Performance audit, Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division

              State of Arizona
Office
of the
Auditor General
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
MOTOR VEHICLE
DIVISION
September 1997
97-13
2910 NORTH 44th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 • (602) 553-0333 • FAX (602) 553-0051
DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
September 25, 1997
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Jane Dee Hull, Governor
Mr. Larry S. Bonine, Director
Arizona Department of Transportation
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the Department of Transportation.
This audit focuses on the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD). The report is in response to a May 30, 1995, resolution
of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The performance audit was conducted as part of the Sunset review set
forth in A.R.S. §§41-2951 through 41-2957.
This is the third in a series of reports to be issued on the Department of Transportation. The report addresses several
aspects of MVD’s driver’s license and title and registration functions. First, our review found that MVD customers
are generally satisfied with the service provided at MVD offices. Nevertheless, some customers still spend a
significant amount of time at some offices. On average, MVD is able to meet customers’ service delivery
expectations of 30 minutes or less; however, almost one-third of the customers at the 25 offices studied spent a
much longer time in the office. As MVD continues its efforts to reduce customer wait times statewide, it should
improve the way it measures timeliness to better evaluate office performance. Similarly, MVD needs to improve the
way it evaluates its telephone customer service to better address long hold times experienced by customers who are
attempting to receive information over the telephone.
The report also discusses MVD’s recent use of private companies to perform certain motor vehicle transactions, such as
processing title and registration documents. Despite these companies collecting and remitting $18.5 million in title and
registration revenues to MVD in fiscal year 1995-96, MVD has not established a comprehensive and consistent system for
overseeing the work they perform to ensure accurate and authorized transaction processing and to protect state assets.
Finally, when MVD recently revalued vehicle values for approximately 440,000 registered vehicles, it failed to provide
proper notice to thousands of vehicle owners, to ensure all values were raised correctly, and to keep records of changes made.
To better protect taxpayers in the future, the Legislature should consider amending the law to require MVD to notify
taxpayers of changes in vehicle value and to provide an opportunity for taxpayers to appeal any revaluation errors.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on September 26, 1997.
Sincerely,
Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
Enclosure
i
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the Department
of Transportation, pursuant to a May 30, 1995, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit
Committee. This audit focuses on the Motor Vehicle Division. This audit was conducted as
part of the Sunset review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§41-2951 through
41-2957 and is the third of four audits of the Department.
The Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) provides a variety of services to Arizona drivers vis-iting
its field offices, including issuing driver’s licenses and registering and titling vehicles.
In performing its duties, MVD has taken a number of steps to enhance customer service.
These efforts include implementing a system to issue driver’s licenses instantly, extending
office hours, and expanding its office functions to provide both driver’s license and title
and registration services at one site. Also, MVD has recently implemented programs de-signed
to reduce the number of customers who must visit its offices. For example, to en-courage
more customers to renew their vehicle registration by mail, MVD has worked to
reduce its processing time for this service and has sought legislation to require all custom-ers
to renew their registrations by mail. In addition, MVD received statutory authority to
implement a biennial registration program, extend the expiration dates on driver's li-censes,
and contract with private companies to provide some title, registration, and
driver’s license services.
MVD’s Customers Are Generally
Satisfied, But May Wait a
Long Time for Service
(See pages 7 through 10)
Although customers are generally satisfied with the service MVD provides, they still
spend a significant amount of time at some offices. Eighty-five percent of the over 4,600
customers surveyed at 25 MVD offices rated their overall experience as “good” or “excel-lent.”
Customers also responded favorably to the quality of service and convenience of of-fice
hours. However, despite their overall satisfaction with service quality when visiting
MVD offices, some customers, particularly those in urban offices, spend excessive
amounts of time to complete their transactions. While on average, MVD is able to meet
customers’ service delivery expectations of 30 minutes or less, almost one-third of the
customers at the 25 offices studied spent a much longer time in the office. At one urban
office, only 9 of 565 customers received service within 30 minutes. In another office, 39
percent of the customers spent an hour-and-a-half or more at the office. Interestingly, the
time customers spent in the office was not the factor that contributed most to their overall
ii
satisfaction. Instead, customers’ overall satisfaction was most significantly impacted by the
quality of service they received from the MVD representative.
As MVD continues its efforts to reduce customer wait times statewide, it should improve
the way it measures timeliness. For example, MVD’s current measures do not capture the
total time a customer is in an office.
MVD’s Telephone Customer
Service Needs Improvement
(See pages 11 through 14)
Many MVD customers are not satisfied with the service they receive when they telephone
MVD. Customers are often placed on hold for long periods of time before reaching a cus-tomer
service representative. For example, customers needing to speak to a representative
for title and registration information were kept holding for an average of over 12 minutes
in January 1997. These long delays discourage customers from getting the information
they need, as many customers hang up during this long hold time without reaching a rep-resentative.
In January 1997, one-third of the callers needing assistance ended their calls
without reaching a representative. In addition to being frustrated with long hold times,
customers do not always receive the information they need from MVD’s telephone sys-tem.
In fact, one-third of Maricopa County customers responding to a survey did not find
the title information they received helpful and one-fourth were not satisfied with infor-mation
received about registration requirements.
Although MVD is making efforts to improve telephone service, the Division needs to im-prove
the way it evaluates its performance to ensure service quality does increase. MVD
plans to expand the number of prison inmates who answer calls for the Division and im-prove
training for customer service representatives. However, unless MVD improves its
performance measures, the impact of these improvements will be difficult to measure. To
more effectively evaluate its efforts, the Division needs to measure the time customers
wait for a representative, the time spent speaking with the customer, and the performance
of each phone center.
MVD Should Increase Oversight
of Third-Party Contractors
(See pages 15 through 20)
Although MVD has recently begun to use private companies to perform certain motor ve-hicle
transactions, it has not established a comprehensive and consistent system for over-seeing
their work. These private companies, known as third parties, perform title and reg-istration
functions, process driver’s license applications, and inspect vehicles. Currently,
MVD contracts with 12 companies, including a car dealer, a title service, and a trucking
iii
company, to perform title and registration functions. While MVD regularly reviews the
work of these third-party contractors, it does not have a system in place to regularly
monitor and track their performance. As a result, if a contractor regularly submits incor-rect
paperwork or performs unauthorized transactions, MVD does not have the necessary
evidence to take disciplinary action. In fact, although MVD has warned one company on
four separate occasions over the last three years that additional errors would result in
contract termination, there is no evidence to suggest that it took any disciplinary action
against this company. Moreover, despite known problems with this particular third-party
contractor, MVD recently expanded the company’s authorization to perform additional,
more complex transactions.
In addition, MVD does not adequately monitor license plate and tab inventory issued to
these companies. Monitoring the third-party contractors’ inventories is important because
lost or stolen license plates and tabs could result in significant revenue loss to the State.
MVD Poorly Implemented
Vehicle Revaluation
(See pages 21 through 24)
Recently, MVD raised the tax value of approximately 440,000 vehicles registered in the
State. While MVD believes that revising the taxable value of these vehicles addresses erro-neously
calculated taxes, it implemented the revaluations poorly. First, MVD failed to no-tify
most vehicle owners of the changes made. In fact, MVD only notified about 43,000 of
the over 440,000 vehicle owners whose taxable values were increased. Although some of
these values may have been raised in error, most owners did not have the opportunity to
review MVD’s actions to determine if the new values were correct. Further, because MVD
did not keep records of most of the vehicle values changed, it cannot provide notice to
these owners or even tell customers who ask whether their vehicle’s value was changed.
Currently, statutes provide little guidance on revaluing vehicles and do not require MVD
to notify taxpayers of changes to their vehicle values or to provide an opportunity to ap-peal.
To protect taxpayers in the future, the Legislature should consider amending A.R.S.
§28-1591 to require that MVD notify taxpayers and provide the opportunity to appeal
changes in vehicle valuation. MVD should then promulgate rules that would specify
when and how adjustments would be made and to outline the appeal process for taxpay-ers.
iv
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank )
v
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction and Background............................................................. 1
Finding I: MVD’s Customers Are
Generally Satisfied, But May
Wait a Long Time for Service ......................................................... 7
Customers Generally
Satisfied with MVD’s Service .................................................................................... 7
Some Customers Receive Slow
Service at MVD Offices............................................................................................... 7
MVD Should Improve Its
Measurement of Customer
Service Timeliness ....................................................................................................... 9
Recommendations....................................................................................................... 10
Finding II: MVD’s Telephone Customer
Service Needs Improvement........................................................... 11
Background................................................................................................................... 11
Telephone Systems Do
Not Always Meet
Customer Needs .......................................................................................................... 11
Better Evaluation of
Improvements Needed............................................................................................... 13
Recommendations....................................................................................................... 14
Finding III: MVD Should Increase
Oversight Of Third-Party
Contractors........................................................................................ 15
Background................................................................................................................... 15
vi
Table of Contents (cont’d)
Page
Finding III: (cont’d)
Vehicle Information and
Valuables at Risk of Misuse ....................................................................................... 16
MVD Performs Minimal Oversight
of Third-Party Contractors......................................................................................... 17
Several Steps Needed to
Ensure Adequate Oversight....................................................................................... 18
Recommendations....................................................................................................... 20
Finding IV: MVD Poorly Implemented
Vehicle Revaluation.......................................................................... 21
Background................................................................................................................... 21
Vehicle Revaluation
Poorly Implemented ................................................................................................... 21
Valuation Process
Should Be Improved................................................................................................... 23
Recommendations....................................................................................................... 24
Agency Response
Appendix A............................................................................................. a-i
Appendix B............................................................................................. b-i
vii
Table of Contents (concl’d)
Page
Tables
Table 1: Arizona Department of Transportation,
Motor Vehicle Division
Customer Service Survey Results
Customer Ratings ............................................................................... 8
Table 2: Customer Service Survey and Time
Study Sampling Plan.......................................................................... a-ii
Table 3: Customer Service Survey and Time
Study Number of Customers by County
July and August 1996......................................................................... a-iv
Table 4: Overall Customer Satisfaction with
Service Received from MVD
Percentage of Customer Ratings by County.................................. b-i
Table 5: Length of Time Customers
Spent in MVD Offices
Percentage of Customers
Served by Time Period....................................................................... b-ii
Figure
Figure 1 Arizona Department of Transportation,
Motor Vehicle Division
Telephone Service Time by Type of Call
January 1997 ........................................................................................ 14
viii
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the Department
of Transportation pursuant to a May 30, 1995, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit
Committee. This audit focuses primarily on the Motor Vehicle Division and its customer
service functions. This audit was conducted as part of the Sunset review set forth in Ari-zona
Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§41-2951 through 41-2957 and is the third of four audits of
the Department.
