Nationwide DMV Access to Vital Records: Kentucky’s Role

1. Nationwide DMV Access to Vital Records: Kentucky’s Role Presented by: Jay Maxwell President & CEO, Clerus Solutions June 3, 2008

2. Agenda • Aspects of EVVE/EVVER That Are Working Well • Aspects that need more help • Plan for Nationwide Implementation • REAL ID-based Concerns

3. Aspects of EVVE/EVVER That Are Working Well • Installation of EVVE at the vital records agencies. • Installation of state server. • Programming to connect state vital records database to state server. • Installation of EVVER at Driver License Agencies • AAMVA’s UNI software • DMV Programming to connect to UNI Software • Operation of the EVVE/EVVER technical components • NAPHSIS components • AAMVA components

4. Aspects of EVVE/EVVER That Need Further Support • State vital records agencies have not had the time and resources to continuously monitor system feedback. • We do not have good information regarding the relationship of “red lights” (i.e. system no match responses), to fraud. • Conclusion: Dedicated help (people and tools) will be needed to assist each state vital records agency with this task.

5. Aspects of EVVE/EVVER That Need Further Support • State driver licensing agencies are not making licensing decisions based on responses from the system. • Red lights are not analyzed to determine if fraud was the cause. • No formal procedures have been developed to resolve “red light” responses. • Conclusion: Establishment of protocols and tools for resolving red lights are essential to the success of the program.

6. Aspects of EVVE/EVVER That Need Further Support • Relationships between the state vital records agency and the state driver licensing agency vary from state to state. • The site visits conducted by Kentucky have acted as a catalyst for building a better relationship between these state agencies. • Conclusion: Dedicated help will need to be available to ensure these relationships are built and maintained.

7. Aspects of EVVE/EVVER That Need Further Support • There is not much data on which to base conclusions regarding best practices. • Pilot states utilize their Fraudulent Document Recognition (FDR) training to first determine if the birth certificate appears to be genuine. • Many cases of fraud are detected at this point, therefore the pilot states do not even query EVVE/EVVER if the document is obviously fraudulent. • Using this pre-screening technique, in combination with the fact that the pilot states do not see significant amounts of fraud, creates a situation where the volume of fraud detected by EVVE/EVVER in the pilot states is not significant. • Conclusion: We must get larger population states involved in the pilot of EVVE/EVVER so that we have enough program volume for the development of best practices.

8. Plan for Nationwide Deployment • One or two large population states need to implement EVVE/EVVER so that best practices can be developed. • An automated tool needs to be developed that assists state vital records agencies and driver licensing agencies with exchanging data to resolve “red lights” returned by the system. • Procedures and protocols need to be developed for resolving red lights. • NAPHSIS needs to staff up a team of dedicated resources to assist state vital records agencies with EVVE/EVVER activities. • AAMVA needs to staff up a team of dedicated resources to assist state driver licensing agencies with EVVER implementation and operation.

9. Plan for Nationwide Deployment • Verification Exception Resolution Tool (VERT). • Assist with the state agency data exchange that must take place to resolve red lights. • Inter-state • Intra-state • Gives the customer (driver license applicant) some help.

10. Real ID-Based Concerns • Real ID imposes deadlines • State DMV’s must be in full compliance by May, 2011 • Nationwide roll-out of EVVE should be ready in time. • Concern regarding the completeness and accuracy of vital records data by that timeframe.

11. Real ID-Based Concerns • Completeness and Accuracy of Data • Kentucky will fund a portion of state VRA data clean up costs (data clean-up tool) out of the $4 million grant. • NAPHSIS estimates that a nationwide effort to review and improve the availability and quality of electronic birth data back to 1935 would cost approximately $106 million.

12. Real ID-Based Concerns What happens should this funding fail to appear in time for the May 2011 deadline? • Give DMV’s a solid foundation in AAMVA’s Fraudulent Document Training (FDR). • Use the data clean-up tool funded by the $4 million grant to identify specific anomalies within each state database. • Program EVVE/EVVER and VERT to assist state agencies by identifying alternative information that could be used to verify the birth certificate. • In other words, a combination of procedural protocols and electronic information sharing could, for the short term, compensate for data quality issues.

13. Items of Critical Concern Funding

14. Items of Critical Concern • We don’t know if our short term plan will be effective enough. • If the “no match” rate overwhelms the resources available in the states, the program will fail. • A user fee structure must be created soon so that states can ask their legislatures for operating funds. • Failure to establish an acceptable cost structure well before system users are responsible for paying user fees will create a financial crisis within the program.

15. Nationwide DMV Access to Vital Records: Kentucky’s Role Questions?