BRIDGE ID FEASIBILITY STUDY JUNE 2016
table of contents
5
Executive Summary
6 8
Background
Methodology and Analysis Research methodology Key takeaways
10
Overview of Alternatives City administered
17
Nonprofit administered
Conclusions
Part City, part nonprofit
Third-party administered
23
Recommendations Enrollment process
Enrollment center options
Technology considerations
2
3
BRIDGE card: An ID to Simplify Life for All Pittsburghers The City is committed to the creation of a Municipal ID card for all City residents. Having a valid photo ID connects residents to the wonderful amenities and resources our City has to offer. An ID that also integrates with other entities like transportation, libraries, health and recreation opportunities will motivate any resident, even one that can obtain a state-issued ID, to apply for a municipal ID.
The Impact Opportunity The inability to acquire a valid form of identification holds a portion of our City’s residents back from doing things like gaining employment, opening a bank account, accessing social services, or renting an apartment. In the City of Pittsburgh, 22.8% of our residents live in poverty (source: Census 2010). It is likely that a portion of these residents have difficulty getting an ID. Additionally, various population segments such as Veterans, Seniors, Youth, LGBTQ, people with a disability, immigrants and refugees, those experiencing homelessness, and formerly incarcerated people can benefit from a municipal ID. An ID issued by the municipality, with a broader view of documents permitted to establish identity and residency, will allow these residents to more fully take advantage of amenities and services.
The Key Requirements of the Study • Assess the need for a municipal ID program • Understand and outline the implementation requirements from administration, technology and sustainability • Determine and outline the financial costs • Identify and recommend key partners for implementation and expansion within Allegheny County • Create a brand identity • Recommend an outreach and communications strategy The BRIDGE card report looks at the feasibility of launching a municipal ID program in the City of Pittsburgh. The resulting report is a product of research, community outreach, individual stakeholder meetings, vetting of vendors, and conversations with existing municipal ID programs. 5
Background The City of Pittsburgh is in a time of high growth, attracting a younger and more diverse population. A municipal ID responds to the needs of new and existing communities that have barriers to obtaining a valid ID, but also binds together all residents under a common ID that provides greater access to the City. Within the City, the concept for the ID was initially explored by the Mayor’s Welcoming Pittsburgh Advisory Council, which was charged with producing a road map for the initiative. The ID was confirmed as one of the recommendations of the Council. The work of the Advisory Council has underscored the benefits of launching a Municipal ID in Pittsburgh, and support for the concept was reinforced during Welcoming Pittsburgh’s community outreach phase, which engaged more than 3,000 Pittsburghers. The Mayor’s office secured funding through a grant by the Hillman Family Foundations to conduct this study. Shift Collaborative was selected from the candidates that returned a proposal to conduct the study. Several other cities have established municipal ID programs before us and more have emerged during the course of the study. A key component of the study was to learn from the established programs, specifically New York CIty, Oakland, CA, San Francisco, Washington D.C., and New Haven, CT.
6
THE WELCOMING PITTSBURGH PLAN A Roadmap For Change
7
methodology + analysis The Methodology
Interviews
You don’t know how essential a valid ID is until you don’t have one. How would a person’s life change if they could obtain a valid ID from their municipality? This is the main question we sought to address during our research. Additionally, we explored the numerous components needed to launch a municipal ID program for City of Pittsburgh residents.
Focus Groups
With respect to security and identity verification, our approach was guided by having a more secure ID that does not have tracking the cardholder. A more secure ID will have an easier time being recognized by law enforcement and financial institutions.
Individual and group meetings were held with the initial stakeholders, financial institutions, law enforcement, technology vendors, and City departments.
Six months. More than 100 meetings with community organizations, City departments, technology vendors, existing ID programs around the country, key implementation partners and a variety of stakeholders.
We conducted interviews with program officers at 5 existing municipal ID programs. We conducted outreach to 8 programs. Nine population segments were identified during our initial research. We held focus groups with service providers that serve each of these segments.
Meetings
Market Research
Census data for the City of Pittsburgh was used to help inform the need in the community and set initial program goals.