Motor Vehicle Division Provides
Many Services to the Public
The Motor Vehicle Division provides a variety of services to Arizona citizens. The Division
licenses approximately 2.7 million drivers and titles and registers almost 3.5 million vehi-cles
in the State. In performing these duties, the Division collected approximately $600
million in driver’s license fees, registration fees, title fees, and vehicle license taxes in fiscal
year 1995-96. A portion of these monies (approximately $280 million in fiscal year 1995-96)
is deposited in the Highway User Revenue Fund and used to help meet Arizona’s high-way
needs.
MVD’s responsibilities have expanded in recent years. While MVD has historically been
responsible for driver’s license functions, title and registration functions had been per-formed
by the county assessors. However, since 1981, MVD has gradually taken over re-sponsibility
for title and registration from the counties. In 1995, MVD completed this tran-sition
by acquiring Maricopa County’s operations, giving MVD statewide responsibility
for all title and registration functions.
MVD Has Enhanced Services
in Several Ways
To meet the challenges of its expanded services and Arizona’s growing population, MVD
has taken significant steps to improve customer service. Some notable efforts to provide
more convenient service include:
n Instant driver’s license issuance—In 1995, the Division implemented a new system
in many offices that allows customers to receive a permanent driver’s license before
2
they leave the office. In the past, MVD gave customers a temporary paper license and
later mailed a permanent license.
n Extended hours—The Division has extended service hours at many of its Phoenix
and Tucson locations. These offices are open to serve customers for an additional 2
hours each day. MVD has also expanded the number of offices with Saturday hours.
Currently, 11 offices around the State are open on Saturdays.
n Dual-function offices—MVD has worked to increase the number of offices that
provide both driver’s license and title and registration services. Since September
1996, seven offices in Maricopa County have been converted to provide all services.
These dual offices allow customers to process both driver’s license and title and
registration transactions in one trip, rather than having to visit two separate offices.
MVD has also implemented several programs to reduce the number of customers who
must visit MVD offices as well as the amount of time a customer spends in the office, in-cluding:
n Renew-by-Mail—MVD has worked to reduce the amount of time it takes for cus-tomers
to receive their vehicle registrations by mail. In fact, customers now receive
their registration renewal in about five days, compared to several weeks in 1995.
Although only about half of the customers currently renew by mail, 1997 legislation
will require most customers to use this service in 1998.
n Biennial Registration—In 1995, the Legislature granted MVD statutory authority to
register vehicles for a two-year period, rather than renewing each vehicle annually.
Currently, the program is offered to owners of vehicles with a vehicle license tax of
$50 or less, which is about 25 percent of registered vehicles.
n Extended Driver’s License—In 1993, MVD was granted statutory authority to ex-tend
the expiration dates on driver’s licenses. While in the past drivers had to renew
their licenses every 4 years, the new extended licenses expire on the driver’s 60th
birthday and every 5 years thereafter. As of August 1997, all currently licensed driv-ers
will have received an extended license.
n Third-Party Contractors—MVD contracts with private companies to provide some
title, registration, and driver’s license services. These third-party contractors cur-rently
process about 4 percent of all title and registration transactions. Over time,
MVD plans to increase the number of transactions processed by third-party con-tractors
to about 20 percent of all transactions.
3
Because many of these programs are fairly new and have not yet been extended to all
MVD customers, the full impact on customer service timeliness is not known. However,
MVD has estimated that these programs will reduce the number of customers who must
visit the offices by about 25 percent.
Staffing and Organization
Several MVD functions provide services to driver’s license and title and registration cus-tomers:
n Customer Service—Almost 700 employees serve customers at the 65 field offices
across the State.
n Internal Support—Twenty-seven telephone customer service representatives pro-vide
general information and answer customers’ questions through the statewide
phone center. The support function also provides training and other support services
to the field offices.
n Commercial Licensing—In addition to commercial duties, this group oversees the
third-party program and is responsible for establishing and monitoring the 13 title
and registration contractors currently in operation.
1988 Report Follow-up
As part of the current audit, the customer service-related concerns identified in the Audi-tor
General’s 1988 performance audit of the Motor Vehicle Division (Auditor General Re-port
88-7) were reviewed. As noted earlier, the Division has made several customer service
improvements, including those recommended in the 1988 report. For example, while in
1988 customers waited up to 70 days to receive their driver’s licenses in the mail, they can
now receive them on the same day they visit MVD offices, since licenses are now issued
instantly at many field offices.
While many of the prior audit concerns have been addressed, MVD still lacks an adequate
phone system to provide information to customers. In 1988, the report noted that custom-ers
had difficulty reaching an MVD employee to get their questions answered. The current
audit found customers still encounter difficulty in reaching an MVD employee and getting
the information they need through the phone system (see Finding II, pages 11 through 14).
4
Audit Scope
and Methodology
This audit focused on the Motor Vehicle Division’s driver’s license and title and registra-tion
functions. Specifically, the audit addresses customer satisfaction with MVD services,
the adequacy of MVD’s telephone service, the Division’s monitoring of third-party service
providers, and the Division’s revaluation of vehicles for calculation of the vehicle license
tax.
Several methods were used to study the issues addressed in this audit, including:
n Surveying over 4,600 customers visiting MVD offices across the State to determine
overall satisfaction with MVD services (see Appendix A, pages a-i through a-vii, for
details about how the survey was conducted);
n Measuring service timeliness for over 10,700 customers conducting transactions at
MVD offices to determine how long they were in the office to obtain service (see
Appendix A, pages a-i through a-vii, for details about how this study was con-ducted);
n Reviewing MVD’s performance information for field offices and the phone systems,
such as customer wait times and telephone hold times;
n Interviewing and observing 3 of the 12 third-party contractors to obtain their views
on the program and to obtain an understanding of their operations;
n Reviewing 4 third-party contract files to determine the extent of monitoring activi-ties
and reviewing all 12 files to determine the adequacy of inventory records; and
n Interviewing officials in 4 other states regarding motor vehicle office and telephone
services.
This report presents findings and recommendations in four areas, discussing the need for
MVD to:
n Improve customer service time measurement and reporting;
n Evaluate planned telephone service improvements to ensure customers are provided
useful information in a timely manner;
n Better oversee private contractors conducting title and registration functions; and
5
n Seek formal authority to revalue vehicles for the purpose of calculating the vehicle
license tax.
The audit was conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the Director and the staff of the De-partment
of Transportation and its Motor Vehicle Division for their cooperation and as-sistance
throughout the audit. We also thank the thousands of customers at MVD offices
across the State who participated in the customer service survey and time study.
6
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank )
7
FINDING I
MVD’s CUSTOMERS ARE GENERALLY
SATISFIED, BUT MAY WAIT A
LONG TIME FOR SERVICE
Customers are generally satisfied with the service they receive from MVD’s offices, even
though customers at some offices often wait more than an hour. While MVD is currently
making efforts to reduce service time, the Division needs to improve how it measures
service timeliness.
Customers Generally
Satisfied with MVD’s Service
Overall, MVD’s customers are satisfied with their experience at MVD offices and the
service received from MVD employees. Over 4,600 MVD customers at 25 MVD offices
across the State were asked to rate the service they received. As illustrated in Table 1 (see
page 8), 85 percent of the customers responding to our survey rated their overall experi-ence
at the MVD offices as “good” or “excellent.” Additionally, customers gave the Divi-sion’s
customer service representatives high marks for service quality, and most felt the
office hours were convenient.
Several factors appear to influence customers’ satisfaction with the service they receive at
the offices. Interestingly, customers report being satisfied with the service they receive al-though
they may experience slow service. This may be attributable to the excellent service
and pleasant treatment that customers reported receiving from the customer service repre-sentatives.
In fact, some customers made positive comments regarding the staff at the of-fices.
Some Customers Receive Slow
Service at MVD Offices
Despite customers’ overall satisfaction with the quality of the service they receive, some
customers spend an excessive amount of time in MVD offices completing their transac-tions.
Although almost 70 percent of the customers responding to our survey considered
fewer than 30 minutes a reasonable amount of time to complete their transactions, many
of the customers visiting MVD offices during our study spent much longer to complete
their transactions. In fact, about 1 in 3 customers visiting the offices observed during our
8
study waited more than 30 minutes for service. These customers spent over 57 minutes on
average, while the average service time for all customers was 28.6 minutes.
Table 1
Arizona Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division
Customer Service Survey Results
Customer Ratings
Service Factor
Percentage of
Favorable Ratings
Overall service 85.0% a
Employee overall service 90.3 a
Employee courtesy 88.4 a
Employee knowledge of the transaction 88.1 b
Hours of operation 89.0 c
a “Good” or “excellent” rating for this factor.
b The employee rated as “very knowledgeable.”
c Agreement that the hours of operation were convenient.
