communications. one of the things we learned through our experiences at the navy yard in both incidents, we had the actual shooting that occurred in 2013 and this year we had a call that turned out to be, thank god, a false alarm but it was an excellent opportunity to see if the strategies, procedures, things we put in place actually were effective. and in many cases they were. it may be prudent for military installations, especially those located near largely populated areas to review their emergency call-taking procedures and policies and ensure their guidelines for actions and events of a large-scale incident. your emergency call takers inside of your bases should really is that partnership and communication with your city's 911 call center. one of the things we'll rised during the navy yard is that inside of the military facility

existed actually like a small subcommission of washington, d.c. it was a separate city. the 911 calls and all of that intelligence that was related to those 911 calls weren't passed on the the city wide 911 call center. so that was a gap we had to expose. the first responders that were responding were not getting the information that your call takers were receiving through the base communications so that's something we worked on and i think that's something that we should take from here and if you command a base that's something you should look at in your procedures. emergency call takers should train together. your police forces on your bases should train together. we currently train with ndw, with fort mcnair on an annual basis so that we're familiar with each other's tactics, procedures and how we respond. additionally, when we responded to the navy yard, since that was a separate environment, the navy

yard went on lockdown, that's one procedure we sat down with the base commander, sat down with joint forces and talked about whether it's prudent the go into a lockdown situation if you have an emergency on your base which in essence locks out your first responders. so procedures were put in place to mitigate that type of issue. and we're still working on that right now: again, training together is key. doing table top exercises so that you're familiar with each other before an incident occurs, doing full-scale exercises so we get to actually act out our procedures and response to a major incident. i'll touch on intelligence. here in washington, d.c. we have excellent communication with our military partners. our jttf, fbi, the fusion center plays a major role in sharing

intelligence back and forth with our military partners. i'm going to end right there and open up for questions. thank you. >> as i was reflecting back, my first assignment as a police officer, specialized assignment, was as a police community relations officer in charleston, south carolina. actually, north charleston. and it did not take me long to figure that a critical part of what i needed to do given that we had the charleston naval base and the charleston air force base was to convince everybody that the military community was a part of the community and not apart from the community: that was 40 years ago. i don't know that it is any -- has been any truer than it is today. now, we've come a long way since 9/11 in terms of sharing information and i would submit to you that charleston for a

number of reasons represents the best of that kind of communication based on the efforts that we made to stand up a port security program. but i will tell you that lamar in a sense that n that they do interact on the daily basis out of necessary here in the washington district, the fact of the matter is, the further way you get out in the hinterlands, not so much. and where that mantra part of the community and not apart from the community becomes incumbent both on the base and local law enforcement to come together in ways they've not come together before. and my air force buddy here, i don't want to -- i'll give you an example post-9/11. interoperability was a major buzz word. much was directed towards that

and amc allocated a lot of money to put -- to build that capability of interoperability in their security force vehicle. well, what that resulted in was that security forces vehicles in charleston air force base could communicate with security forces vehicle at scott air force base. now, the likelihood of those vehicles being close enough to do that is very unlikely. we've since, i'm happy to say, got the joint base to come on our local radio system and where in the past they'd had a walkie-talkie at the law enforcement desk there, we now have complete communications as circumstances dictate. and unfortunately in the past

there has been need for having that kind of communications but charleston as small as it is -- and it's a real challenge we're confronting, has elements of the navy still there, the nuclear school and consolidated brig, i'm not saying that very loud because i don't want too many people to know that. they already unfortunately know that cat is out of the bag and they've been looking at that as a possible alternative to guantanamo. consolidated brig is there. 40% of materiel shipped to the middle east left out of the port of charleston. up until dover got 17s -- c-17s out of charleston were carrying the bulk of the airlift. we have remnants of the navy nuclear school is still there, spay wars is there that put the electronic sweets in the mraps. one of the originator of the

mrap design force protection is from charleston. so we have a lot going on for a relatively small place and quite frankly because of that court initiative -- port security initiative, we built a unified command approach and today anybody that has assets that can bring to the table has a seat at the table and they participate and we have an important army folks there, the corps of engineers, we're hoping to deepen the channels and help out there. but when you look at the nature of the threat as recent as yesterday, secretary johnson talked about resurrecting the national threat assessment system with the focus being more on the domestic threats, we all see them, we share them, law enforcement is as much a target perhaps for different reasons

than the military but we're targets as well so it's incumbent on us to communicate better and to coordinate efforts when those lists are post ed, those personnels have off base addresses that are provided by as well and you need to be -- you don't want a situation where you go off and leave your family and then v nobody that's really focused on them in terms of law enforcement. so that's an element in and of itself that should prompt greater communication and coordination. but the most recent issue of inspire magazine, aqap, which was the theme of that issue was assassinations, had a picture of dylann roof who was the perpetrator of the shootings at the church at emanuel mother ame

church in charleston. so we've been through a number of incidents in charleston and just assume not have anymore. do so to the extent we can work together as a part of the community it's very challenging to the military as they look out and try to figure out how the players are in terms of law enforcement, the jurisdiction, whether it's a concurrent jurisdiction or exclusive military reservation, those issues are, very challenging and i'll be honest with you. it's not going to be the fbi that if you're on a military reservation that you call first or who will most likely to respond first. it will be your local police officers and you need to get to know them better and coordinate and i would recommend to you that one of your biggest hong kongs is the fact that you turn over periodically and one of the responsibilities particularly of your provost marshal or your law enforcement cid is to write a

collection requirement ought to be assigned to write up something about the local military -- police personalities so that the incoming commander has some insight into who does what and who's responsible for what. and i'm not sure those messages get passed on to the extent they should be. those are crucial, crucial parts of that relationship and as we found in defining port security, what we were doing was defining that port further away from the waterline. and i would submit to you that the military needs to be looking at that -- from that perspective as well. that air base that naval base is not defined by the chain link fence. you've got to have a broader perspective than that and that includes your local law

enforcement. you need to know what kind of capabilities you've got. that provost marshal cid need to be doing. who do you turn to? what swat team do you turn to? do you have that capability on base? if not you need to find who you're going to call when you have somebody that is holed up in a building or something, maybe with a domestic situation. but there are a whole host of reasons to go to the effort to, one, identify who your players are in locally law enforcement wise. identify ways of developing a memorandum of understanding or those sorts of things to clarify and clear up the jurisdictional issues. i think being an attorney i'm always mindful of having a

significant role in determining legal outcomes so if you set out to do the right thing and into in the memoranda and your lawyer is obviously going to be involve bud you do it -- don't just say "can i do this?" but make sure "if i can't this way, how can i do it to accomplish 90% of what i want to accomplish?" those are probably the two most important things, learning your police people and what they're capable of, who the personalities are and then overcoming whatever shortcomings you have that relate to the jurisdictional issues. thank you. >> thank you, al. mike? >> both the joy of being the cleanup batter is to look down and realize that pretty much everything you intended to say had been covered probably by people substantially more intelligent than yourself but i want to on behalf of general wiggi wiggins, our commander, thank you for taking part in this panel and thank our panelists

for being a great variety of points of view and things we need to talk about to the table. if you've heard anything yesterday and today repeated more, i doubt it's been relationships. every panel member here has talked about relationships and the other side is not a time for relationships. we've tried in the the past, we know it doesn't work. so what army north brings is that centerpiece. we are responsible for force protection and anti-terrorism for the 300,000 plus soldiers and their families and civilians that are in north america. we work closely with the united states northern command on a daily basis. we work closely with the provost marshal general's office on a daily basis and of course the g-34 protection. we are the commander with the response for force protection in north america and it's our job

to make sure we're all talking to one another so every individual soldier knows what's going on. knows what the threat is, knows where their safe place to be is, knows who their law enforcement presence is and who to call and what to expect when that call is made. our responsibility is to communicate daily with the 28 acomes, asccs and drus to let them know what the threat picture is. to let them know what's going on out there. i'm very proud of our 24 hour 365 threat fusion cell. we sit right next to the army north g-2 and everyday we are talking with sheriff's offices, the department of homeland security, the department of state, the federal bureau of investigation so that we know what's going on out there. we know the threats that are developing. one of our boss's primary things is this site picture. what's going on? how can he reach out if there's

an event in north carolina? an event in california and an event in north dakota against a stand alone facility. do they have something to do with each other? is this a trend? is this something every soldier in north america needs to be made aware of? one of the greatest things that our boss is driving and that we're working very hard on is a common operating picture. we want to see what's going on out there, understand what it could mean, analyze it and very quickly get that information not only to those 20 command but to be able to reach out to every individual soldier. so we have a number of things we're working with tradeoff, with g-34 with north com to make that a reality. as you figured out, the army is a big place. the more we dig, the more we're surprised in our efforts to figure out post-chattanooga how many stand alone facilitys the united states army has in north

america. we began with a rough number of 5600. at last count we're up to 8900. because besides the ones you're aware of, recruiting centers, reserve centers, national guard offices we army north have folks embedded with every fema region in the country and our friends in the federal protective service provide protection for most of them although not all of them. some of them are in store fronts. we've got to find a way not only to process and share information but to make sure every single soldier knows what actions he or she needs to take to protect themselves and their families. one of my favorite sayings of the many favorite things people say is when george washington said "when we assume the soldier, we did not set aside the citizen." our soldiers live, operate, take care of their families and commit to their communities.

