnett) sites take appointments for 16-year-olds to take road test e-Dalton (Whitfield) site became a reinstatement/testing site in October 2001
Source: Program Records

Driver Examiners

Page 20

Appendix B Examiner Workload Activity By State

State

Licensing Activities of Examiners Number Licenses Number of Licenses per Issued in 1999 1 Examiners 2 Examiner Rank

Other Activities of Examiners
Selective Organ Motor Voter Service Donor Registration Registration

New York

3,177,550

160

19,860

1

No

Yes

No

Pennsylvania

2,753,612

153

17,997

2

Yes

Yes

No

New Jersey

1,463,869

82

17,852

3

Yes

Yes

No

Texas

5,195,909

320

16,237

4

Yes

Yes

Yes

Connecticut

677,885

45

15,064

5

Yes

Yes

No

Indiana

1,148,538

78

14,725

6

Yes

Yes

No

Iowa

769,404

53

14,517

7

Yes

Yes

No

New Hampshire

312,037

22

14,184

8

Yes

Exempt

No

Arkansas

524,043

39

13,437

9

Yes

Yes

Yes

Ohio

2,682,289

208

12,896 10

Yes

Yes

No

Minnesota

1,070,300

97

11,034 11

Yes

Exempt

No

Kentucky

889,598

85

10,466 12

No

Yes

No

Maine

185,737

21

8,845 13

Yes

Yes

No

Oklahoma

680,515

78

8,725 14

No

Yes

Yes

California

5,013,186

582

8,614 15

No

No Response

No

Delaware

168,791

20

8,440 16

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maryland

1,055,409

128

8,245 17

Yes

Yes

No

Nevada

400,893

53

7,564 18

Yes

Yes

No

Missouri

1,449,372

195

7,433 19

Yes

Yes

No

Colorado

526,716

71

7,419 20

Yes

Yes

Yes

Montana

201,387

33

6,103 21

Yes

Yes

No

Georgia

1,844,705

340

5,426 22

Yes

Yes

Yes

Hawaii

270,411

50

5,408 23

Yes

Yes

Yes

Tennessee

999,049

189

5,286 24

Yes

Yes

No

Nebraska

313,439

63

4,975 25

No

Yes

No

South Carolina

585,435

135

4,337 26

Yes

Yes

No

Utah

304,003

73

4,164 27

Yes

Yes

Yes

Michigan

2,094,396

532

3,937 28

No

Yes

No

Kansas

706,161

180

3,923 29

No

Yes

No

Florida

2,633,364

690

3,816 30

Yes

Yes

Yes

Alabama

889,757

238

3,738 31

Yes

Yes

Yes

Washington

1,282,816

350

3,665 32

Yes

Yes

No

North Dakota

137,875

40

3,447 33

Yes

Exempt

No

Mississippi

607,795

197

3,085 34

Yes

Yes

No

Alaska

110,882

37

2,997 35

No

Yes

No

North Carolina

1,086,949

400

2,717 36

Yes

Yes

No

Wyoming

109,062

42

2,597 37

Yes

Exempt

No

South Dakota

114,827

46

2,496 38

Yes

Yes

No

Illinois

1,877,776

811

2,315 39

Yes

Yes

Yes

Oregon

719,850

329

2,188 40

Yes

Yes

No

Louisiana

794,010

450

1,764 41

Yes

Yes

Yes

1 From Federal Highway Administration report on the number of licenses issued by state in 1999.

2 From American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) comparative survey of driver license programs.

Sources: Reports From Federal Highway Administration (1999), AAMVA (1999), Federal Election Commission (1997), Selective

Service System (2001), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2000)