Source: Auditor General survey of customers at Motor Vehicle Division offices in July and August 1996.
(For survey results by county, see Appendix B.)
Generally, customers in the urban areas spent more time in MVD offices. While some
customers in all parts of the State experienced slow service, customers visiting offices in
Maricopa and Pima Counties waited an average of 5 minutes longer to complete their
transactions. A few offices were particularly problematic, with customers in the office well
in excess of 30 minutes. For example, in one office, only 9 of 565 customers were served
within 30 minutes. In another, 39 percent of the customers were in the office over an hour-and-
a-half for service.
Customers experience slow service due to a number of factors, including customer volume
at the office, number of counters open to serve them, and the type of transaction. As may
be expected, customers at offices with greater customer traffic wait longer than those at
9
less-busy offices. In addition, customers can wait longer at offices that do not have all
counters open due to employee absences for vacations, illnesses, or training, and due to
unfilled positions left by employee turnover. Further, customers generally receive slower
service for driver’s license transactions, since these transactions generally take longer to
process.
MVD Should Improve Its
Measurement of Customer
Service Timeliness
MVD should improve its method of measuring customer service timeliness to better
evaluate office performance. Although the Division has made efforts to shorten the time
customers spend in its offices, continued monitoring can help identify additional factors
that may be contributing to slow service. To accomplish this, the Division needs to im-prove
its overall time measurement systems to more accurately reflect customer experi-ence
and provide necessary management information. Currently, MVD has two separate
methods for recording the time customers spend at MVD, yet neither system produces the
information needed to adequately evaluate service timeliness. First, a computerized sys-tem
called “Q-matic” is used at 21 of MVD’s 65 offices. This system records on a daily ba-sis
the time customers take to complete their transactions. All other offices record cus-tomer
wait times manually for one day each month. While MVD is aware of the limita-tions
of its time measurement methods and is working on addressing the problems, both
of the above-mentioned systems have weaknesses that currently prevent MVD from using
the information to effectively manage customer service. Specifically:
n Computerized system is not standardized between offices—Currently, the Q-matic
system does not capture transactions in the same categories for all offices. For
example, while one office may consider a driver’s license renewal part of a general
“driver’s license” category, another office might have a separate category for renewals.
Because renewals can take significantly less time than issuing a new driver’s license,
MVD cannot compare performance between offices on a transaction-level basis. MVD
recognizes this weakness and is in the process of standardizing the categories.
n System does not record total time in offices—The Q-matic system also fails to rec-ord
the total time customers are in the office for service. Although the system currently
captures the time customers wait in the lobby and the time it takes to process their
transactions at the window, it stops recording when customers leave the window to
wait for their driver’s license or permit to process and print. Therefore, MVD should
take steps to improve the system to ensure that it can capture total customer time spent
in an office.
10
n Noncomputerized offices not accurately measured—Current service measurement
methods used at the 44 offices without a computerized system do not give MVD an ac-curate
picture of the offices’ performance. These methods simply measure all customer
wait times for one day during the month, which is not randomly selected. Therefore,
MVD should conduct the one-day studies on randomly selected days throughout the
month for each office. This would give a more accurate picture of customer service
across the State.
MVD should also study whether the computerized “Q-matic” system should be further
expanded. As noted earlier, the system is currently installed in 21 of the State’s 65 MVD
offices. MVD plans to add the system to 4 additional offices in the Phoenix area at a cost of
approximately $30,000 per office. MVD should study expanding the system to other of-fices.
However, offices with few service counters or consistently short wait times may not
benefit from the system enough to justify the cost.
Recommendations
1. MVD needs to continue to evaluate the impact of its efforts to reduce the time custom-ers
spend in the offices to complete their business and determine whether additional
steps are needed to improve service timeliness.
2. To ensure a consistent, more accurate method of measuring customer time, the Divi-sion
should improve its time recording methods by:
n Improving the consistency of information captured by the computerized system
at each office;
n Ensuring the computerized system captures the total time customers are in the
offices to conduct their business;
n Improving the method of time study for offices without the computerized system
to ensure the results better reflect customer experience; and
n Evaluating whether a computerized system is needed at additional offices to pro-vide
better information about service timeliness.
11
FINDING II
MVD’S TELEPHONE CUSTOMER
SERVICE NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
MVD needs to improve its telephone customer service. Currently, customers calling
MVD’s statewide telephone system have difficulty getting their questions answered
quickly or satisfactorily. While MVD plans to address these problems through training
improvements and staff increases, the Division should also develop more detailed per-formance
standards to evaluate these efforts and ensure overall service quality.
Background
MVD received approximately 2.5 million telephone calls in 1996. Customers calling MVD
can access preprogrammed messages containing a variety of information, such as office
hours and the documents needed to conduct transactions, or opt to contact a telephone
call center. MVD has three call centers that specialize in title and registration, driver’s li-cense,
or mandatory insurance requirements. MVD currently employs 28 representatives
for these phone centers and also uses 56 inmates at the Perryville state prison complex to
answer basic driver’s license and title- and registration-related calls.
Telephone Systems Do
Not Always Meet
Customer Needs
Currently, MVD’s telephone system does not provide timely or satisfactory information in
response to customer inquiries. While most customers prefer to speak to an MVD cus-tomer
service representative, heavy delays prevent many of them from talking to a repre-sentative.
Moreover, even when customers do not need to speak with a representative to
obtain information, they are not always satisfied with the quality of the information
MVD’s telephone system provides.
Slow service discourages customers—Many customers trying to reach an MVD represen-tative
are often unsuccessful in doing so because of busy telephone lines and long delays.
While some customer inquiries can be answered by recorded messages on the automated
telephone system, many callers request to speak to an MVD representative. For example,
in January 1997, almost 115,000 of the 179,000 callers accessing the statewide system re-quested
to speak to a customer service representative. However, the majority of these
12
customers were unsuccessful in reaching a representative. Specifically, these customers
faced the following barriers to MVD service:
n Forced to Repeat Process—Approximately 25,000, or 22 percent, of the 115,000 cus-tomers
electing to talk to a representative were recycled through the phone menu sys-tem.
Each call center is designed so that only a limited number of customers can wait
on hold for a representative. When there are too many people already waiting to speak
to a representative, MVD customers are given a recorded message indicating that all
lines are busy and they should try again later.
n Customers Give up—Over 38,000, or 33 percent, of the 115,000 customers hung up
rather than continuing to wait for a representative. Many of these customers did so af-ter
waiting for a significant amount of time. Twenty-five percent of these customers
waited on hold at least 9 minutes before abandoning their call.
n Long Hold Times—Customers who stayed on the line until they contacted a repre-sentative
waited on hold for a long time. Hold times are particularly lengthy for cus-tomers
with questions regarding titles or registration. For example, almost 18,000 cus-tomers
held on the line for an average of over 12 minutes in January 1997.
While hold times are quite high for Arizona MVD customers, other states are able to re-spond
to customer calls much more quickly. For example, 75 percent of the customers
calling the California Department of Motor Vehicles are on hold for fewer than 90 seconds,
and only 5 percent of these customers decided to hang up.
Some customers not satisfied with information received—In addition to slow service,
MVD’s telephone system does not always provide satisfactory information. The customer
service survey asked MVD customers to evaluate the Division’s telephone service, in-cluding
their satisfaction with the information provided over the telephone. Of the Mari-copa
County customers who called the telephone system, approximately one-third did not
find helpful title information, and one-fourth were not satisfied with the system’s infor-mation
on registration requirements. Some of these customers complained of incorrect in-formation
on the recording or when speaking with representatives. For example, one cus-tomer
commented that office hours given on the system’s automated recording were in-correct.
13
Better Evaluation of
Improvements Needed
MVD is planning to improve its telephone service delivery. However, the Division should
also revise some of its performance standards to better evaluate the service after the im-provements
are implemented.
Division making efforts—MVD plans several improvements to make the telephone sys-tem
more convenient and to improve the quality of information provided to customers.
The Division recently added 24 inmates from the Perryville state prison complex to an-swer
title and registration questions and plans to add 10 more inmates to handle calls.
Additionally, MVD plans to increase its telephone representatives’ training requirements
and improve the training curriculum to provide specialized courses and better ensure that
customers are provided accurate information. However, since most of these plans are in
the development stage and the Division has no estimate of the impact of additional staff
and improved training, their effect on service quality cannot be determined.
MVD should establish better performance standards—To evaluate the effectiveness of
these new measures, MVD needs to establish better performance standards to assess serv-ice
quality and identify where additional improvements are needed. Specifically, MVD
should separately measure the time customers wait for a representative and the time they
spend talking to the representative. MVD currently combines the times, confusing two
very different aspects of a call center’s performance. For example, customers experiencing
significant wait times might highlight the need for additional staff in call centers. Con-versely,
customers experiencing lengthy conversations with representatives might indicate
a need for additional staff training.
In contrast, other states have established distinct performance standards to measure and
improve their performance. For example, California’s Department of Motor Vehicles
keeps separate measurements for talk time and hold time. The Department regularly
monitors the time customers spend on hold and adjusts its staffing to reduce hold times.
In addition, the Department separately monitors talk time and has been successful in lim-iting
the time a representative needs to spend with a customer to under 130 seconds.
In addition to maintaining separate standards for talk and hold times, MVD should indi-vidually
review the performance of its three call centers. Despite differences in the per-formance
of each call center, MVD combines these times into a single measurement. As a
result, MVD cannot accurately assess where changes are needed. For example, in January
1997, MVD reported that, on average, customers contacting MVD spent nearly 11 minutes
on hold and talking to a representative. However, as illustrated in Figure 1 (see page 14),
the actual performance for each call center varied from 8 minutes on average for a driver’s
license call to 15 minutes for a title and registration call. Averaging these wait times to-gether
obscured the lower-quality service provided by the title and registration call center.