they need to understand where their protection comes from. we could certainly as secretary johnson said yesterday, we can build a secure internet. we can build secure borders, we can make air travel completely safe. but that's not who we are and that's not what we do. we are not going to all run to the garrison and hide. we are part of the american community. we're a part of the fabric of this society. so what general wiggins leads us to do is remain a part of the community, be prepared to execute our mission but no how to manage risk, take care of our soldiers and their families and close with the relationships and we can only do that with relationships across the army, relationships across the services and relationships with the state, federal, tribal, county, every level of law enforcement and we have to be talking everyday. we can not learn who we need to be talking to on the wrong side

of the bay. i'll turn it back over to admiral and thank you for joining us. >> well, those are pretty broad-ranging comments on a very broad-ranging subject and i want to thank everybody for their comments. i'd like to open it up to questions and i'll take the prerogative of the chair to ask the first question which is we talk about relationships and yesterday the chief talked about readiness, and an integral part of that is planning a and very importantly training and training can be at various levels as we all know and the reality is it has to go from the actual lowest tactical level all the way up to the senior level. my experiences here in washington are that unless periodically the president, the cabinet and secretaries are sitting at a table top exercise you only get 90% of the effectiveness of that training unless it goes all the way to the top. so i would ask our panelists here, what are the initiatives

that perhaps they have been involved in in their representative relationships within their communities and the broader reaching relationship with the total army that they may have pursued and are engaged in? who would like to start. >> i can begin addressing that. from a department of the army standpoint, we accomplish policy at headquarters but it's executed at the unit level. when we talk about off installation facilities such as army reserve centers and national guard armories, they reach out to their local community to conduct these exercises that you mentioned. with local law enforcement establishing relationship, many members of the army reserve and national guard r also local law enforcement members so it's a natural fit and a natural tie to bring that together so those exercises are conducted periodically and we try to combine them if there's multiple units in a building rather than

having local law enforcement reaching out three, four, five times to the same location. that's the important part of that. in addition it's continual sharing of information as was d mentioned, once a year we meet the local police and two years later i roll out and somebody else comes in. it's important to have the dialogue and get to know each other, share informings about what's going on in the community and that works both way, both between military members and law enforcement as well. a key point was made by al that men hill with tear were transient, we're there for a short period of time then we move on. it's important that as part of that battle handover that those relationships are handed over as well so that law enforcement knows that mike isn't there anymore, that mark is and they know how to get ahold of mark and continue that relationship that's there. it's about team work and the partnership and exercising at the local level and reporting it

up through higher headquarters along with ideas. how can we do things better? what resources are needed to improve the response? if it's interoperability or connectivity how can we better help from higher headquarters? >> i guess in the interest of time what i'd tell you is with when you say training i can tell you for us is priority has been really rehearsing our battle drills within these recruiting centers. so what are the actions an individual takes, who do they call? but really beyond that'm if fa sis, that which we control has been the relationship so it's interesting. i reached out to so payment commanders in advance of the panel and said, hey, listen, i'm going they have to opportunity, just give me some feedback in terms of the things that you are doing and i got to tell you, i got eight different battalions here and they all talked about direct relationship, local police department, sharing of

information, they listed all the organizations that came up in a briefing. regular force protection interaction with the jtf directly, i got names of individuals. i mean, we've talked about the importance of this relationship and that you have to work at it. that really has been our emphas emphasis. >> just from a local police perspective. we've done table top, if you will scale exercises with several military partners. the table tops were more an executive level higher management going over incident command making sure that all of our components from the military, the proper people from the military would respond to incident command. that was one of the things we realized in our navy yard interactions was that we didn't have the proper people in the initial incident command. we actually -- there was confusion as to who was in charge of the base at that time so we've had several briefings where we've sat down with their

executive level and just really gotten more of a training on who's in charge, who we need in that incident command and from their perspective who they need to send out to the incident command. we've done the tactical level training through full-scale exercises where we've done drills on the navy yard facility, we've done drills at fort mcnair as well. that communication that learning each other's procedures and who needs to be face to face is excellent. >> thank you. >> i'll add one other thing, if i may, which is always pressing the push to test button. monthly we do an exercise where we reach out from headquarters to the 20 commands within north america and we purposely change writ the response must be by e-mail or next month it must be by telephone or next month it must be by message because it never fails that something isn't going to work.

each month we find a hole. each month someone has moved and we didn't know about it. so sheriff cannon talked about making sure the first thing you pass on is who you need to talk to, who you need to go to, who you need to have a relationship with. even if it's internal you have to press that test button on a regular basis because people change, things happen, communication systems go down. so whatever great plan you have, you really have to check to make sure it survives first contact with the enemy. >> thank you. okay, your questions, please, matt has a microphone so please speak into the microphone, identify yourself and do your best to make it a question. [ laughter ] >> patrick tucker with defense one. in 2009 after the fort hood shootings the president established an insider threat task force, one of the mandates was an integration center for analysis of big data as applied to insider threats.

so to the question, can you speak to the nascent efforts to apply big data analytics to the job of detecting early warning signs of an attack both within the broader population and within the service population because they're very different populations and data sets. thank you. >> i'll stewart the response on that. you've made a reference to the insider threat task force. the g-34 leads the army's effort as part of the national insider threat task force. that has many aspects to it, active shooters, which is what we're talking about here, is just one element of it. the larger element and where that was geared to in addition to 2009 it goes to the unauthorized disclosure of classified information which is beyond the scope of this but there is user activity monitoring to ensure things are done properly. more to your point. we're working with big data

analytics now to identify what it can provide to us to help support that. other initiatives that we have are installation access controls which will verify the identity of people coming on to our bases to determine whether they have any warrants on them, that's something you want to know before people come on to bases. and things like that. background checks, again, recurring on a periodic basis in accordance with the federal rules and regulations. does that answer your question? >> yes, can you point to any particular incident where some of these techniques were used to thwart or stop an attack before it happened? we hear about the bad news in the headlines. i think the success stories get missed. has its been effective to prevent a particular attack? >> it's always hard to prove a negative, as you say.

but the identity verification measures at the access control points on bases v identified people with active wants and warrants. i can't go into the particular numbers but it was surprising to me the number of felonies, people that have felony warrants that were apprehended at the gate. that's not to say they were on their way to conduct something but they had that in their background and as a result of that i would offer that the procedures achieved their intent to provide better security for the bases and better identity coming on the the bases and as the word gets out that we are checking that, in fact, is a deterrent for people who would otherwise try to get on to a base with ill intentions. >> interesting, mike, do you have anything you want to add? >> i'll add to the success stories, because it's already in the public domain, we had significant hve threat streams

prior to the anniversary of 9/11 and what they've made public, the fbi specifically rolled out 10 threat actors that expressed particular threat information against the department of defense. until the prosecution is over they release very little information so the most i can say is that we have seen active law enforcement, active data analysis, active communications across agencies that's resulted in preventing planned events. >> thank you. another question? yes, ma'am. >> good morning, my name is charlotte pete, i'm with rapiscan systems. as all of you are evaluating and looking back to the tragedy in chattanooga, tennessee, what specific mitigation strat jeesz could have or should have been in place and are you acting on any of those now? >> interesting point. >> i'll take a stab at it.

