Governments’ use of digital verification must ensure equal access to services

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) warns in a new report, Closing the Digital Verification Divide, that as “local governments increasingly digitize their services, the existing digital verification divide is becoming a significant barrier for low-income and marginalized Americans.”

The report says there is a “significant digital verification divide that disproportionately affects low-income Americans, rural residents, and marginalized groups, all of whom often lack the documentation required to access digital government services.”

The report says these “individuals often lack the financial and identity documents, such as bank accounts or passports, that are commonly required for digital verification,” and emphasized that without “targeted interventions, these populations may be unable to access critical services like unemployment benefits, tax records, and social security.”

“Low-income and marginalized Americans are less likely to have bank accounts, mortgages, passports, or any of the accumulation of documentation that most people can use to establish their identity and help authenticate themselves for government systems,” the report explains.

And this is a big problem. As the Brennan Center for Justice said in June, research indicates more than 9 percent of American citizens of voting age, or 21.3 million people, don’t have proof of citizenship readily available, and that at least 3.8 million people do not have any of these documents at all.

The Brennan Center also found “evidence of racial disparities in these numbers: while just over 8 percent of self-identified white American citizens don’t have citizenship documents readily available, that number is nearly 11 percent among Americans of color.”

Carl Hammersburg, manager of government and healthcare risk and fraud at SAS Institute cautioned earlier this year that “careful consideration of equal access, security, interoperability and user convenience is essential for successful state implementations of digital ID programs.”

The PPI report focuses on what it says is the “simple but often overlooked step” of verifying the identity of users “who often come from low-income or other groups who have sparse document trails.” Because these “users cannot get government services without being verified, digitization requires verification processes that are both secure and demonstrably inclusive.”

“Fundamentally, the process of remote digital verification with a government agency starts with the potential user producing existing documents, such as a passport or driver’s license, but the question is how to accurately verify online that these documents are not fraudulent,” the report points out.

To address the challenges, the report calls for the adoption of integrated verification systems that combine biometrics with alternative approaches, such as using trusted referees to conduct video interviews for those without traditional forms of identification, and urges federal agencies follow National Institute of Standards and Technology guidelines “which balance security and accessibility.”

“An integrated system that includes both biometric face matching and the ability to verify users via alternative channels, such as video chat or in-person, can produce better access to digital government for low-income and other Americans with sparse document trails,” the report says.

Another problem “in closing the digital verification divide,” the report says, “is the use of biometrics for identity verification has been mistakenly conflated with the use of biometrics for surveillance and law enforcement, which poses a very different set of technological and implementation challenges. A typical identity verification system might use a face-matching algorithm that does a ‘1 to 1’ comparison between an individual’s face and a particular government-issued ID. A law enforcement application, by contrast, might use a facial recognition algorithm that does a ‘1 to many’ comparison between an individual’s face and a database of millions of potential matches.”

“At every level of government, we’re grappling with how to make access both effective and inclusive for Americans,” said PPI Vice President and Chief Economist, Dr. Michael Mandel, who authored the report. “The digitization of government is essential for making services more efficient, but it must be done in a way that doesn’t widen the divide between those who have easy access to verification and those who don’t. This report outlines actionable steps to ensure that digital government works for every American.”

“One key barrier is the reluctance to adopt biometric verification due to privacy and surveillance concerns [which] has resulted in the underuse of effective tools that could help bridge the verification divide,” he said.

Consequently, the report advocates for the responsible use of biometric systems, noting that “data suggests that the appropriate use of biometrics can help close the digital verification divide, especially when combined with digital interviews as needed.”

The report says, “data shows that “biometrics are not biased by income” and “show little bias relative to race and ethnicity when used as part of an integrated process.”

The report also notes that there are two important downsides to a stand-alone biometric approach. “First, even as face-matching algorithms improve for all demographic groups, it is also possible that some subpopulations (race, gender, age) may see higher rates of false matches, meaning they are matching when they should not be. Second, some people still won’t be comfortable with the use of facial verification.”

The report thus emphasizes the need for “greater support for trusted referees, who can help individuals navigate digital verification, particularly those in low-income or underserved communities.”

Because “governments are faced with the mandate to do more with less,” the report says the “obvious solution” for governments has been “to digitize expensive and slow legacy processes,” which “in turn, requires both investment in better IT systems and the shift to online access for constituents.”

To close this digital verification divide, the report recommends that:

• The goals of inclusion and efficiency are not in conflict;
• The success of digitization of government requires fair treatment of all groups. For remote verification, that may mean providing an alternative video chat with a “trusted referee” for anyone who chooses, or the equivalent; and
• Biometric facial verification uses leading government-tested algorithms which can provide a high level of security and strong performance.

The report concludes that implementing its proposed recommendations is crucial for closing the digital verification divide and ensuring that all Americans can access the services they need.

“By making these changes, government agencies can not only improve efficiency but also ensure broader access to digital services in the modern era,” the report says.

Article Topics

biometrics  |  digital government  |  digital identity  |  digital inclusion  |  face biometrics  |  IAL2  |  identity verification  |  U.S. Government