14
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Minutes
Wait Time Talk Time
Figure 1
Arizona Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division
Telephone Service Time by Type of Call
January 1997
Source: Auditor General review of monthly Octel phone system reports.
Recommendations
1. To more accurately evaluate telephone service, the telephone unit must develop more
specific goals and measurements that will separately consider:
n The time customers spend waiting for a representative,
n The time staff spend resolving customer requests, and
n The performance of each phone center.
2. Using these performance measurements, the Division should evaluate the impact of
planned staffing increases and training improvements for the telephone unit.
Driver’s License
Call Center
Title and Registration
Call Center
Mandatory Insurance
Call Center
15
FINDING III
MVD SHOULD INCREASE OVERSIGHT
OF THIRD-PARTY CONTRACTORS
MVD should implement a more comprehensive monitoring process to oversee its third-party
contractors. While MVD contracts with certain private companies to perform motor
vehicle transactions, the delegation of its authority without proper oversight creates a risk
that vehicle information and state assets may be misused. Despite this risk, MVD currently
cannot ensure third-party contractors accurately process transactions and perform only
authorized transactions. Therefore, MVD needs to monitor the access and use of computer
systems, develop adequate monitoring policies and procedures, and increase its audits of
these contractors.
Background
In 1993, the Legislature authorized MVD to contract with private companies, referred to as
“third-party” contractors, to perform title and registration functions, process driver’s li-cense
applications, and inspect vehicles. Currently, there are 12 companies that title and
register vehicles, including an automobile dealership, a car rental agency, a title service,
and a trucking company. Although some third-party contractors, such as car rental agen-cies
and trucking companies, process title and registration documents for their own vehi-cle
fleet, others handle transactions for the general public. For example, one third-party
contractor receives vehicle sales information from various car dealers and will register and
title vehicles and provide license plates and registration tabs to the new owner.
Similar to MVD field offices, these companies collect and remit all tax revenue to the State
and are certified by MVD to perform motor vehicle transactions. However, the third-party
contractors are allowed to charge customers additional fees to profit from their services.
For example, fees vary from $7.00 to $24.50 for the title transactions they process. In fiscal
year 1995-96, third-party contractors collected and remitted to MVD over $18.5 million in
title and registration revenues. Although these companies currently process only 4 percent
of all state title and registration transactions, MVD plans to increase its use of third-party
contractors to 20 percent by fiscal year 1999.
16
Vehicle Information and
Valuables at Risk of Misuse
Despite its increased interest in using third-party contractors to handle MVD transactions,
delegating MVD functions to private companies does involve some risks. In fact, the third-party
contractors’ ability to access and alter records leaves vehicle information on MVD’s
computers open to misuse. In addition, poor tracking of inventory distributed to third-party
contractors, such as license plates and vehicle tabs, increases the likelihood that these
items could be lost or stolen.
Computer systems open to abuse—Third-party contractors have broad access to MVD re-cords
in order to process transactions; however, there are a number of transactions con-ducted
on MVD’s computer system that are vulnerable to misuse or abuse. The following
problems with information access demonstrate the capability of third-party contractors to
misuse their authority to process MVD transactions:
n Unauthorized access to information may occur—Unauthorized personnel may
obtain access to personal customer information. MVD creates confidential user IDs and
passwords for each person authorized to access motor vehicle information on the
computer system. These passwords and IDs must be deleted when the employee
leaves the company to ensure they are not given to an unauthorized user. Although
third-party contractors are required to notify MVD when an employee leaves the com-pany
so the password can be deleted, this does not always occur. For example, Auditor
General and MVD auditors determined that one third-party contractor allowed its em-ployees
to give passwords to unauthorized personnel on at least two occasions. In ad-dition,
auditors determined that one third party notified MVD that an employee was
leaving, but the Division did not delete the user ID and password. Even though pass-words
automatically expire after 30 days, by not removing the password immediately,
MVD leaves a window of opportunity for someone to gain unauthorized access.
n Unauthorized transactions can be processed—Although passwords restrict access
to some transactions, MVD’s computer system still allows third-party contractors to
perform some unauthorized transactions. In one case, MVD discovered that a third
party conducted an unauthorized transaction to suspend a customer’s vehicle registra-tion
record because the customer wrote the company a check with insufficient funds.
Not only did the third party use an unauthorized code, but it inappropriately sus-pended
the customer’s vehicle registration.
n Some authorized transactions are open to abuse—Although MVD prohibits third
parties from conducting certain transactions, some authorized transactions are open to
abuse. Allowed transactions, such as the computer command to delete and change a
vehicle record and the command to reduce or eliminate vehicle registration fees, are
often necessary when performing routine transactions. However, third-party contrac-
17
tors could possibly use these commands to modify vehicle data or eliminate the regis-tration
fees owed to the State. For example, one company found altered registration
renewals in an employee’s desk that were missing $54.75 from the total taxes. A super-visor
at this company believes the fees were missing from the registration renewals the
employee processed for a friend. Once informed of the discrepancy, MVD took action
to collect the remaining fees.
Inventory at risk—In addition to potentially misused computer access, MVD is unable to
track quantities of license plates or vehicle tabs on hand at third-party contractor offices.
These tracking deficiencies are similar to those noted in the recently released performance
audit of MVD revenue functions (see Auditor General Report 97-4). In that audit, the Divi-sion
was cited for having poor inventory control procedures over license plates and tabs
issued by its own field offices.
Without accurate inventory records, MVD has no way of knowing whether the revenues
remitted by third-party contractors are reasonable in comparison with the number of
plates or tabs sold. Further, if plates or tabs are stolen and placed on an unregistered vehi-cle
it can represent significant revenue loss to MVD. For example, a vehicle tab placed on a
1996 vehicle with an original value of $20,000 represents a lost payment of $408 in Vehicle
License Tax. MVD’s auditors indicated and our own observations confirmed that it is ex-tremely
difficult to determine the quantity of plates and tabs the third-party contractor
should have on hand. Therefore, MVD cannot readily determine if there are any plates or
tabs for which the State did not receive the appropriate revenue.
MVD Performs Minimal Oversight
of Third-Party Contractors
Despite the risk associated with delegating the ability to conduct state business, MVD cur-rently
does not adequately oversee the operations of third-party contractors. Specifically, it
does not regularly track and measure the companies’ performance. Because performance
is not monitored, MVD is not able to effectively enforce contract provisions to ensure
companies committing excessive errors or violating their state contracts do not continue to
do so.
Third-party contractor performance not adequately monitored—MVD does not track er-rors
made by third-party contractors. MVD requires third parties to submit all transactions
processed and typically reviews 10 percent of each business day’s transactions if it believes
the third-party contractor is generally performing well. Occasionally, MVD will identify a
company or one of its employees that consistently commits errors and will subsequently
review all the transactions conducted by that company or that employee. However, this is
generally done for only a short period of time (usually one month). Moreover, as it con-ducts
its reviews, MVD does not document and track the number or types of errors made.
18
Third-party contracts not adequately enforced—In addition to inadequate performance
monitoring, MVD does not take enforcement action for contract violations or excessive
transaction errors made by contractors. MVD staff occasionally meet with company offi-cials
to discuss transaction discrepancies found by MVD, but the contractors committing
excessive errors or contract violations are allowed to continue normal operations without
penalty from MVD.
In at least one case, the lack of performance monitoring and enforcement action may have
led MVD to retain a third-party contractor who consistently made errors. Since the com-pany
began contracting with the State in 1993, it has committed a number of transaction
errors, such as titling vehicles without appropriate owner signatures and not properly
collecting state monies. Furthermore, the contractor admitted in a letter to MVD that it had
been conducting various transactions not authorized in its contract for at least two years.
On four occasions since 1994, MVD warned the contractor that further incidents would
result in contract termination. However, MVD has never taken action to adequately en-force
contract provisions. In fact, although this contractor continues to consistently make
errors, MVD recently expanded the company’s authorization to perform additional, more
complex transactions.
Several Steps Needed to
Ensure Adequate Oversight
To ensure accurate and authorized transaction processing and to better protect state assets,
MVD needs to improve oversight of third-party contractors. First, it needs to regularly
monitor computer system use and access. Second, MVD needs to develop and implement
effective policies and procedures that will ensure transactions are processed accurately
and that contract provisions are enforced. Finally, MVD should increase audit coverage to
ensure compliance with the contract provisions as well as identify any questionable prac-tices.
MVD needs to monitor computer system access—MVD needs to more closely monitor ac-cess
to its computer systems. Although third-party contractors are required to notify MVD
when an employee leaves so passwords can be deleted, MVD needs to contact the compa-nies
on a regular basis to determine if all users on record are still with the company. This
will allow MVD to delete passwords the company should no longer have. Further, MVD
should delete these passwords in a timely fashion to ensure uncertified employees are not
able to access the system.
MVD needs adequate monitoring policies—To ensure adequate contract oversight, MVD
needs to develop and implement policies and procedures. Currently, MVD does not have
standards for determining when to increase or reduce levels of transaction reviews nor
does it have policies describing how many errors committed by a third-party company or
19
its individual employees constitute the need for disciplinary action. Therefore, MVD needs
to establish a number of important oversight policies and procedures, including:
n Computer activity reviews—MVD should review monthly activity reports on a
regular basis to monitor computer use for prohibited transactions or excessive use of
transactions that are open to abuse. These reports display the types of transactions ac-cessed
by third-party contractors and, if reviewed, would alert MVD to potential
abuse. MVD should also record and retain review results with the contractors’ per-formance
histories.
n Performance tracking—MVD should develop a formalized sampling strategy to en-sure
an appropriate number of transactions are checked based on the past performance
of the third-party contractor. As the work is reviewed, MVD needs to record and track
the number and type of errors made by the company. These performance histories
would allow MVD to evaluate the efficiency, error rate, and severity of errors made by
the third-party contractor. It would also point out the need for additional training or
serve as a basis for granting or denying these companies additional responsibilities.
n Disciplinary measures—MVD should develop policies for taking action against
poorly performing contractors. MVD should develop a system of disciplinary meas-ures
that includes progressively stricter actions based on the company’s past perform-ance
and the severity of the problems. Essentially, enforcement measures should in-clude
requiring additional training, limiting access to MVD systems, or ultimately,
canceling a company’s contract.
n Inventory procedures—MVD should develop an automated inventory system to en-sure
it can always locate tabs and plates by serial number, that it has a recording of in-ventory
issued to third-party contractors, and that it can physically verify item quanti-ties.