in the wake of that incident it caused us all to reassess our force protection facility. so part of this is we reviewed our policies, our programs and procedures to address the potential of this threat. i people in the camp of it's not a question of if this is going to happen again it's going to be a question of when. so there have been a number of things done. in part there was a department of defense task force that actually did an awful lot of work across this, across all services. within the army there are things we don't have to wait for the department of defense guidance to come out. there are things we should do to enhance force protection. one of those things that we are doing, i'll give you a specific example, is we've already ordered ballistic benches to go in our recruiting centers. to those that are uninformed, it looks like a normal bench but it can withstand a 762 round.

so that's something concrete that we have taken steps to do that i think could have mitigated, i don't know that would that it would have prevented but could have mitigated. the other thing is in our recruiting centers, in some of those you can see into the recruiting centers so we've gone out and we call them clings. but you can put something on the front of the center to so the recruiters can see out but individuals looking in cannot see in. that's yet another thing. we're also pursuing controlled access so that right now it's uneven. there are some places, some recruiting centers that have controlled access. that's been a result of crime in areas as opposed to threat but we need to move to a consistent standard. i think the department of defense would help with us that. my other comment, we won't rest

on our laurels. this is an evolving threat so as such our response needs to be an evolving response based on that threat. >> so within the federal protective service, government wide is the interagency security committee. the isc sets standards and guidelines for security at federally owned facilities. those standards are developed by security level. so as a facility security level 5 is the pentagon. facility security level 1 is a store front, social security office on martin luther king avenue in southeast. 13 employees, not a high risk, not a high volume of work that goes on there. so those facility security levels determine minimum security standards. so it's security level 4, like the reagan building, if you've been into the reagan building as a visitor, you go through screening. you go through an x-ray machine with your packages and walk

through a metal detector as you go in and there's guards there that do the screening and if you have metal on you they'll turn you away. so it's been beneficial for us. we don't have crime in our federal facilities because we do this level of screening there but the insider threat is what's unnobody. normally employees that work in those buildings don't go through screenings because they work there. they have a compliant i.d. card, a background investigation, they're known but that doesn't mean they're not having an issue that may cause them to do arm to co-workers. so we think our security facilities are secure. based on the recruiting station, it might be a level one, there might be five recruiters there and i was a recruiter so i'm glad you're doing the work you're doing. but how do you balance that out? i know as a recruiter i wanted these guys and girls to come

into the office. come in and join the army. >> we're going to leave the last few minutes of this and take you live to the pew charitable trust for a discussion on letting undocumented immigrants obtain driver's licenses. >> as many of you know the pew charitable trust is an independent non-partisan nonprofit public policy education -- public policy institution dedicated to serving the public and we do a lot of work with state government and we are speaking today on the topic of immigration in that vein. our immigration and the state's project was created to really explore this intersection of federal, state, and local immigration policies and practices and i would like to thank panelists for joining us to share their experiences on how this intersection of federal, state, and local policies and practices affect their communities. and with that i will turn over

this program, which is going to focus on driver's licenses in these communities to you are a host today, adam hunter, thank you, adam. >> good afternoon and thank you, tom. even while we don't see broad immigration reforms being enacted in congress in the horizon on the near term, states have been increasingly active in passing immigration-related laws. according to the national conference of state legislatures, 171 laws were passed in 2014 alone across such policy areas as wide ranging as law enforcement, health and education. as tom mentioned, pew's immigration in the states project explore this is dynamic of immigration federalism. our approach as a non-partisan non-advocacy research project is not to take a position on any particular policy but to explore

them across levels of government and where we can to assess the impacts of these state policy choices. today's panel will focus on an issue that is gaining attention in many state houses across the country and was the subject of our most recent report, extending driving privileges to unauthorized privileges. under the federal real i.d. act of 2005, states can choose to comply with federal standards and opt to issue licenses to unauthorized immigrants if those licenses have distinctive markings and text indicating that they are not accepted for federal identification or for official purposes. states call these licenses a variety of names such as driving privilege cards or driver authorization cards. we'll call them generally alternative driver's licenses or just driver's licenses for the presentations today. this map highlights the places where unauthorized immigrants may obtain these licenses today. shaded in light green, tealish,

you see we have eight states and the district of columbia that currently issue distinctive alternative driver's licenses to unauthorized immigrants. while the yellow two states, washington and new mexico, issue the same driver's license to everyone regardless of immigration status. delaware and hawaii, the two states here in dark blue, both passed laws just this year in 2015 and will soon be turning to issue their alternative licenses in the coming months. to deepen our understanding of the issues states confront, we've brought together panelists from three states, each with different roles and experiences. you have their complete bios in your program so allow me to just briefly introduce them as they're sitting here now. first we have scott vien from delaware. scott has worked nearly a decade in the division of motor vehicles and assumed the position as director. as one of the two states that

passed legislation in june establishing a driving privilege card, overseeing implement station of this new program was going to be one of his key tasks as he assumes the helm of his agency. terry albertson joins us from nevada. terry has an extensive public service career spanning both california and nevada and comes to us as the administrator of the management services and programs division of the department of motor vehicles. she's worked in that capacity to implement the driver authorization card which nevada has been issuing since january of 2014. in addition, governor sandoval recently appointed teri to be the interim director of the dmv effective later this month. third we have erica contreras who joins us from california, the golden state of california where she is chief of staff to senator ricardo laura, the california state senate appropriations committee chair who is also a key sponsor of the state law ab-60 that created an alternative driver's license that went into effect earlier

this year. and finally we have my colleague me shell waslin who led the research team. i'd like to start now by turning over to michelle the opportunity to share with you findings of our report and to frame our discussion. >> good afternoon, thank you, adam. so we conducted research on all of the states that are currently issuing driver's licenses to unauthorized immigrants. we analyzed their laws and legislative reports. we spoke to dmv and other state and local officials and we spoke to other experts about their experiences implementing these laws. so that we could analyze the critical decisions that they made and the diverse they proechs that they took. while we also looked at who made those decisions. so in some states the

legislators put very specific instructions into the ljive the language while in other cases decisions were made by regulations or through the issuing agency staff. we did not look at the factors that led a state to make the decision to issue licenses to unauthorized immigrants nor the merits of those decisions. pew does not take a position on issuing driver's licenses to unauthorized immigrants but we believe policymakers can learn from the experiences of these other states and so this report is meant to provide a framework for those considering similar legislation. we identified four areas where states made critical policy decisions in implementing their laws that allowed unauthorized immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. scone, eligibility standards, issuance procedures and outreach in education. it's also interesting to see how these four areas interact with one another and i'll highlight

those examples as well. scope is a very important first step and it really affects every other step of implementation. up front planning is the foundation to successful implementation and in order to plan, states need to estimate how many people will be eligible for their license, how many people will apply and how often that i will need to renew. these estimates are the key to determining startup costs such as staffing and technological upgau upgrades and key to anticipating costs associated with the ongoing administration. these estimates determine the revenues the issuing agency can expect to collect from new customers. these licenses are generally expected to pay for themselves through fees but planning is the key to making sure that happens. obviously in this fiscal environment the states are making very important decisions and need to plan ahead. now, these estimates are going

to vary widely depending on the state's population. in california the state initially estimated 1.4 million people would be eligible for the driver's license whereas in vermont where unauthorized immigrants make up less than one half of one percent of the state's population they estimated that 1500 would apply. and these very different estimates affect the choices that they made. in california they hired more than 800 new staff and opened five new facilities to accommodate this population whereas in vermont they did not hire any new staff or open new facilities. however, we will see that in vermont these estimates turned out to be low. next we have eligibility standards. states determine the requirements for obtaining a license, including the documents that can be used to prove identity and state residency. some states have applicants sign

an affidavit saying they are ineligible for a social security number. others require proof they've paid state taxes for an amount of time and in delaware they will require fingerprints and background checks and i'm sure we'll hear more about that later. the decisions about documents turned out to be key to implementation is especially because as we know unauthorized immigrants don't have the same documents that u.s. citizens and legal immigrants have so state worked with embassies, consulates and other experts first to determine what documents unauthorized immigrants have that can prove their identity and state residency and how reliable those documents are so now you can see how eligibility requirements is connected to scope. the number of applicants and licenses issued are related directly to the number of people who can meet the eligibility requirements and produce the right documents. a state's estimates need to take into account the people that

will be able to meet the eligibility requirements. next we have issuance procedures. states make decisions about how and where unauthorized immigrants are going to apply for, obtain and renew their driver's license. states need to think about how they will serve this new customer base at the same time they continue to serve existing customers. so some states hired more staff and opened more offices. some created appointment systems to regulate the flow of customers and process applicants in a timely manner and these decisions about staffing and appointments are directly relates to the amount of resources a state has for these purposes so the estimates of needed resources need to take things into account like staffing and facilities. states also need to think about this when they were planning or creating their appointment systems. they need to think about systems in light of the projected demand and their available resources. how many facilities and staff

they will have available to serve this population, is how many appointments they can accommodate and is this enough to meet the demand and over what period of time? . the number of appointments available also means states predetermine a set number of applicants that will be served and the maximum number of licenses that will be issued and, of course, in the end this affects the amount of revenue that comes in from the fees. finally we have outreach and education states understand that new no program can be successful unless the target group knows how to access it and although many states didn't provide funding for outreach and education, we did learn that states used various methods to reach immigrant communities and provide them with lots of information about the new laws. for example, here in d.c. we know the department of motor vehicle staff went on spanish language radio stations.