RESEARCH SEGMENTS
5
EXISTING PROGRAMS
91
STAKEHOLDER ORGANIZATIONS
6
15
TECHNOLOGY VENDORS
6
IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS
RECOGNITION + PERKS PROVIDERS
8
methodology + analysis Key Takeaways by Segment Existing Programs Our research included meetings with the following programs: ID NYC, San Francisco, Oakland, CA, Richmond, CA and New Haven, CT. We attempted outreach to several additional programs but were unable to get meetings scheduled. • Beyond a secure photo ID, there should be integrations with other City departments, and thirdparty organizations to provide enhanced benefits to the cardholder. This creates an environment where all City residents will find obtaining an ID attractive. • Ongoing marketing of the ID should be factored in the sustainability of the program. • Relationships with City departments, County departments, law enforcement, financial institutions, third-party integrations such as the Library, Port Authority, YMCA, and retailers and restaurants will be an ongoing process.
EXISTING PROGRAMS NEW YORK, NY OAKLAND, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA NEW HAVEN, CT RICHMOND, CA
2007
YEAR FIRST ID PROGRAM LAUNCHED
• Having a mechanism to gather feedback, assess impact, and to gauge interest in the program would be a valuable tool.
COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS “LOW COST” “WELCOMING” “ACCESSIBLE” “PORT AUTHORITY INTEGRATION WOULD BE AWESOME”
Community Organizations While the ID is intended to simplify life for all City residents, there are several segments of the population having a valid ID will have an even greater impact. To understand the needs of these segments we met with service providers that serve these populations. There were nine stakeholder segments (order in which we held the sessions): LGBTQI, Formerly incarcerated, Veterans, Seniors, Immigrants/Refugees, Youth, People with Disabilities, People experiencing Homelessness, and African Americans. • The overall flavor of all of the feedback we gathered during the stakeholder sessions was positive. The many service providers acknowledged a need among the people they serve for a more flexible photo identification. • There was interest expressed around the following: - Card should be low cost or free - Integrating with Port Authority - Gender should self-selected - Transparent security policy - Welcome and accessible enrollment centers 9
methodology + analysis Technology Vendors Through our own research and also exploring the vendors that existing ID programs use, we met with a number of software, hardware and other service providers. A requirement of the study is that we explore the feasibility of a secure ID similar in nature to that of an ID distributed by the State of Pennsylvania. We discovered early on in our research that there is a spectrum of security (pictured below). Our researched focused on being towards the end of the spectrum with the most secure cards. • In order to distribute a secure ID - one that is recognized by financial institutions and law enforcement - there are specific types of hardware and software services that are needed. • Preference should be given to vendors which demonstrate experience and capacity with issuing IDs from the secure side of the ID Security Spectrum. Generally these vendors will already issue drivers licenses, national identity cards, or passports. • Preference should be given to vendors who already work with law enforcement or financial institutions in other contexts. • ID systems which are hard or impossible to secure and audit should be avoided - the system will only be as secure as the ability of the City and the public to be confident that only authorized IDs are being issued, and that data about citizens is being fully safeguarded. • The cost of the hardware and software needed varies and several vendors were reviewed to help us arrive at the program costs.