The Division is currently developing such a system that should address these
needs.
More audits of third-party contractors are needed—Finally, MVD’s third-party auditors
can assist in strengthening its third-party oversight by conducting more audits. MVD es-tablished
an audit position in 1995 to review the operations of third-party contractors.
Since that time, although MVD has audited all 12 contractors that process title and regis-tration
transactions, it has only audited one of them more than once. Although a limited
number of audits have been performed, several serious matters have been discovered. For
example, a December 1996 audit revealed that a third-party contractor was licensing its
rental vehicles and placing them on the road for up to 139 days before providing MVD
with the appropriate vehicle registration information and vehicle license tax revenue.
20
To address the need for more audits, MVD has recently increased its number of third-party
auditors from one to six. Therefore, once these positions are filled, MVD should es-tablish
an audit plan that will enable it to conduct regular audits of all third-party con-tractors.
In addition, MVD should use the extra staff to ensure that any problems found
are addressed. A review of audit records revealed that no follow-up audits have been
conducted to date, despite the fact that some serious problems were identified during
prior audits.
Recommendations
1. MVD should strengthen oversight of the third-party contractors’ use of the State’s
computer systems. Specifically, MVD should ensure only authorized persons have ac-cess
to the system and that only proper, authorized transactions are processed.
2. MVD should develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure adequate
oversight of third-party contractors that includes procedures regarding computer ac-tivity
reviews, performance tracking, disciplinary measures, and inventory procedures.
3. MVD should conduct more audits of third-party contractors and follow up on issues
discovered during the audits.
21
FINDING IV
MVD POORLY IMPLEMENTED
VEHICLE REVALUATION
MVD poorly implemented a program that raised the vehicle license tax for thousands of
vehicles. Using a new computer program, MVD recently identified over 780,000 vehicles
that it believed were incorrectly valued under its old method of determining taxable val-ues.
Subsequently, MVD raised the value for over 440,000 vehicles and has made plans to
reduce the value for approximately 340,000 vehicles. However, MVD poorly implemented
this effort by failing to provide proper notice to thousands of vehicle owners, to ensure all
values were raised correctly, and to keep records of changes made. To protect taxpayers,
the Legislature should consider revising A.R.S. §28-1591 to require MVD to provide
proper notice and opportunity for appeal when changing vehicle values.
Background
MVD collects a vehicle license tax for all registered vehicles in Arizona. In accordance with
A.R.S. §28-1591(A), the tax is based on a vehicle’s Manufacturer’s Base Retail Price
(MBRP), which is recorded in MVD’s computer database and used each year to determine
the vehicle license tax. Until recently, when first registering vehicles, MVD customer serv-ice
representatives confirmed the value by looking up the vehicle’s unique Vehicle Identi-fication
Number (VIN) in a guide and manually entering the vehicle data into the state
database. However, after April 1996, MVD employees began using a computerized pro-gram
that allows them to simply enter the VIN into the computer, which then records the
vehicle’s value automatically. Once this program was installed, the Division also decided
to use it to verify existing vehicle tax values in its database. In doing so, MVD identified
over 780,000 vehicles in its database in which the assessed value did not match the as-sessed
value recorded from the automated program.
Vehicle Revaluation
Poorly Implemented
MVD’s reverification of vehicle valuations was poorly implemented. Although MVD has
already raised the tax value for over 440,0001 vehicles, it failed to adequately notify vehicle
1 The number of vehicles re-valued is an estimate, as MVD did not keep records of the vehicle values it
changed.
22
owners impacted by the change. In fact, MVD may have incorrectly raised the tax value
for some of those vehicles that have already been changed. Moreover, because MVD did
not keep records of changes, it would likely be unable to identify which vehicles’ tax val-ues
had been changed if vehicle owners question or challenge the evaluation.
MVD raised the value for many Arizona vehicles—To correct what it believed were errors
in its records, the Division recently raised the tax value of over 440,000 vehicles. Because of
the prior manual process for entering vehicle tax values, MVD officials believed there
were some incorrect vehicle tax values in the computer system, which resulted in incorrect
vehicle license tax amounts. Therefore, MVD used its new computer program to identify
approximately 780,000 vehicles, or roughly 1 in every 4 vehicles registered in the State,
that were incorrectly valued, and therefore incorrectly taxed. Beginning in September
1996, the Division raised the values of over 440,000 vehicles whose tax values were too
low, thus increasing the amount of tax by approximately $4.5 million. Available docu-mentation
does not indicate that MVD originally planned to lower those tax values the
computer program identified as being too high; however, the Division now plans to lower
the values of approximately 340,000 vehicles in mid-1997, decreasing the tax amount by an
estimated $3.2 million. Overall, these two changes will result in a net increase in vehicle
license tax revenue of approximately $1.3 million in the first year and 15 percent less each
year after that.1
MVD failed to properly notify vehicle owners of change—Most owners impacted by the
increase were not adequately notified. Beginning in March 1997, the Division sent 43,000
letters to individuals whose vehicle values were increased by more than 15 percent. How-ever,
these letters did not indicate the specific dollar impact on the owner’s tax or indicate
any option for the owners to appeal the revaluation. In addition, according to an internal
Division document, concern over receiving too many customer phone calls about the
change prompted MVD management’s decision to not notify the remaining 400,000 vehi-cle
owners who were affected by the increase. Therefore, these owners most likely were
unaware of any increase in their vehicle’s tax value.
Some vehicle values may have been incorrectly raised—Notifying the vehicle owners of
the changes in their vehicle values is important because there is a possibility that some
taxable values were incorrectly calculated. The program analyzes a portion of a vehicle
identification number to identify the vehicle model. However, some manufacturers assign
the same model number to vehicles with different base prices. Therefore, because the
computer program does not always distinguish between similar vehicles, it is likely that
an incorrect taxable value was assigned to some vehicles. For example:
1 The decrease is because the license tax for all vehicles decreases by 15 percent each year.
23
n Nissan manufactures its 240SX model with four different subseries, such as the 2D
convertible or the 3D fastback. List prices for these vehicles range from $14,785 to
$18,725, yet the automated system is incapable of differentiating between these four
subseries. As a result, for all 240SX vehicles, the program records the value of the most
common subseries. This difference in valuation could mean a $94.56 difference in the
vehicle license tax during the first year’s registration.
MVD did not keep records of changes—Although a few customers were able to identify
and reverse incorrect changes, in most cases, MVD has no record of which vehicle records
it changed. After MVD instituted these changes, it received complaints from approxi-mately
200 customers who questioned their vehicle revaluations. At least 16 of these had
their original values reinstated when they showed evidence that the original value was
correct.
However, except for the 43,000 vehicles whose owners received letters, MVD cannot go
back and notify the owners or reinstate the original values for the remaining 400,000 vehi-cles.
In fact, if a customer inquires, MVD will not likely be able to determine whether the
value had been changed because it keeps backup copies of its vehicle database for only
two weeks. Moreover, the only physical records the Division has of the changes are the
letters it sent to the small portion of those owners whose vehicle values had been changed
by more than 15 percent.
Valuation Process
Should Be Improved
The poor implementation of the recent vehicle revaluations points to the need for an im-proved
process for handling changes in vehicle values. Current statutes provide little
guidance on revaluing vehicles and did not require MVD to notify affected taxpayers of
the recent changes. To better protect taxpayers in the future, the Legislature should con-sider
amending A.R.S. §28-1591 to require MVD to notify taxpayers of changes in vehicle
value and to provide an opportunity for taxpayers to appeal any errors in the revaluation.
Statutes do not provide specific process for vehicle revaluations—Currently, statutes pro-vide
little guidance to MVD on revising vehicle values. In fact, A.R.S. §28-1591 simply
states that a vehicle’s value is determined during the first year of registration and then de-creases
by 15 percent each year thereafter. In the absence of specific statutory direction re-garding
any other changes to a vehicle’s value, MVD’s Attorney General representative
has advised MVD that it should adjust the values any time MVD has reason to believe that
the recorded value is not correct. Following this advice, MVD has changed values on a
case-by-case basis in response to individual situations over the years. However, the stat-utes
contain no requirement for MVD to notify the taxpayers or offer them the opportu-nity
to dispute the new value. Therefore, when MVD recently reviewed its records and
24
changed the values of over 780,000 vehicles using its new computerized process, MVD
management chose to notify only a small percentage of the affected taxpayers. This denied
the vast majority of the taxpayers the opportunity to review, and possibly appeal, any er-rors
in the tax increases. As noted previously, because of the way vehicle identification
numbers are used to identify vehicles, it is likely that some taxpayers not notified of the
changes may have had their tax value incorrectly raised.
Statutes should be revised to better protect taxpayers—To better serve taxpayers in the
future, the Legislature should consider revising A.R.S. §28-1591 to require MVD to notify
taxpayers of changes to vehicle values and provide the opportunity for appeal when the
vehicle tax value is changed. The Legislature should also require MVD to promulgate
rules governing the revaluation and appeal process. Specifically, the rules should describe
when MVD can change the vehicle tax values, how MVD will notify taxpayers of adjust-ments
to the vehicle values, and specify what records should be kept concerning revalua-tions.