in illinois they used mobile units to educate the community and make initial consultations on people's documentation and in california the dmv makes information available through public libraries. one commonality we found across states is that they worked closely with foreign consulates and with trusted community organizations to reach immigrant audiences in their own languages and to educate them about where and how to apply and what documents they needed to show up at the dmv with. states also stress the importance of reaching out to immigrant communities to warn them about the potential for consumer fraud. we heard stories that unscrupulous individuals may try to charge these applicants for things that should be free such as for booking an appointment or filling out an application, so here you can see how this area, outreach and education, is related to the other areas of

decision making. a state's estimate of potential applicants won't be correct if the audience doesn't know about the program or is uncomfortable coming forward to apply for a license. public outreach can make sure that people know about the licenses and apply. it's critical to ensuring applicants are aware of the eligibility requirements and come to the dmv with all of the proper documentation and fees. outreach and education are also important to preparing immigrants for the written and driving exams so they can pass those the first time and don't have to come back multiple times which uses more time and resources. so now i'm going to give you a sneak peek at upcoming research. we recently contacted all of the states in d.c. that began issuing these licenses in 2013 or later and got data about how many licenses had been issued as of july 31, 2015.

and as of that date, a little more than 800,000 alternative driver's licenses had been issued by these eight places and i imagine the number is nearly 900,000 by now. the number of licenses is definitely correlated with the size of the unauthorized population in the state but there is quite a bit of variation in the numbers of licenses so we wanted to know what are the factors that influence the number of applicants and alternative licenses issued? we've already identified a couple of those this afternoon. so the appointment availability applicants ability to meet the eligibility requirements and public outreach and education being effective. state rules around getting a learner's permit can also impact how many people will actually get a driver's license because it affects how long it takes for one applicant to go through the

process and get a driver's license. even when these factors are accounted for, though, there are also other unanticipated events that could impact the final number of licenses issued. so here vermont is a real outlier. i told you we were going to talk about vermont. this state estimated 1500 people would be eligible for a driver's license. but by august 2 they issued nearly 50,000. so we spoke to the director at the vermont dmv and he explained there are several reasons for this. first, the vermont driver's privilege card is available to anyone who is a vermont resident and a u.s. citizen, a legal permanent resident or undocumented immigrant so an unknown number of u.s. citizens and legal immigrants have decided to receive this alternative license even though they're eligible for the standard real i.d. come lient license. still others didn't have thedom station they needed to get the standard license but they were able to meet the requirements

for the driving privilege card. and then finally we heard that fraud may have been an issue. the dmv administrator noted he saw some evidence that there were advertisements in several out-of-state newspapers that encouraged applicants to pay a large fee to get a vermont driving privilege card using fraudulent state residency documents so an unknown number of alternative licenses has mostly gone to non-state residents. as a result of the number of licenses has far exceeded the initial expectations. finally. pew has looked at the existing literature on the impact of these driving -- driver's license laws on insurance rates, public safety and the economy and we published this short analysis in september and it's available on our web site. there are several challenges when trying to ascertain the impact on allowing unauthorized

immigrants to get driver's licenses. perhaps most importantly eight of the 11 jurisdictions that issue these licenses only began issuing in 2013 or later so not enough time has meaningful data about the impact of the laws. but we looked at the literature related to immigrant tax contributions and spending and we found that while there is some literature about licensed and unlicensed drivers available, there is really very little specific information about unauthorized immigrants and access to driver's license. so this all points to the need for more research. and we hope to continue studying this in the coming months. more complete information about the facts of laws that allows

them to glicenses would allow state policymakers to make more informed decisions. so in conclusion, we hope that the information in our reports offers a framework to those state policymakers who are currently making decisions about issuing licenses and how to design and implement those laws. but now i'm looking forward to our conversation with our other panelists so that they can provide insights from their own state and really turn the framework into a reality. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, michelle. as our panelists are coming up on stage, we are going to take this conversation to the practical realities and to keep that even more interactive, we won't have each pan i wielist d

presentation, but i'll facilitate a discussion and ask a couple questions i think will tease out some of the differences in approaches. but i'd like to start with a topic we've not covered yet. using the advantage of your being here and your approach coming from the legislative branch, could you take us also first inside the legislative debate highlighting areas where there might have been disagreement in your pibill movg forward and how you came to some consensus on actually passing a driver's license bill in california? >> absolutely. so thank you so much for the opportunity to be here and specifically to share some perspective from california. so i think to your question, i kept looking at the fact sheet and i think for california, the approach -- the conversation of driver's license has been a long standing conversation.

we actually -- will the legislature approved and governor signed a driver's license back in 2003. it was very -- it was only -- it was not in effect, it was only available for three months. regulations hadn't been drafted, nothing had been done. so for us the conversation and political debate has been very, very long and it was never a question today and in recent years about who is going to drive because we knew that there was undocumented individuals driving in our state. the question was how do we integrate and what is the responsibility of the state to ensure that we are actually moving forward with the values that many of our representatives have run off or have indicated are priorities for them in representing the district which

in many cases it they had large populations of undocumented individuals, they wanted to provide relief for the population. so for california in more recent years leading up to the implementation, one of the debates was the marking. there was clearly the body, latino caucus, had indicated that they wanted to provide relief for this population with very little penalty. so the marking, the individual marking, was huge to that. >> this is the marking required under real i.d. >> yes.

so for the real i.d. compliance, if a state was going to proceed with issuing an alternative driver's license or driver's license for an undocumented population, there had to be a disdistinguishable mark. to our latino caucus, it was very important that that marking not exist. there was a lot of debate, there was many members that did not want a marking because their communities did not want that. they felt that it was going to be very difficult for people to come out and take advantage of the opportunity of the driver's license. eventually that proved to be an area that could make or break the legislation. and our members specifically in the senate, la tee know caucus members led by senator laura and

know pro tell a tefrnl temp and caucus members decided that they wanted to provide with this relief and they would mark the card, but it was going to be minimal markings. so that's the debate that then moved the bill forward. >> turning now to delaware, but staying kind of still at this phase of pre-implementation, delaware took a unique approach. in fact the legislature worked with communities and put together a task force of community members wide ranging to help advise and shape the legislative process. and director, you were a participant of that task force. could you tell us more about that experience and what that purpose was? >> sure. thank you to having me, as well. like california, this is something that we have been considering for a long time and once it started to really starting to take shape, we worked closely with the legislature, we have a great relationship and it helps us

when it comes to things like this because we're able to do a lot of pre-planning before a bill is drafted. so in this case we said, hey, before we do this, why don't we see -- bring together all the stakeholders and find out what is going on. and the potential sponsors of the bill really liked that idea. and so not this past general assembly, but the one prior, we formed a task force and involved all the stakeholders we could possibly think of from the division of motor vehicles, we had our state and homeland security adviser, law enforcement representation, we had members of the hispanic community, the chair of the delaware hispanic commission, we had four legislators representing the senate and house, and the list goes on. and we spent several months debating this topic of whether or not dole wear should enter in to the business of offering a

driving privilege card town documented immigrants. and the need was clear. there are implications by not having them properly credentialed. but the desire to necessarily do that was what we were debating and how we go about doing that. so we had a great debate. we brought in external stakeholders to give us presentations. we asked the coalition of secure driver's license to come in and present information on what other states were doing. we also asked the american association of motor vehicle administrators to give us a national view throughout the country regarding this topic. and so we just took that information and at the end of it, decided to move forward with legislation, specifically incorporating things that we felt were very important in our state to make sure that everybody that was involved is

