By: Maria Moynihan At a time when people are accessing information when, where and how they want to, why aren’t voter rolls more up to date? Too often, voter lists aren’t scrubbed for use in mailing, and information included is inaccurate at the time of outreach. Though addresses and other contact information becomes outdated, new address identification and verification has not typically been a resource focus.  Costs associated with mandated election-related communications between government and citizens can add up, especially if messages never get to their intended recipients and, in turn, Registrar Offices never get a response. To date, the most common pitfalls with poorly maintained lists have been: Deceased records — where contact information for deceased voters has not been removed or flagged for mailing Email and address errors — where those who have moved or recently changed information failed to update their records, or where errors in the information on file make it unlikely for the United States Postal Service® to reach individuals effectively Duplicate records — where repeat records exist due to update errors or lack of information standardization With resources being tighter than ever, Registrar Offices now are placing emphasis on mailing accuracy and reach. Through third-party-verified data and advanced approaches to managing contact information, Registrar Offices can benefit from truly connecting with their citizens while saving on communication outreach efforts. Experian Public Sector recently helped the Orange County Registrar of Voters increase the quality of its voter registration process. Click here to view the write-up, or stay tuned as I share more on progress being made in this area across states.

One of the challenges that we hear from many of our clients is managing multiple collection agencies in order to recover bad debts. Collection managers who use multiple collection agencies recognize the potential upside to utilizing multiple agencies.  Assigning allocate accounts to different agencies based on geography, type of account, status of account (such as a skip), first, second or third placement, and other factors may lead to greater recoveries than just using a single agency.  Also, collection managers recognize the advantage of pitting agencies against each other in a positive manner to achieve significantly better results. However this can present a challenge in that the more agencies collection managers use, the greater the risk of losing operational control. Here are some questions to ask before engaging in a multiple collection agency strategy: Do you know which agency has which accounts?  Were some accounts accidently assigned to more than one agency?  Is it easy to locate an account with an agency if it needs to be withdrawn from it? Is information flowing from one agency to another if agencies are used for second and third placements? Managing multiple agencies can get complex pretty quickly, but rather than just using one agency to avoid these complexities, there is an alternative to consider: Loss of control can be overcome with effective systems that allocate and manage accounts assigned to multiple agencies.  These systems allow for the allocation, recall, activity tracking, performance reporting, and commission calculations or vendor audits.  No more spreadsheets or other time consuming, error prone manual processes.  Experian can help with its agency allocation and management solutions through Tallyman Agency Allocation. Learn more about our Tallyman Agency Allocation software. 

More than ever before, there may now be credence in the view that the majority of consumers’ personally identifiable information (PII), user names and passwords, and even some authentication tokens have been, or are, at risk of compromise.  Between sophisticated hacking schemes and regularly reported and sometimes unreported data breaches, those charged with implementing and maintaining identity authentication and management systems must assume this to be true.  In doing so, the need for layered authentication becomes readily apparent.  Layered authentication can mean many things to many people, but I would offer it up as diversifying authentication and risk assessment techniques and processes across multiple elements and attributes throughout the customer lifecycle.  These elements and attributes corresponding techniques can include: traditional PII validation and verification identity transaction link analysis and risk attribute derivation credit and non-credit data and risk attributes identity risk scores knowledge-based authentication question performance device intelligence and risk assessment credentials biometrics and should be layered proportionally by inherent risk per application, addressable population, transaction history and types, current transaction, and access channel for example.  Industry guidance such as the FFIEC Guidance of Authentication in an Internet Banking Environment is a solid foundational direction that calls out the need for institutions to move beyond simple device identification — such as IP address checks, static cookies and challenge questions derived from customer enrollment information — to more complex device intelligence and more complex out-of-wallet identity verification procedures.  I would suggest that while this is a great start, it is by no means comprehensive.  Institutions across all markets, both private and public sectors, should be exploring all available services and technologies in an effort to reduce reliance on one or only a few methods of authentication and identity management.  Particularly, again, assuming that the one method an institution may rely on could be greatly weakened or without value if subject to mass compromise. Make sure to read our Comply whitepaper to gain more insight on regulations affecting financial institutions and how you can prepare your business.   Learn more about how your business can authenticate consumers confidently.