Further, these rules should outline the process for taxpayers to follow in appealing
their vehicle tax value.
Statutes regarding other taxes on property require that the taxing authority notify the tax-payer
of tax valuation changes and provide an opportunity for appeal. Under A.R.S. §42-
145, the Department of Revenue must notify taxpayers of real property values each year.
Also, under A.R.S. §28-1723, when an owner disagrees with the Arizona Department of
Transportation’s assessment of the aircraft license tax, the taxpayer may request a hearing
to dispute the assessment.
Recommendations
1. The Legislature should consider establishing statutory provisions for taxpayers to be
notified and appeal changes in vehicle tax values.
2. Once the recommended statutory revisions are in effect, the Motor Vehicle Division
should develop rules governing taxpayer notification and appeals processes when it
revalues vehicle tax values.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) has received and reviewed the Auditor
General’s performance audit of the Department’s Motor Vehicle Division (MVD). The following
response addresses, individually, the findings and recommendations contained in the report.
FINDING I: MVD’S CUSTOMERS ARE GENERALLY SATISFIED, BUT MAY WAIT
A LONG TIME FOR SERVICE
Recommendation 1:
MVD needs to continue to evaluate the impact of its efforts to reduce the time customers
spend in the offices to complete their business and determine whether additional steps are
needed to improve service timeliness.
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to, and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
MVD is making substantial progress in efforts to use technology to evaluate and reduce the
time customers spend in our offices. Nine additional computerized Q-Matic customer
management systems were installed in MVD offices in fiscal year 1997. In offices that do not
have Q-Matic systems, MVD’s point of sale accounting system, known as the B2 Cash
Drawer, also allows automated monitoring of customer wait times. Although there are some
limitations to this system, it is far more effective and accurate than a manual system previously
used to evaluate wait times in offices. MVD office supervisors are able to use data from both
systems to evaluate what changes can be made to reduce wait times. At a minimum, monthly
data reports are supplied to MVD management. However, such data is also available to
management on an immediate, as-needed basis so that steps can be taken to adjust staffing
levels. The B2 system wait-time data can be retrieved from office locations via ADOT’s
Local Area Network (LAN). Although more labor intensive than Q-Matic, a random sample
of the non-Q-Matic offices can be done in a relatively short time to provide useful wait time
and customer service information. Q-Matic wait time information is readily available to
management and includes a much wider variety of data, including maximum wait times and
wait time averages on a daily, weekly, monthly or yearly basis. MVD will continue to
evaluate the impact of these efforts and determine whether additional steps are needed to
reduce wait times.
In addition to these technological systems, MVD’s improved vehicle registration renew-by-mail
and third party programs offer alternatives to reduce the need for many customers to visit
MVD offices.
2
Recommendation 2:
To ensure a consistent, more accurate method of measuring customer time, the Division
should improve its time recording methods by:
· Improving the consistency of information captured by the computerized system at
each office;
· Ensuring the computerized system captures the total time customers are in the offices
to conduct their business;
· Improving the method of time study for offices without the computerized system to
ensure the results better reflect customer experience; and
· Evaluating whether a computerized system is needed at additional offices to provide
better information about service timeliness.
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to, and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
MVD has, with the assistance of Q-Matic personnel, developed a standard list of category
breakdowns which will allow the system to capture consistent information for each office.
The Q-Matic offices are in the process of being upgraded with this information.
Approximately 50% are completed at the time of this response.
As offices are being upgraded with the standardized categories, Q-Matic is installing keypads
and displays at the Driver License Digital Video Workstations (DL DVW) in all 26 Q-Matic
offices to accurately measure the total wait time for the driver license production.
Approximately 50% of the offices have upgraded with this system at the time of this response.
As previously stated, the non-Q-Matic offices are utilizing the timings from the B2 Cash
Drawer system. Although this system does not have the ability to provide the transfer to the
DL DVW window, it does provide far more accurate monitoring of the customer wait time
than the previous manual counts. Typically, the non-Q-Matic offices are smaller, lower
volume offices and do not have the same service demands and peaks as the larger offices,
making this system a more acceptable alternative.
The Q-Matic system, although a major investment, is a critical management tool in evaluating
resources and managing their allocation. MVD has aggressively pursued the installation of
these systems in the larger volume offices, to the extent the budget has allowed, particularly
since the Maricopa merger. Smaller volume offices tend to have fewer wait time problems.
We will continue to monitor this issue and, should the Q-Matic costs go down in the future,
will re-evaluate the size of the offices that receive this equipment.
3
FINDING II: MVD’S TELEPHONE CUSTOMER SERVICE NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
Recommendation 1:
To more accurately evaluate telephone service, the telephone unit must develop more specific
goals and measurements that will separately consider:
· The time customers spend waiting for a representative,
· The time staff spend resolving customer requests, and
· The performance of each phone center.
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to, and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
The Communications Unit currently measures wait times, transaction times and calls
abandoned by using an automated call distribution system as a means of improving our
customer service. Currently, the average wait time per call is monitored in the Unit, Program,
Division and Department performance measurement books. In addition, the Internal Support
Program has designated a Program Performance Coordinator in order to systematically
improve the measurements throughout the program. The coordinator has been actively
working with the Communications Unit to improve their performance measurements since
being designated in April 1997. One major improvement to the measurements has been the
separation of each individual queue (driver license, title/registration and mandatory insurance)
from the combined average in order to monitor and evaluate the effects of management plans
for improvement on each queue.
The expansion and refinement of the use of performance measurements will continue in the
Communications Unit. Since July 1997, they have been actively monitoring and evaluating
the performance of each individual phone queue and the separate call centers, in addition to
the overall performance of the phone system. Further developments will include refining and
automating the performance measurements for each call center.
Analysis of the existing data does reflect major improvements for the Communications Unit.
Comparing January 1997 to August 1997, the number of calls answered as a whole has
increased 127 percent while the number of calls abandoned has decreased 64 percent. During
the same period of time, the combined average wait time has decreased from 8.5 minutes to
5.4 minutes. Specifically considering the title/registration queue, the average wait time has
decreased from just over 12 minutes to just under five minutes. Careful monitoring will be
required to ensure that this trend continues and that customer satisfaction increases. Practical
means for evaluating customer satisfaction are continually being sought in order to better
evaluate not only how efficiently the Communications Unit can respond to public inquiries,
but also how effectively.
4
Recommendation 2:
Using these performance measurements, the Division should evaluate the impact of planned
staffing increases and training improvements for the telephone unit.
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to, and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
The intent of developing performance measurements has always been to provide a quality
management tool. The purpose of refining existing measurement charts is to ensure that all
goals, graphs and charts are valuable as management tools. This would naturally include
defining staffing and training needs for unit employees.
Performance measurements also assist in identifying our successes, areas requiring
improvement, and helping to guide our future direction. For example, we are currently in the
process of implementing a three-tiered communications system which will sort and prioritize
handling for telephone customers - those in need of basic information can be helped promptly
at the first level, while those requiring more in-depth assistance or record reviews will be
transferred to a higher level representative. We have introduced a new phone center at the
Perryville - Santa Maria Unit - having cross-trained all inmate employees in both driver license
and title/registration requirements. Another part of our solution is to communicate through
public relations and media campaigns to better educate the citizens who use our services, thus
eliminating the need for many of these phone calls.
Other Pertinent Information:
The Communications Unit is staffed with 37 full time employees, and has 56 inmate
employees at Perryville (34 at San Juan, 22 at Santa Maria; interviews continue at Santa
Maria in an effort to increase inmate staff to 34). We have extended operating hours at each
call center to Monday-Friday, 7:00 am-6:00 pm and Saturdays from 8:00 am until 1:00 pm.
The recorded information is regularly reviewed and updated with current data, including
changes to office hours and locations or legislative amendments impacting the public. An
upgrade to the Octel voice messaging software was purchased on July 1, 1997, and is
expected to solve year 2000 problems for our telephone system. We have a team developing
an action plan to revamp the entire phone script, streamlining it and eliminating long, detailed
information so that customers may obtain needed information more quickly. This team is also
including in its action plan an option of allowing customers to retrieve information using
record numbers printed on registration invitations to access specific general information
(registration fees, due dates, emissions requirements, etc.). The phone system has a maximum
capacity of 89 callers at any one time. If that capacity is exceeded, the system will advise the
caller that all lines are busy and to try again later. We have, on occasion, programmed the
system to reroute overflow calls from the main queues into a special call center. This routing
change was undetectable to the caller, and at no time has the system been programmed to
transfer the caller back to the beginning of the telephone script.
We are working with the MVD Training Academy to develop training modules for specialized
phone center staff needs, and all employees in the Communications Unit will receive this
5
specialized training; they have also been or are being cross-trained in all Division functions
(driver licensing, title/registration and mandatory insurance). To say we are not yet able to
determine impacts is not totally accurate. We are measuring and have begun to experience
some impact of the cross-training and additional staffing, as demonstrated by our decreased
wait times. We will continue to monitor and develop in these areas.
FINDING III: MVD SHOULD INCREASE OVERSIGHT OF THIRD-PARTY
CONTRACTORS
Recommendation 1:
MVD should strengthen oversight of the third-party contractors’ use of the State’s computer
systems. Specifically, MVD should ensure only authorized persons have access to the system
and that only proper, authorized transactions are processed.
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to, and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Finding - Computer Systems Open to Abuse:
Third Party contractors do not have broad access to MVD records. MVD authorizes access
to the computer records for title and registration by creating a security group (transaction
type) specific to the types of functions the third party is authorized to perform.