comfortable with this legislation. and some key components in addition to trying to identify someone we do require finger printing, or we will. we haven't simple pimplemented . and we also require two years of delaware tax returns. and those are things other states have been doing for a while. so it was a great process and one that i would recommend if you have the opportunity to do something like this, to get that stakeholder booif-this is something we hadn't seen before and it helped us put forward a bill that was i think going to benefit everyone. >> just a quick follow-up to the task force. how did you manage participation and did you include also members of the task force who may not have thought of themselves really party to this issue or skeptical to the issue and how did they contribute to that final legislative outcome? >> yes, we had both state police

as well as local law enforcement represented and that was one area where my understanding was there was some initial opposition because obviously we're in the business of identifying people and how do you do that if there are any documents to identify them. and then we made sure that we had a pretty balanced approach. maybe not straight opposition, but concern. and then full support. so we could again properly vet those things. the fingerprinting was probably the most debated topic of our meetings p i think we went probably two or three meetings going around pd a around about whether or not finger printing made sense for our state. >> and as was mentioned, delaware and hawaii are the two states that have passed laws just this session and have ten other states in the district of columbia to look to for examples. turning the conversation to administrator albertson from nevada, who was your model in nevada for implementing this

type of a law from the dmv perspective and what lessons did you learn. >> >> thank you. and i appreciate the opportunity to be here today and to talk with you about nevada's experiences. so unlike what happened with scott in his state, nevada dmv was not brought into the initial discussions regarding the introduction of the legislation. so once the senators that were involved in sponsoring this bill had introduced it at the legislative level, that's when it became knowledgeable to us at which point we immediately stepped in to join the conversation to see what it is that we could help them with. so again -- the second part of your question? >> if there were model states. >> yes, the model state that we used was the state of utah. it was very helpful during the legislative hearing process, some of the senators that had been involved in utah's legislation came in and spoke to

nevada's lemgs lays tors and we utilized their lessons learned to help us implement our project which i think helped us become very successful. >> did you do anything differently than utah? >> yes, what we did differently is the first thing that they did is they suggested that we change the name from a driver privilege card to a driver authorization card. so through their experiences, they had learned by using the term privilege, that it had the connotation to it that wasn't necessarily true. because it isn't a privilege to drive, it's a right to drive. so the first thing our legislators agreed to come was change the name from privilege to authorization. one of the west lebest lessons was what utah had used as far as the translation services that are required for foreign documents. it is a huge impact on the agency that has this undertaking, so the legislature

did not give us any statutory authority to regulate the traps translation of documents. so what we ended up doing was put it into the regulatory process. and this was probably the biggest piece of debate that occurred during the legislative process for nevada. that we had recommendations from everything that seven-year-old johnny should be able to translate their parents' foreign documents to having dmv technician shs do it. and we took the information from the stakeholders, however we did determine in the end that that was not in the best interests of either the department or the individual to do that. so we did require that translator self-certify and be authorized through the different in order to translate the foreign documents. and so i believed ed adam may h some follow-up questions later on in regards to more detail of that because again this because one of the biggest challenges for us was ensuring that we had

a proper translation process in place. >> i certainly will. what clearly emerging as a trend is there theremay be implementation realities that the issuing agencies have faced. so jumping back to erica, were there specific decisions that legislators wanted to prescribe in statute and specific reasons to learn certain decisions to the dmv? >> that's correct. once the legislature decided that they would move forward with the card, one of the priorities remained ensuring that the state strike a balance between meeting the real i.d. requirements and not putting about population at risk for deportation or discrimination even locally in our state or local governments. and so there was definitely a

lot of thought and work put into the legislation, the author of the legislation had been working diligently with the stakeholders, including law enforcement and others, on providing direction specifically about discrimination and protections indicating specifically in statute that the information provided both for identity and also the information for example list of -- in our case it was 60 -- it would not just be public record or public record. so there was a lot of thought put into that process. when the bill was in the house, we made sure to strengthen that and we worked to make sure that those were all provisions that remained as this bill headed to

the governor for signature. >> so after the bill was passed and stood up the program over the course of a year, were you surprised with any decisions that they later took and felt that that may not have reflected some original legislative intent? >> we were -- the way i describe it, and i speak from a staff perspective, and i was tasked with being very involved in the implementation. there were very specific parameters that were decided in statute. and then there was authorization for the development of emergency regulations for including the types of documentations that should be used for the purpose of verifying identity, the profits for that verification. occurring the so there was a

concern why does it take so long. why can't the figuthey figure it quicker. it should be done quickly. we have been talking about it, let's do it. when we were in the process after the bill got signed, how i describe it is we didn't know what we didn't know. and things happened and the dmv would come p wiup with the proc or they would decide a procedure that we were like, wait, those are major policy questions that should be debated in the legislature, but we were completely silent on it. how are you going to deal with a population who may have previously had a driver's license because there were no

rules about whether you needed approved u.s. legal residency. or what if somebody that had provided other identification that was not their own. so the year and a half delayed implement tags was very helpful to help guide some of the administrative policies to better understand and have a good relationship with the sdchlt dmv and transportation agency and engage other stakeholders that may have administrator, how long did you have in nevada? >> nevada had six months once the bill was approved. because most motor vehicle agencies do have the process to issue a credential today, this one is different, so the six months was an adequate time period for us to develop the resolutions that we needed as well as work with our card production vendor to make sure that we could properly put the

markings on the new card type. >> did you feel you were able to provide sufficient guide guidance to shape that statute? >> yes. once the bill was ro spintroduc, we became very actively involved with the bill sponsor. we knew what we had do in order to remain real i.d. compliant and provided insight, information and guidance as to to the senator to ensure that this would get passed with the department's support. >> so in dell you're probably right at thousand about the mid point to when the law passed in

june to when you say you should be ready. do you have a date certain that you plan to start issuing the licenses? >> the law says december 27, so everything a ais aimed toward t date. so we have six months like nevada to implement. we'll make some concessions on process efficiencies that we'll implement afterwards. but with a little more time, we could be ready right out of the gate. so definitely any state that is looking into this, i would advise more than six months if it's possible. understandably it wants to done quickly. but when you are in the meat of the dmv, you understand really all the different processes. and even in our case where we've been a part of the conversation from the very beginning even before it became a bill, that's worked to our advantage because we understand where everybody's mind set is that will be

impacted by this, so we can make our policy decisions based on a lot of decisions that we've had in the past so that helps us be more proactive than we would be otherwise. >> you've mentioned delaware will be instituting this firpg printing and background process that as i understand it will involve two separate agencies and touch points. you can talk more about how that will work and where you are in finalizing those plans? >> sure. so the state of utah, they do fingerprinting for the driving privilege card and that's where that idea originally came from. and this was one thing that was very important to law enforcement for our state. the most important thing to them is when they pull somebody over on the road, they want to know who they're dealing with. and so obviously finger printing is one way that you can certainly identify somebody. you have a bio met drink that

you've captured for them. and so like i said, there is a great debate about this, whether or not it should be a state and federal check and where we landed is that we would do a state sbi check at the various state police facilities that do fingerprintsing. and unless there is a conflict with a name or any aliases that person provided, or that they have an outstanding warrant, it won't go any further. they will clear that individual. they have captured the fingerprints and they can pass that on to us. but if there is a conflict, i'm john but i'm really joe, and i'm trying to trick the state police, then they can do a federal track to kind of dig into it further. so we're setting up an interface between us and state police to make that process as seamless as possible. we'll be working on outreach to make it clear that state police is the first step. go there. and then once they have been

vetted, thin that will be electronically verifiable by us. >> do you plan to have capacity ready on day one for the anticipated new demand that these agencies will see? >> year going with a scheduling model. state police i believe is doing the sale thing 37 y. you don't know the entire population is that you're dealing with.me thing. you don't know the entire population is that you're dealing with. the numbers keep going up. we drafted the legislation and worked around 32,000 was our number that we cued in on. that was from pew research done in 2008. but we've also heard much more than that. mexican consulate said they currently have 40,000 mexican passports issued to delaware