ID SECURITY SPECTRUM
rd ID C te Ca NY a t F D S I S
e On ris C Pa D
S
o ch
ol
ID
• High degree of document verification
• Document can be flexible
• Valid for law enforcement & banks
• Affinity/loyalty cards
• No tracking
• Tracking enable
• Staff highly trained
• Less training required
10
methodology + analysis Implementation Partners We define implementation partners as those entities either within the City or external third-parties that will assist with the running of the program and/or the distribution of the ID. We had several meetings with the following entities: The Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, Citiparks, The Port Authority, YMCA, Pittsburgh Public School District, Remake Learning/Sprout Fund, The Department of Personnel, and The Department of Innovation and Performance. • The enrollment centers should not add infrastructural or staffing burden to the enrollment locations i.e. libraries and YMCA. • PPS has a strong desire to use the ID as their school badge (see section on PPS). • Citiparks is currently assessing technology vendors, so it’s good timing to coordinate with them. • The YMCA is a willing partner. • The Port Authority dialogue is in its infancy, and in the short term they will not be participating with a Municipal ID. However, they are currently exploring new ways to expand their ConnectCard usage. • Remake Learning is launching a badging platform. They are willing to include getting a BRIDGE card as a badge to encourage youth enrollment. • Personnel is willing to assist in creating job descriptions, handling the recruitment process, and managing any contract employees. There are no current positions that this program fits into at the present time. • Innovation and Performance would be willing to create positions in their department for the project management of the technology, security, and data management aspects of the program. Recognition and Perks Providers These are entities that will add the BRIDGE card to the list of valid forms of ID they accept and those businesses and organizations that will provide a ‘perk’ or benefit directly to cardholders. This grouping include City of Pittsburgh Police, banks and credit unions, Regional Asset District, cultural amenities, Bikeshare Pittsburgh, and Pittsburgh Urban Magnet Project.
“I think it is a wonderful program that can help the people who live in the City of Pittsburgh. It is a form of ID that City Co FCU would accept.”
• The City of Pittsburgh Police informed us of the ways to verify identity that they would acknowledge. In turn, these insights have guided our technology recommendations. • We me with First Commonwealth and Huntington Bank. Outreach was conducted with Dollar Bank, PNC Bank and WesBanco, but meetings did not materialize. First Commonwealth and Huntington are open to moving forward. They would need to get approval from an executive committee. They requested teller education materials. • Bikeshare uses the same vendor as Port Authority to enable their ~ Cookie Yoder stored value payment card. They are open to being a featured integration on the BRIDGE card. President/CEO • Many of the museums and cultural assets in our region already City Co Federal Credit Union offer discounted entry to low-income individuals, Seniors, Youth, and Veterans. They are hesitant and risk-adverse when it comes to offering additional discounts especially with respect to membership. We created a program idea that could be presented to potential cultural partners (see appendix e). • Pittsburgh Urban Magnet Project is interested in providing public forums to create dialogue and open conversation around the program at its launch. With several thousand members, this could be a great way to highlight the program among young professionals. 11
overview of alternatives Four Program Alternatives We have identified four ways that a municipal ID can be implemented. • City administers the program • A local nonprofit administers the program • Part City, part nonprofit administers the program • Third-party vendor administers the program Within each of these alternatives, we are recommending that the enrollment process stay the same. The items that change from alternative to alternative include the budget, possibly the implementation timeline, and the staffing components. The costs are estimates based on vendor quotes at time of the report.
EST. COSTS
$961,850 YEAR ONE
$491,425 YEAR TWO
$440,425 YEAR THREE
COST TO CARDHOLDER $5 seniors minors 17 and under $10 for adults 18+
Option 1: City Administered Program Year one, including implementation, is expected to have the following components: • Procurement and licensing of the major hardware, software, and service components of the system • Setup of each chosen BRIDGE card enrollment center • Setup of the card itself, from design and security features to workflow with the printing process • Configuration and testing of software, hardware, services and enrollment centers in a secure and usable setup • Recruitment and training of relevant staff and contract employees Such a year one process will take strong leadership with a technically-minded project manager. Year two costs primarily involve staffing, card printing, and overall maintenance of the system. We anticipate that time requirements will be reduced as enrollment appointments become fewer. Year three costs continue that pattern.
Sustainability Considerations There is a significant price tag to the software, hardware, services, and setup of the system. However, medium and longterm, the most significant cost will be staffing, and it will be important for the City to do its best to manage this cost. Moving forward, it may not be feasible to staff five locations or to staff them all day. There is also political risk to the sustainability of the BRIDGE card program if in the future there’s a change in City administration. To lessen this risk, it’s recommended that administration of the program be moved to departments other than the Mayor’s Office, such as Innovation and Performance and Personnel.