A password and two ID’s are the security access assigned to third parties. An MVD Data
Security Site Administrator assigns: 1) a resource access control facility identifier (RACF-ID),
also known as user ID; 2) a password; and 3) an operator identification (OPID) number
to each third party employee who is trained and certified to access the computer system. The
password expires automatically every 30 days and a new password must be identified by the
user. An operator identification number is assigned to each operator, it must be used when
accessing a transaction code, and assists the Division in identifying which operator processed
a given transaction.
Additionally, only individuals who have received training would have the knowledge necessary
to access the Title and Registration system. An employee must have a user ID, a password,
and an OPID to access the computer system. If any of the three identifications are not correct
or are used out of order, the system will reject admittance. After a third unsuccessful attempt
to sign on to the system, the system will label the user as fraudulent and revoke the user ID
number. The only way to restore a user’s access after revocation is to contact a data security
administrator.
The Third Party Program receives MVD system-generated reports which assist in monitoring
most of the system activities performed by third party operators. These reports are utilized by
the auditors and Quality Assurance Unit within the Division’s Third Party Program to
carefully monitor all third party activities, in accordance with stringent guidelines which have
been established.
6
The Auditor General’s report states that a third party conducted an unauthorized transaction.
This was one out of approximately 250,000 transactions that have been processed in the last
four years by third parties. MVD identified this discrepancy, and immediately notified the
third party. The record was restored properly without any inconvenience to the customer, the
third party was instructed not to do that transaction, and that violation has never occurred
again. This has been the only incident of this type in the four years the program has been in
existence.
A third party contractor has the transaction codes necessary to change a vehicle record;
however, if they did not have the necessary transaction codes to change a record, the
company would be incapable of performing their third party functions.
The supporting title and registration documents submitted by third parties are reviewed by a
Quality Assurance Unit (QA) representative. Any discrepancies found are corrected following
procedures established by the QA Unit. The QA representatives monitor the activities of each
third party operator. The third party operator’s original paperwork is reviewed and compared
to the system record. The QA representative will also verify the record’s fees collected to see
if the fees were charged correctly. If the original paperwork or system record is in question,
the QA representative will request the microfilm history. Using the microfilm history, physical
documentation, and system record information, the QA representative is able to create a
sequence of events which will determine if an error has been made.
During the audit, the QA Unit was developing standards to measure operator errors. These
standards are now completed and are part of a new policies and procedures manual for the
Quality Assurance Unit and the third parties. These standards will assist the unit in
determining when a third party operator should be required to attend additional training or be
denied access to the system.
Although the Auditor General’s report identifies one company who found altered registration
renewals that were missing in an employee’s desk for a total of $54.75, MVD believes this is
only an isolated incident and, in fact, this is the only incident this third party has had in its four
years with the program. This incident was self-reported, and the employee was immediately
released.
MVD has developed procedures and standards for determining when to increase or reduce
levels of authority based on error rates, percentages, disciplinary actions, performance
tracking, and monthly reviews of the computer reports. Training of third parties on the new
procedures is in process.
The Third Party Program has a very good record of ensuring only authorized persons have
access to the system. MVD will work to create enhancements to the Title and Registration
database that will allow restrictions on individual transactions not just security group
transactions.
Recommendation 2:
7
MVD should develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure adequate oversight of
third-party contractors that includes procedures regarding computer activity reviews,
performance tracking, disciplinary measures, and inventory procedures.
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to, and the audit recommendation will be
implemented. During the audit, the Third Party Program was in the process of establishing
policies and procedures for computer activity reviews, performance tracking, disciplinary
measures, and the inventory process.
Finding - Inventory at Risk:
MVD Warehouse staff logs all plates and tabs issued to third party contractors, and the
contractors are required to track the inventory assigned to them. Additionally, the Special
Projects Group of MVD is in the process of developing an automated system that will be
utilized by the Warehouse at initial distribution of forms and by each field office and third
party at time of receipt and issuance.
Finding - Third Party Contractor Performance not Adequately Monitored:
In June of 1996 the Third Party Program established a Quality Assurance Unit whose task it is
to monitor the work of all third party operators employed by third party contractors. Prior to
the establishment of the QA Unit, the work processed by third parties was reviewed and
monitored by the Title Production Unit of MVD. The QA Unit now provides a daily
monitoring of all third party companies. This unit evaluates the work of the third parties and
takes action, if necessary, such as visiting them for one-on-one training and issuing follow-up
letters. All completed third party work is dropped off at MVD headquarters in the QA Unit.
A Third Party Quality Assurance Unit Reference Guide Procedure Manual has been developed
to assist the QA representative determine the course of action to take on the type of errors
made by the operator. This guide will also assist the third parties in evaluating and improving
the quality of their work. The Third Party Program will continue to develop new standards,
policies, and procedures in order to ensure the integrity of the Program.
Finding - Third Party Contracts not Adequately Enforced:
During the pilot project and early development of the Third Party Program, contracts were
not strictly enforced. This was a new program for which there was no history from which to
learn and no experience on how to establish appropriate sanctions. However, the Division has
now accumulated enough experience to formulate a progressive set of rules, procedures, and
sanctions that ultimately will result in cancellation of the contract if repeated violations occur.
Requirements of third parties are addressed in the contract and penalties are identified for
failure to follow rules and regulations. Contract requirements include: location of activities,
equipment, electronic data interchange, security, financial, banking, personnel, notification of
change, training, advertising, record keeping, audit and inspection, compliance/non-compliance,
amendment and modification of authorization, termination, waiver, duration,
liability and nondiscrimination.
Recommendation 3:
8
MVD should conduct more audits of third party contractors and follow up on issues
discovered during the audits.
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to, and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Finding - More Audits of Third Party Contractors are Needed:
We agree that more audits and auditors are needed.
Other Pertinent Information:
The Motor Vehicle Division agrees that increased vigilance of the third party computer access
is appropriate and has taken reasonable steps to maintain the appropriate level of security.
While some problems have been identified, one must keep in mind that the Third Party Title
and Registration Program was originally established as a “pilot” program consisting of 12
companies authorized to perform certain title and registration transactions. During the pilot
phase, MVD monitored the third party companies and made considerable changes to ensure
compliance with regulations. The Third Party Pilot Program was completed in June of 1996.
At this point, the program began setting up a permanent infrastructure to handle all third party
programs in the Division. This audit concentrated on only the Title and Registration Third
Parties who are on line. In fiscal years 94/95, 95/96, and 96/97 these third party contractors,
which in fiscal year 96/97 number 16, processed approximately 250,000 transactions and
collected about $61,000,000. These contractors currently process seven percent of all state
title and registration transactions.
FINDING IV: MVD POORLY IMPLEMENTED VEHICLE REVALUATION
Recommendation 1:
The legislature should consider establishing statutory provisions for taxpayers to be notified
and appeal changes in vehicle tax values.
MVD will comply with any legislatively established statutory provisions.
Recommendation 2:
Once the recommended statutory revisions are in effect, the Motor Vehicle Division should
develop rules governing taxpayer notification and appeals processes when it revalues vehicle tax
values.
MVD will develop such rules if required.
Other Pertinent Information:
Under state law, the initial assessed value on a new vehicle is 60 percent of the list price. The
VLT is calculated at a rate of $4 for each $100 of this assessed value, which is reduced by 15
percent each year until the minimum VLT of $10 is reached.
9
In 1996, the Motor Vehicle Division conducted an audit using the newly-acquired VINA
(Vehicle Identification Number Analysis) software program to check the vehicle records on
file in the state’s registration system. That review of more than six million motor vehicle
records found that, for more than 400,000 vehicles, the manufacturer’s base price recorded
with MVD was too low. We also found that for many vehicles (340,000), the manufacturer’s
base price may have been overstated in the state’s records. A decision was made to correct
differences between inaccurate list prices in the state’s system and the accurate list prices
provided through the use of VINA.
The audit report states that MVD “raised the value” for many Arizona vehicles. What MVD
actually did was correct inaccurate manufacturer’s base prices listed in the state’s system.
That move, in turn, resulted in the VLT assessments of many vehicles being corrected to the
proper amount.
MVD sought and received legal advice from the Attorney General’s office. The advice from
the Attorney General was:
· that MVD’s purpose in making the list price corrections was statutorily authorized; and
· MVD would be remiss in its duties if it did not rely on the correct data when making
assessments for succeeding license year registrations.
Appendix A
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
a-i
Appendix A
Customer Survey and Time Study Methodology
To evaluate the Motor Vehicle Division’s customer service and timeliness, a comprehen-sive,
statistically valid statewide survey and time study was conducted.
Customer Survey
The survey conducted at MVD field offices across the State asked customers to rate MVD
in several areas, including staff courtesy, speed of transaction processing, staff knowledge,
adequacy of information received on the phone and at the office, and overall satisfaction
with their visits to MVD. The survey also asked customers to estimate the time they were
in the office, how long they felt was reasonable for their transaction, if MVD’s hours were
convenient for them, and whether they completed their transaction in one visit. A copy of
the survey is attached (see pages a-v through a-vii).
Time Study
In conjunction with the survey, an observation-based time study was conducted to meas-ure
the actual length of time customers were in the office to transact their business. The
time study captured total time in office, including time the customers waited to be called
to a service window, to take a written or road test, to complete their transactions, and to
have their licenses, permits, or identification cards printed.
Sample Selection
Both the survey and time observation study were conducted at 25 field offices in July and
August 1996. To represent the State statistically, we sampled across the entire State, strati-fying
by county, area (urban vs. rural), and office type (single function vs. dual function).