residents. and that's just one nationality. who knows whether or not those people are still living in our state. because of that, we've looked at other states that have implemented scheduling and so we're going to be scheduling count countervisit for multiple reasons. not only to not impact our other customers who are there in increased wait times because anybody that works in dmv, it's all about the wait times and we don't want to increase wait times. and but also for the individual coming into get the driving privilege card, there will be an established time frame that well be able to service them, they won't is have to wait a long period of time. and we're not having to have them wait in lines every single day in hopes to be serviceded th that day. >> and most states do have appointment systems, but nevada is one state that did not. so i'd be curious if you could tell us what strategies you employed to be mindful of wait times and also to con currently

serve the existing client base that you already have. >> because there wasn't a lot of other states that already implemented similar bills and we didn't have the capacity for an appointment system, our approach was to work through the legislature and have them authorize 18 additional staff. so we used just our averages of the amount of time it takes for a technician to process a transaction and multiplied that by the estimated 60,000 people that they anticipated would come in for these cards and came up with the need for nine additional staff. so the legislature did provide that appropriation. so that was for nine additional counter technicians and nine additional drive examiners to address the population. so it definitely was a challenge because we worked with the community and advocacy groups beforehand to let them know that the cards would be made available as of january 2. so we literally had bus loads of people at our doors on january 2

that were ready to come in and get their driver's authorization cards. one of the big challenges again even though we worked with a community advocacy groups, there was not a wide awareness that it wasn't just a matter of coming in and paying the fee and filling out an application, that there were tests associated to it. so nevada really missed the mark in that regard. and so i know when we met with california, there was a group of us that went to the california dmv and said here, learn from us. so again california i think made great efforts then to improve upon the mistakes that nevada had made. and it worked itself out. we had the initial bubble of individuals that came into get the cards, but once they found that they had to take the written test as well as the driving test, that helped to

level out somewhat the impacts on the offices. because again part of our analysis was because we didn't want to impact our customer wait times because that's what it's all about is how long your customer wait times are. so we missed the mark a little bit in that area, but it could have been much, much worse. >> so erica, what did you learn from nevada and in the state that has the largest unauthorizeded immigrant population and itself estimate that had 1.4 million would apply for this license, this is a huge operation. >> so, yeah, california did estimate that it was going to be 1.4 million applicants over three years. and in the 10 months that the dmv has been issuing driver's licenses, we've had over 500,000 people who have a driver's license and 1.8 visits for the

marked card. and so there was absolutely, you know, a lot to learn from other states. and that period of time that we had in the delayed implementation if you had asked me or my boss how we felt about the delay, we'd be concerned, nervous, and then when we realized the education needed, it was really good to have that and they would send a spokesperson to the community, you would host a forum and the message was are you going to be ready january 2. what do you need do. what should you -- what kind of documents should you get ready. the dmv held over 200 workshops throughout the state. and continue to do education

throughout the state. and part of why i'm excited to participate today here with pew is because our conversations and our discussions can really provide factual information that is not just sensationalized. so we were happy to learn from nevada. >> that's great. and we're very glad to provide that opportunity for all of you and everyone watching here, as well. i'd be curious director, you mentioned utah and we've heard a little bit more about other state models from california and nevada. since you're right in the throes of making decisions to implement this program, which other states are standing out, what types of programs are you looking to implement in it delaware and from whom? >> one of the states we're looking at is california, trying to leverage their extensive research because a state the size of ours, our research arm is a couple of managers.

so we're looking closely at maryland, which is a neighboring state of ours who is already doing this. and vermont is another state in connecticut who is another state that we looked at. and utah, as well. to try to figure out what has worked, what hasn't. and that's where the two years of tax returns came from was from the state of maryland. that was an effort on their part to keep other states from -- or folks from other states from basically flooding their doors with false residency documents. they want to say, yep, this person has lived here for the last two years, and we're be looking to do the same thing. because we're so small and so close to everybody else, it's very easy to just come on into delaware. and so that's our attempt at the same thing that maryland is ittiit i doing is trying to limit the

number of people saying, yes, i'm a resident when they just showed up yesterday. >> can we ask a question? >> certainly. yes. we'll get a microphone. >> thank you very much. we broadcast in spanish nationally. have you found this to be a burden on the state at all? >> no, not at all. the numbers came in significantly lower than what was anticipated. and with the additional staffing resources that we were given by the legislature, it has not been acalifornia, i heard everybody is getting registered to vote at the same time, and

once they get their driver's license, that this will allow undocument immigrants to vote. can you please clarify? >> absolutely. so there was a piece of legislation authorized by an assembly woman gonzalez and sponsored by the secretary of state and the purpose of the law is to create a mechanism to basically better meet the voter/motor act. so this is an attempt to get more people registered to vote. there are the author, our office, the sponsor worked very closely with the dmv and transportation agency to make sure that the bill was amended so that there were no provisions

in the bill that would inadvertently register undocumented individuals to vote. moving forward, we have parameters of who we know is applying for an ab 60california has the mechanism to say these people are not eligible, we won't automatically register this population because they're the not eligible. you don't immediate tmeet the c. so the information that you're hearing is not fact. the legislature has taken great caution to ensure that no undocumented individual is accidentally registered to vote. and the secretary of state's office is working very closely with the legislature on the implementation to make sure that

there is nothing left that even is a risk. >> and if i may, why new mexico and washington state have gotten out to issue these licenses without marking on them that they are not for federal purposes or just issued to undocumented? >> so washington and new mexico have both been issuing the same driver's licenses to everyone regardless of immigration status for quite a long time. the state of las vegas has never had a legal presence requirement, meaning they never had to prove that they were legally in the united states to get a license. and new mexico passed a law that allowed unauthorized immigrants to get the license. they're not real i.d. compliance, so they did not need to create a special alternative

license with the distinct difference markings to give to an unauthorized population. if they it want to become real i.d. compliant, then they would need to also make decisions regarding licenses for unauthorized immigrants. >> thank you very much. >> and this is a good opportunity if other people have questions, if you would just please move and line up behind the microphone there, and i'd be glad to call on you. it actually, michelle, while you're speaking to the examples of new mexico and washington, can you tell us what is going on in delaware and hawaii and are other states considering similar laws? >> sure. hawaii passed its law the same day as delaware and we have speak spe been speaking to officials and

are trying to learn more about that state. one thing that is interesting about hawaii is that their unauthorized population is a little bit different than the states represented here. it's many filipinos and people from micronesia. so we'll see how that affects their decisions around implementation because i suspect that the languages that they have to produce materials in and the documents that they accept from foreign countries will be can different for that. their law also creates an alternative license that is for unauthorized immigrants, but goes well beyond. thou they wanted to create a document that other populations that have a hard time getting documents could get. so they include the homeless, elderly, people who are institutionalized. there are a couple different groups of people listed in their legislation. their legislation also tends to be very specific in terms of what documents are going to be

accepted. as to we wanted to learn about the decisions that they were able to make in light of this very specific legislation. and then finally, hawaii's unique because inch plememplemes at the county level. so we'll be learning more about that in the the next couple of days. >> thank you. you mentioned documents here and i'd like to go back to lessons that you've learned. >> again, it was because we were not given any statutory authority over regulating the translation of foreign documents, we did include that into the regulatory process where again we received the most feedback from the stakeholder groups as far as how we wanted to handle that. initially we wanted to have the

documents notarized and that was met with opposition. they said it was an unnecessary burden to place on individuals to also have their documents notarized. and then again we also couldn't be so lax in our processes that we would allow a child to trance translate the document to a participants. so we did come to a consensus and for the most part it's worked very well. it is a self-regulated process. you attest to us that you are authorized -- or not authorized, but that you are eligible to translate documents from particular language into english and so you self-certified that with your signature and you have to provide that in its original form to the department and there is and at tes station associated to that that has a fraudulent

p purcha perjury yus statement. so one of the first instances of fraud that nevada experienced was through a translation piece. a certain had self-certified to translate from spanish to english and they actually submitted a document that was in a language other. and i don't recall which one specifically it was. let's say farsi. what that individual admitted to when they were consulted was that they had simply done a google translation, so they had entered the information from the foreign document into google and they had been provided that translation. so we were then able to remove that person from our authorized translator's list. so one of the other pieces again going back to this is that learning lessons from utah, they suggested that we did not allow businesses to register as

translators. so our specific regulations say we would only allow that to be for a natural person. so i can be terry albertson doing business as aaa sberp days services, but when i go on our website, that's how it will be listed is through alphabetical order. but i would encourage you those working through the legislative process that if you can get the legislators to allow you to post the cost that the individual wants to charge individuals because it was -- it ranges from everything to hundreds of dollars for a simple birth certificate to free of charge. but again, without the regulatory authority to provide oversight to that and again you need the resources in order do that, it does leave i believe the community somewhat vulnerable because again when you have a list of 800 individuals and although our website will list what languages