Driver Examiners

Page 21

Appendix C

Facility Workload

Location/Travel Team Licenses

Number of Licenses Issued Facility

Base Location Issued CY 2000 Examiners per Examiner

Type

1 Gainesville

52,724

8

6,591

Reinstatement/ Testing Sites

2 Athens

35,555

6

5,926

3 Columbus

52,391

9

5,821

4 Savannah

44,418

8

5,552

5 Dublin

19,804

4

4,951

6 Albany

43,176

9

4,797

7 Augusta

30,198

7

4,314

8 Macon

37,562

9

4,174

9 Waycross

22,348

7

3,193

Testing Sites

1 Cummings 2 Canton 3 Toccoa 4 Blue Ridge 5 Villa Rica 6 Calhoun 7 Cartersville 8 Brunswick 9 Rome 10 Newnan 11 Lawrenceville 12 Covington 13 LaFayette 14 Cedartown 15 Evans 16 LaGrange 17 Tifton 18 Griffin 19 Americus 20 Valdosta 21 Dalton 1 22 Marietta 23 Hinesville 24 Cordele 25 Thomaston 26 Conyers 27 Statesboro 28 Thomasville 29 Thomson 30 Sandy Springs 31 Warner Robins 32 Milledgeville 33 Douglas 34 Helena 35 Moreland 36 Forest Park 37 South Fulton 38 Reidsville 39 Swainsboro

35,471

3

25,973

3

24,951

3

15,352

2

38,359

5

14,829

2

28,848

4

27,442

4

27,329

4

27,169

4

52,849

8

19,311

3

25,727

4

12,846

2

25,480

4

18,911

3

18,759

3

30,896

5

12,283

2

30,378

5

38,210

7

54,251

10

16,039

3

9,970

2

9,954

2

39,119

8

19,511

4

19,340

4

13,296

3

52,883

12

34,904

8

17,248

4

12,637

3

8,273

2

48,865

12

43,020

11

27,055

8

9,364

3

9,354

3

(Continued on next page)

11,824 8,658 8,317 7,676 7,672 7,415 7,212 6,861 6,832 6,792 6,606 6,437 6,432 6,423 6,370 6,304 6,253 6,179 6,142 6,076 5,459 5,425 5,346 4,985 4,977 4,890 4,878 4,835 4,432 4,407 4,363 4,312 4,212 4,137 4,072 3,911 3,382 3,121 3,118

Driver Examiners

Page 22

Appendix C (Continued) Facility Workload

Location/Travel Team Licenses

Base Location Issued CY 2000

1 Lilburn

44,073

2 Roswell Road

43,241

3 Lawrenceville

36,638

4 Abernathy

34,260

5 West Chapel

29,681

6 Savannah Kroger

29,583

7 Athens Kroger

28,869

8 Snellville

25,422

9 Duluth

24,472

10 Cascade

24,058

11 Jonesboro

22,707

12 McDonough

22,662

13 Alpharetta

44,623

14 Augusta Kroger

22,025

15 Stewart

21,750

16 Woodstock

21,198

17 LaVista

42,242

18 Peachtree City

20,418

19 Douglasville

20,260

20 Morrow

19,392

21 Macon Mall

18,156

22 Headland

16,363

23 Decatur

31,678

24 Mableton

33,432

25 Ponce De Leon

18,582

26 Savannah Piggly Wiggly

6,119

Number of Licenses Issued

Examiners per Examiner

1

44,073

1

43,241

1

36,638

1

34,260

1

29,681

1

29,583

1

28,869

1

25,422

1

24,472

1

24,058

1

22,707

1

22,662

2

22,312

1

22,025

1

21,750

1

21,198

2

21,121

1

20,418

1

20,260

1

19,392

1

18,156

1

16,363

2

15,839

3

11,144

2

9,291

1

6,119

Renewal Only Sites

Facility Type

1 Athens 2 Donalsonville 3 Albany 4 Gainesville 5 Cartersville 6 Thomaston 7 Reidsville 8 Perry 9 Thomson 10 Tifton 11 Waycross
Capitol2 GLOW BUS2

18,807 11,376 10,866 12,934 18,785 15,834
9,763 9,693 7,077 3,063 4,319
38,113 12,053

Travel Teams

2

9,404

2

5,688

2

5,433

3

4,311

5

3,757

5

3,167

4

2,441

4

2,423

3

2,359

3

1,021

5

864

8

4,764

2

6,027 Other

1 The Dalton Site became a reinstatement/testing site in October 2001. 2 The Capitol Site and the GLOW (Georgia Licenses on Wheels) Bus do not conduct road tests. Source: Program Records

Driver Examiners

Page 23

For additional information, please contact Paul E. Bernard, Director, Performance Audit Operations Division, at (404) 657-5220.

Driver Examiners

Page 24