In counties with more than one office, the sample offices were randomly selected. The
survey and time study were conducted during the same week for each office. In low-volume
offices, both studies were conducted simultaneously, while in busier offices, the
days on which the survey or time study were conducted were randomly selected. The
sampling plan, including offices and time frames, is presented in Table 2 (see page a-ii).
a-ii
Table 2
Customer Service Survey and Time Study
Sampling Plan
County Office
Number of
Survey Days
Number of
Time
Study Days
Apache Springerville 5 5
Cochise Sierra Vista 5 5
Coconino Flagstaff 3 2
Tuba City 5 5
Gila Globe 5 5
Graham Safford 5 5
Greenlee Clifton 5 5
La Paz Parker 5 5
Maricopa Avondale Auto License 3 2
Phoenix Northwest Auto License 3 2
Surprise Auto License 3 2
Glendale Driver’s License 3 2
Encanto Driver’s License 3 2
Phoenix North Driver’s License 3 2
Phoenix South Driver’s License 3 2
Tempe Driver’s License 3 2
Mohave Kingman 5 5
Navajo Winslow 5 5
Pima Green Valley 3 2
Tucson East Driver’s License 3 2
Tucson Regional 3 2
Pinal Casa Grande 3 2
Santa Cruz Nogales 5 5
Yavapai Clarkdale 5 5
Yuma Yuma 3 2
Source: Auditor General staff random selection of offices and time frames for study.
Data Collection and Analysis
To gather survey data, auditors distributed the survey to customers as they were leaving
the office. Customers then returned the completed surveys directly to the auditors. The
survey was available to customers in both English and Spanish. Over the study period,
a-iii
4,690 surveys were completed. The number of customers responding to the survey by
county is presented in Table 3 (see page a-iv). The response rate was estimated to be about
60 percent.
To capture the customers’ total time in the office, auditors documented the time the cus-tomer
arrived and departed. As customers entered the office, auditors recorded the time
and gave the customer a number. As they left, customers returned the number to the
auditors, who recorded the departure time. Auditors recorded time information for 10,731
customers. The number of customer times recorded by county is presented in Table 3 (see
page a-iv).
For both the survey and time observation, the results were weighted to be representative
of the State. The weights were determined using the number of driver’s license transac-tions
performed by offices in each county in fiscal year 1995-96.
Validation
The survey and time study results were validated in March 1997. Eight of the 25 offices
were randomly selected for the follow-up study. At these offices, auditors surveyed 262
customers and tracked service time on 944 customers. The survey and time observations
for the follow-up were conducted for random time periods during a day using similar
methodology as the original study. The means of overall customer satisfaction and time in
office for the 1997 follow-up study were compared with the original 1996 study using a
statistical test. These tests showed customer satisfaction had not changed since our origi-nal
survey. The tests also confirmed that the follow-up time observations were not signifi-cantly
different for the update offices, although 2 offices did show some improvement in
customer wait time (between 5 and 15 minutes).
a-iv
Table 3
Customer Service Survey and Time Study
Number of Customers by County
July and August 1996
County
Number of
Customers
Surveyed
Number of
Customers Studied
for Service Times
Apache 30 33
Cochise 191 529
Coconino 1 214 997
Gila 197 486
Graham 87 279
Greenlee 97 146
La Paz 171 220
Maricopa 1,905 4,721
Mohave 195 282
Navajo 87 188
Pima 646 1,209
Pinal 175 482
Santa Cruz 142 271
Yavapai 351 531
Yuma 202 357
Total 4,690 10,731
1 Survey data for the Flagstaff office was collected in March 1997. When the 1996 data was analyzed, it was
determined that Coconino County should be stratified to better represent both its urban and rural popu-lations.
Therefore, Flagstaff was sampled in 1997 and added to the 1996 data for Coconino County.
Source: Auditor General customer service survey and time study results.
Motor Vehicle Division Customer Survey
The Office of the Auditor General is conducting a performance audit of the Motor Vehicle
Division. We are interested in knowing how satisfied you are with the services you received
today at MVD. We would appreciate it if you could take a moment to answer the following
questions. Thank you!
1. What was the purpose of your visit today? (Please check all that apply.)
____ to renew your driver=s license
____ to obtain an Arizona driver=s license (if you were licensed in another state)
____ to obtain your first driver=s license
____ to obtain an identification card
____ to obtain a learner=s permit
____ to replace your driver=s license or identification card (ie, if it was lost, stolen, or destroyed)
____ to obtain information on driver=s licenses or permits
____ to renew a vehicle registration (ie, to receive new validator tab)
____ to receive a new license plate
____ to change or transfer a vehicle title or to receive a new title
____ to replace a license plate, vehicle registration, or validator tab (ie, if it was lost, stolen, etc.)
____ to have a vehicle inspected
____ to obtain information on vehicle registration, license plates or titles
____ other (please specify)______________________________________________
2. Did you complete your business on this visit?
____ Yes (Please skip to question 4.)
____ No
3. If not, why not:
____ did not have necessary paperwork
____ did not have sufficient identification
____ needed to return to take or retake a written or driving test
____ needed to return to have the vehicle inspected
____ did not have time to wait to complete your transaction
____ other (please specify) ___________________________________________
4. Was this your first visit to MVD to complete this transaction?
____ Yes (Please skip to question 7.)
____ No
5. If this was not your first visit, please answer the following two questions:
How many prior visits have you made to complete your transaction?
____ 1
____ 2
____ 3 or more
6. Why did you have to return today? (Please check all that apply.)
____ to bring additional documents or paperwork
____ to bring identification
____ to take or retake a written or driving test
____ to have the vehicle inspected
____ did not have enough sufficeint time to complete the transaction on your last visit
____ other (please specify) _____________________________________________
7. What time did you arrive at this office today? ________ am/pm
. What time did you leave the office? __________ am/pm
8. Did you feel the amount of time you spent at the office today was reasonable?
____ Yes
____ No
9. What would you consider a reasonable time to complete your transaction?
____ Less than 15 minutes
____ 15-29 minutes
____ 30-44 minutes
____ 45-60 minutes
____ over 60 minutes
10. Generally, MVD offices are open Monday through Friday 7:00 am to 5:30 pm. A few
offices are open on Saturday mornings. Are these times generally convenient for you?
____ Yes (Please skip to question 12.)
____ No
11. If not, which alternative would be most convenient for you? (Please select only one.)
____ Close later Monday through Friday
____ Open earlier Monday through Friday
____ Open longer hours on Saturdays
____ Open on Sundays
____ Not Sure
12. How would you rate the overall courtesy extended to you by the MVD agent(s) who
helped you? (Please circle one)
Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion
13. How would you rate the speed with which the MVD agent serving you processed your
transaction once you reached the window? (Please circle one.)
Excellent Good Fair PoorNo Opinion
14. Was the MVD agent who served you knowledgeable about your transaction?
____ Very Knowledgeable
____ Somewhat Knowledgeable
____ Not Knowledgeable at All
15. Overall, how would you rate the service you received from the MVD agent(s) who served
you today?
Excellent Good Fair PoorNo Opinion
16. Before your visit today, did you call MVD to receive any information regarding the
transaction you wanted to complete today?
____ Yes
____ No (Please skip to question 18.)
17. If so, did you find the information helpful? (Please circle one answer for each type of
information.)
Information needed How helpful was this information you received?
hours of operation Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful Did not request
address or directions Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful Did not request
cost of services Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful Did not request
requirements for obtaining a driver=s
license or permit
Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful Did not request
requirements for obtaining or transferring
a title
Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful Did not request
requirements for obtaining license plates
or registering a vehicle
Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful Did not request
how long the wait time was today Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful Did not request
other information (please specify)
______________________
Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful Did not request
18. When you arrived at the office today, how adequate was the information available at or
near the entrance to assist you in completing your transaction today?
____ All information I needed was available (Please skip to question 20.)
____ Some of the information I needed was available
____ None of the information I needed was available
19. If you felt only some information or no information was available, what information
was missing? (You may check more than one.)
____ whether I needed to take a number
____ where to get a number
____ which window could serve me
____ what documents I needed to complete my transaction
____ that I needed to complete an application before going to the window
____ that I needed a picture ID
____ how long I would have to wait for service
____ other (please specify) _______________________
20. Overall how would you rate your experience at MVD today?
Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion
If you would like to make any comments, please use the space below or the back of this page.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
For administrative use only:
a-viii
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
Appendix B
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
b-i
Appendix B
Customer Service Survey and
Time Study Results
Table 4
Overall Customer Satisfaction with
Service Received from MVD
Percentage of Customer Ratings
by County
County Excellent Good Fair Poor
Apache 90% 10% 0% 0%
Cochise 61 30 7 2
Coconino 44 41 13 2
Gila 55 32 9 4
Graham 71 28 1 0
Greenlee 50 48 2 0
La Paz 21 55 23 1
Maricopa 34 46 14 6
Mohave 51 40 8 1
Navajo 86 10 4 0
Pima 50 41 8 1
Pinal 48 44 7 1
Santa Cruz 62 37 1 0
Yavapai 62 34 4 0
Yuma 67 27 5 1
Source: Auditor General survey of customers at Motor Vehicle Division offices in July and August 1996.
b-ii
Table 5
Length of Time Customers Spent
in MVD Offices
Percentage of Customers
Served by Time Period
County
Under 30
Minutes
30 to 59
Minutes
60 to 89
Minutes
Over 90
Minutes
Apache 82% 18% 0% 0%
Cochise 54 38 7 1
Coconino 57 34 8 1
Gila 56 33 9 2
Graham 86 13 1 0
Greenlee 88 10 2 0
La Paz 90 9 1 0
Maricopa 63 18 13 6
Mohave 45 45 7 3
Navajo 95 5 0 0
Pima 71 25 3 1
Pinal 88 9 3 0
Santa Cruz 76 21 2 1
Yavapai 76 21 3 0
Yuma 60 34 4 2
Source: Auditor General study of customer service times at Motor Vehicle Division offices by county for
July and August 1996.