you are -- you can translate in, if you run into 500 of them, what is the likelihood that you'll call a number of those individuals to get your documents translated to find out what they're charging. you're probably going to go with the first one that is on the list unless their cost is so exorbitant our prohibitive that you will continue down. but there is nothing on the website and again no regulatory or statutory process to say we need to be able to post your fees on there so that individuals can make that choice from that perspective. >> and i think you can all appreciate at this point the challenge that issuing agencies in all of these states are having to try to serve a population they may not is everybodied is before and to recognize identification documents, credentials that are issued in different countries and different languages, but still trying to maintain avenues of integrity and ensuring authentication. turning tole ca california, the

developed an electronic model. you can talk about that? >> the dmv representative probably would west be abbest b describe it, but we understand that the dmv was able to get into mous with countries like mexico to be able to develop technology that could verify u.s. passport and other documentation that would easily be verifiable and where they can be cleared of tickets and being able to go from the ticket window where they first walk into getting a driver's license within a very short period of time which was the goal this our case. a state like california, i was going to say in a country like california, that's the way it feels, in a state like california where you have so much diversity, you have so many

immigrants from all over the world, there are countries where the country of origin may have documentation that is appropriate for that country but doesn't meet the security features that our state requires specifical specifically. so moving in that direction, you know, for california with a large population of undocumented individuals who are seeinging driver's licenses, it's going to result for us in less wait time, more expedited process and an ability to be able to serve all customers including ab 60 applications more efficiently. people get discouraged when they go to the ticket window without an appointment and then it's several weeks and months before they get direction about a they don't have the appropriate

documentation. so we're very excited about that technology. >> how important are foreign consulates in your work, how important partners are they, did you have to seem them out? i leave this open to anybody. >> for us, we've been working with the mexican consulate and that's proven to very beneficial for us. and just eye opening and potential number of individuals. but they were very proud and happy to show us their issuance process. we like to think we're the be all end all because we take it very seriously. so being able to go there and see how they issue the mexican passports or consulate i.d. cards and the vetting process that they use was very eye opening for us and it will enable us to have a high level

of confidence when presented with those documents that the proper vetting took place before they're coming in to see us. so that was very beneficial. they're remaining a part of the conversation. i chair the transportation subcommittee for the delaware hispanic commission and they have been coming to our meetings and being part of the conversation as we plan that out and we're reaching out to other consulates, as well. >> and the same holds true for nevada. when we started having the community town hall meetings, again, we included not only law enforcement, but also the consulate representatives as well as representatives from local churches, as many as we could think of to invite the hispanic chambers of cherommerc all of those organizations to help us get the word out. >> i want to pause here and see if there are questions in the room.

could you approach a mike? >> tim henderson. quick question for scott. when you talk about fingerpri fingerprinting, does that go through any of the process, does it go to immigration authorities? >> no. the fingerprinting process that we use for this is what our state police agency deems are application capital fingerprinting process. so if you're going to become a school bus driver, taxicab driver, schoolteacher, what have you, you're in an application capital pool of finger printing. and that same pool -- it doesn't commingle with criminal finger

printing records. so it's a completely separate process, but still gives them the tools they need so they can compare against the things that they need to. >> i want to chime in on this question because i think when we talk about what other states are going to do, they should better understand how existing mous between immigration and enforcement and dmv works. also between law enforcement information systems, which are hosted by the can dmv and immigration enforcement works. so for california, we put a lot -- our members of the legislature wanted to make sure that there was the greatest access, but in this conversation

about we didn't know what we didn't know, we have the california law enforcement telecommunications system. and that is the system that hosts -- let's say you get stopped by traffic officer and they will write you a ticket, they look you up and they find your information. so there is existing mous in california that allow this access. that access also happens to be at the national level. so while there are protections in place that you can't use this information specifically to arrest somebody, nothing that this person has an ab 60 license in california does not automatically mean that this person is undocumented. we've made that very clear in statute. we've also said that it's a crime to discriminate based on

that. but if there -- and immigration enforcement can't just go to the dmv and say i want the entire list of all ab 60 applicants and those that are licenses. but what they could to if immigration enforcement is looking for an individual because they have a deportation order, they have existing mou, so they have a court order that allows them to go to the dmv and the dmv must comply and say, hey, i'm looking for this person, we want to pick them up, can you please give us their address. and. case, that person may be found. and deported accordingly. and so that is not driven by the state. it's driven at the federal level. and so in the conversation about states and moving to the direction of driver's licenses, one of the key messages and lessons learned for california was that the statutes about9sd

discrimination and keeping information private does not preclude enforcement officers from being able to find people who have deportation orders. so for example my senator, senator laura, when he goes out and does a presentation or workshop on the driver's license, he talks about the opportunity, this is an opportunity for as many people to get access to a driver's license, to drive your children to school. but if you have a deportation order or if you have questions about your history or your background, you should probably consult an attorney before you go go to the dmv. while there are a lot of protections in place, there are things that are not in the state's control to manage. >> thank you. we have another questioner. >> hi. i'm becky thiese with pew. i was wondering if other states are contacting you in their exploration of this.

we saw the map and there were a bunch of states that haven't yet considered this. so are you hearing from states that are looking into this and also speaking to michelle's point about vermont, if we did see other states pursue this, would that cut down on fraud? >> when california implemented their law, they reached out to us and i think there was a group of five or six of us that spent half a day with the director and her administrators and deputies just to share the lessons learned. and again it's invaluable what you can learn from the other states. and i know scott has alluded to the american association of motor vehicle administrators organization that both my state and his belong to. again, a very valuable networking resource and i would be happy to share lessons learned with any jurisdiction that would be interested. >> and we're the state reaching out to everybody right now. nobody is talking to us.

>> for california, it's interesting you bring up that point. so as legislative staff and also for my senator, we've been very engaged in ncsl, specifically my boss sits on the immigration task force. >> this is the national conversation of state legislatures. >> of course. and so it really gives -- through the conversations, it gives legislators and their staff an opportunity to talk off the record really about lessons learned, about things you may want to admit, things you may not want to admit,ed a really build a relationship with those members. that then you could pick up the phone and call the member yourself, member to member and say, hey, i'm thinking about these things and how could this work or who can you connect me to in california. so absolutely states are reaching out and specifically in our experience through ncsl and the immigration task force.

so it's been wonderful. >> we've talked a pit abobit ab implementation and challenges. i'm curious about outreach. as we've talked about a little bit offline in the case of california with a high estimate of 1.4 million people that would be served down to vermont's 1500, but these are all estimates, these are new populations. and no one can really put their finger on how they need to be served, what their nationalities are, what languages they speak. so i'm curious of your outreach approaches, what lessons you've learned, how you've recalibrated and do you feel like you found the sweet spot in serving this population where thif they don' know, the program won't be very successful. >> one area we're focusing on in delaware is the hispanic population simply due to statistics, they make up about 10% of our population in

delaware. and so that will be our largest area that will be affected by this legislation. and so i mentioned i serve on the hispanic commission which gives a great reach within that community. i'll be speaking on spanish radio. and later this month is when we'll really start publicizing this saying these are the requirements when you come, these are the things you thshou expect. but that's not the only population that we need to serve. so we're reaching out to as many community centers as we possibly can think of to start having those conversations where other nationalities and with other communities. we're doing things, simple things, like making sure our translate button on our website is very visible and easy to use. so somebody can see that. right now it's buried at the bottom of website. i didn't even know it was there. so we're doing things like that. our print material will be in english and spanish. and then as we start seeing a need if we see a need for other

languages to be in print or for us to do more in other areas, we'll continue to adjust. butted main focus definitely is in the hispanic community. >> and similar experience for nevada. and i'll piggyback a little on erica's comments. you don't know what you don't know. and until they come forward with a request for information other services, that's when you find out. so although we have in excess of 700 translators on our list, we did have a request from an individual for a very unique language. i don't recall the specific one it was. but what we did in order to help this consumer is that we reached out to the local university who was then able to provide them with the translation services that they needed. so we had to make an exception to our rule because we only allowed a natural person to be an approved translator, but again through policy, we were able to authorize the university to provide that service. >> for california, i mentioned

earlier the dmv did a really phenomenal job of beginning their work before the implementation through the workshops. they were getting -- they solicited information from the community about what types of documents would you suggest we use in verifying identity. so started the engagement very early and then they had over 200 workshops and legislatures certainly had a lot of interest in doing outreach and education the community about it. the media played a key role in it. spanish radio played a key role. i know at the staff level, i've been impressed with at of outreach the dmv has done. >> i'm austin from georgetown university and we're doing a research project actually on the rollout in d.c. and one of the things we're doing is interviewing some

individuals who are looking to apply for the license or who are in the process. and asking them about what are some of the reasons you might be held back there doing it. what are some of the did tickfo difficulties or why you're not applying. some people whether rational or not are afraid of coming out of the shadows to apply for this license. and so my question is, have there been any reports or evidence -- i know it would probably be hard to find -- of police discriminating on the basis of seeing that mark on the license? i know you spoke to how states can't control for everything as far as immigration and customs enforcement, but have there been any reports of that mark on the license resulting in any discrimination for people pulled over on the road? >> to date we have not heard those stories. we do require in statute in the

legislation that there be a report annually indicating any cases of discrimination that get reported to the state. and so in california, again, it's a crime to discriminate based on that marked card. and it's in violation of the civil rights agent. so act. so as we at the time reports coming from -- reports from the community or so on, we may have data. at this point, i haven't even heard anecdotally that it's a problem. and i think that is very helpful, during the workshops, usually there was law enforcement sitting next to the dmv representative who is saying don't be afraid, come out, we want you to get a driver's license, we want you to get insurance, everybody will be safer. so i think that really helped. but we haven't seen that. >> thank you. >> picking up on that question, i heard a couple of times when

you were discussing your own outreach plans reaching out to those community based ethic organizations. did you encounter resistance as government officials contacting these partners who serve what would be vulnerable communities to partner with government is this was that an easy sell? >> in nevada, that responsibility was delegated to our public information officers. and they welcomed the opportunity to join with us, the community groups cdid. we had no resistance and again we had law enforcement officials there that we had educated on the process, again encouraginged individuals don't be afraid, come forward and do this. because when that individual is driving behind their car, there is no marking on their car that indicates to the law enforcement officer that that person has a driver's authorization card inside. it's only when the officer has then determined that there is a need to pull that person over because they found cause, that only at that point in time when they pull that license out of

their wallet and show to the officer, only then would the officer have any indication that person was a driver's authorization card holder and not the holder of a standard issued license. >> and the same thing along the lines of the lines of what terry just said about the marking on the card, same thing with us. it's a class "d" license just like the one that i possess myself and so for all purposes within your systems and everything else it's the class "d" license holder. it's the physical card that makes that indicator. the folks we've been reaching out to so far have been very open and willing and very eager to talk to us, to work with us, because this is going to help their communities. there is concern with some of the provisions we have in there. and one of the things that we're doing, it was a sister piece of legislation that went along with our bill was to have the task force reconvene this may, this coming may, may of 2016, to study kind of the early parts of the implementation to see is there anything that, you know,

was passed in the legislation that's kind of chilling participation. as well as is there anything we can do better. and so that task force will be coming back together in may to evaluate things like outreach. is there concern because we're government officials. is there concern law enforcement or anything of that nature. >> for california, nevada so states that are currently implementing, how do you think it's going? how would your own eval wass be on your efforts thus far? >> you know, i think our community is happy that they have access. in california there were a lot of people losing their vehicles, getting impounded. we have laws in place that require impoundment and then the vehicle gets held

incorrectly. but, you know, the idea of having a marked card is just -- it feels bad to some people. we're trying to work very diligently with organizations to make sure that people have all the information they need to get comfortable and if they don't that they consult with an attorney accordingly. but i think my boss is certainly very pleased. a lot of our community members are as well. >> i'm hearing a perennial plug for more research, right? these programs are still knnew.

>> given the estimates of approximate ly 60,000 individuas that would apply in nevada and we've met barely of a of that, i would encourage, again, continued outreach with the community groups if it's requested at this point in time to provide information to these individuals because, again, we can say, you know, based on, you know, 14 months of experience we've not had any negative activity associated to individuals having a drivers authorization card and i can't think of a better group than those that have the card to come out and speak to others to encourage them to also become compliant by obtaining the drivers authorization card, so, again, that's all a matter of resources and time that it takes to do that but i think that would be something that maybe the community groups should consider is to go out and to start reeducating individuals and get people that have a card to sit on a panel and talk to others and say you tonight have anything to be afraid of.

>> we are nearing our time so i wanted to give a final call to the room for questions and the panelists if you have questions for one another. we'll start here. >> hi there, i know delaware worked with insurance companies as part of this process and i was wondering if california and nevada did similar work and, you know, was that important. >> well, for nevada we did reach out to the insurance industry and they were part of the hearing process during the legislation that was being heard. and they didn't have a position on it one way or another, although part of our analysis included the fact that there was a potential for increased insurance premiums to be sold to these individuals. however, it is not a requirement in nevada to have insurance to have a license. it's only a requirement if you register a vehicle. so, again, depending on what the individual wants to use the drivers authorization card for, it doesn't necessarily equate then directly into the selling

of an insurance policy. but they were part of the discussions. >> specifically my boss was very interested in helping people get that insurance. we knew that there were some insurance companies that were already providing insurance to some individuals that did not have a driver's license. but usually it was very costly. we worked very closely with the insurance commissioner, dave jones, in california, where in statute we have a low-income -- an affordable insurance program that is within the department of insurance. and the same year that we were working to pass the driver's license we worked to provide this -- to clarify and expand so that people had better access to that program in california. we specifically, our office did not specifically work with

private companies, but dunk the engagement process for this program, this low income affordable insurance program, it did give us an opportunity to educate people about the new law. >> so, as we are closing in on time, i'd like to ask each panelist a final question and that's really in our role here at pew putting this information in front of policymakers as you're considering whether and how to approach these laws in your jurisdictions i'd like to start with michelle and go down the line. what's your biggest piece of advice and lesson learned from your experience? what's the most important takeaway for you in your work in this process? >> from the conversation today, i've learned so much, thank you so much. i think the biggest takeaway for me was that the legislators must speak to the dmvs as they're crafting their legislation, not -- sorry if i took away your thunder. you know, not when it's time for implementation because there's so much mutual learning that needs to take place there.

>> for california, for me i would say absolutely engage early, engage during the legislative debate. engage the federal government. understand the systems, processes, and understand the dmv's engagement with enforce -- immigration enforcement, homeland security, because that process is very important. if your state decides to proceed with a marked card, that -- it is a process of trial and error sometimes where homeland security may approve or reject your card. and you have to come back to the drawing board, so understand that process between the dmv and the federal government so as legislators you can better navigate that process. >> early engagement is key. obviously we are engaged early. but even having been engaged earlier, there are still thinks

being on the other side of it during implementation we're, like, wow, we really should have looked into that a little further. one being we should reach out to the consulates earlier because not really thinking of them as a resource to have their finger on, you know, the undocumented community. that would have been something very helpful in our planning because our numbers may be higher. we really don't know. all the different planning, pulling from as many different resources as possible but, again, having the large stakeholder group early on was very beneficial for us in the planning and hopefully not having implemented yet we'll see it pay off here in a couple of months. >> i would say based on lessons learned from nevada, scott's right, you cannot overcommunicate this enough. i think it's very important to identify who your stakeholders are upfront. i think you have enough states that have implemented this now to reach out to them, you know, based on even michelle's research, all that this takes because it truly is a huge

undertaking for a state to implement this because there are so many stakeholders involved from your law enforcement to the foreign officials to your legislators to then down to your dmv staff. i just can't emphasize enough the need to communicate that openly and clearly with everybody who needs to be -- needs to be involved in this process. >> so, i like things in threes and i'm hearing communication, constant engagement and, of course, relevant to us more research, so thank you all for coming and please join me in thanking our panelists. i'd also like to quickly thank, everything at pew is a team effort and michelle pike and the entire facilities team, sara and all the communications team, our government relations team and, of course, my own team immigration and particularly shakira cline who spearheaded this for us this afternoon. thank you all for coming and enjoy your afternoon.

if you missed any of this discussion you can find it online cspan.org. and look here at some of the news from earlier today. house majority leader kevin mccarthy praising president obama's decision to keep troops in afghanistan beyond his term