12
overview of alternatives
EST. COSTS
$1,111,850 YEAR ONE
$531,425 YEAR TWO
$505,425 YEAR THREE
COST TO CARDHOLDER $5 seniors minors 17 and under $10 for adults 18+
Option 2: Nonprofit Administered Program If the political issues with running this program at the City level are prohibitive, it is possible to imagine the program run via a nonprofit. An example of this is the program run by the New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice; another is run by MARCC in Cincinnati. We recommend that the BRIDGE card be something that unites Pittsburghers, and so any nonprofit which takes on the project would need to be strongly motivated to appeal to all residents, so as not to stigmatize card holders. As well, alliances would need to be created between the nonprofit and stakeholders like police and financial institutions like credit unions and banks. Lastly, strong security and fraud controls would need to be part of the nonprofit’s operations in general and in the card issuing process in particular - something which is a high bar to meet for any organization, and potentially a nearly insurmountable task for a less technically savvy nonprofit. Broadly speaking, we anticipate the cost to be about the same or up to 15% higher if the BRIDGE card, as outlined here, is run through a nonprofit. Year one, including implementation, is expected to have the following components:
• Procurement and licensing of the major hardware, software, and service components • Coming to agreements with various civic and municipal stakeholders, particularly the City of Pittsburgh, its Police, and various financial institutions, who might otherwise find a government-issued ID more trustworthy • Setup of each chosen BRIDGE card enrollment center, most likely at the nonprofit’s locations • Setup of the card itself, from design and security features to workflow with the printing process • Configuration and testing of software, hardware, services, and enrollment centers in a secure and usable setup • Development of information technology capacity to manage and provide security for a program of this scope • Onboarding and training of relevant staff and contract employees Note the major differences here between a City-issued and a nonprofit-issued ID: • Whereas the City might have been able to create regulations to guide the Police to accept the BRIDGE card in many situations, in exchange for managing the program differently, a nonprofit would add an additional layer of complexity • In general, the information technology capacity of typical nonprofits is not of the size and scope of the City’s, and so they would need to either build capacity or manage it • The City already has auditable practices with regards to security of data and of hardware. If the nonprofit didn’t already have that, it would need to develop that capacity, in order to safeguard data, ensure security of card-printing machines and supplies, and to respond promptly to potential problems and incidents 13
overview of alternatives Sustainability Considerations We believe these additional costs will make the nonprofit approach more expensive, if implemented with the process recommended here. It is possible, to be sure, that the nonprofit would take a much less expensive route: an organization can buy a card printer, database software, put into place a subset of the framework described here, and start issuing. But we don’t recommend this, because the trustworthiness of the ID to Police, financial institutions, and the population at large, is critical. Sustainability would be impacted by the kind of nonprofit it is. Our primary message in this report is that every effort must be made to make the ID for all Pittsburghers, and to prevent the perception that the ID is “for” any particular group or demographic. A better nonprofit would be one which provides services across the citizenry. Lastly, a program of this level of trustworthiness will be costly, and fees for the cards themselves will pay only for a portion of the program. Large amounts of capacity building and foundation funding would likely be needed.
14
overview of alternatives
EST. COSTS
$961,850 YEAR ONE
$491,425 YEAR TWO
$440,425 YEAR THREE
COST TO CARDHOLDER $5 seniors minors 17 and under $10 for adults 18+
Option 3: Part City and Part Nonprofit Administered Program In this hybrid partnership, the City of Pittsburgh provides the technical expertise, project and vendor management, and the hosting of critical hardware and software (primarily the central issuing database and any ID-card-related supplies or machines). The nonprofit organization, for its part, provides the leadership and staffing of all publicly-facing activities, and puts most or all enrollment centers in its own facilities. Cost-wise, this hybrid option would be most similar to Option 1. Ultimately, the safeguarding of the data, technical aspects of the enrollment procedure, and the IT management duties would revolve around City staff, and so procedural and security aspects of the program would be handled there. The nonprofit would, for its part of the implementation, assist in fundraising as well as develop front line staff training, expert document review capabilities, outreach, marketing, and enrollment locations. Year one, including implementation, is expected to have the following components: • Procurement and licensing of the major hardware, software, and service components of the system (City) • Solicitation via RFP of the nonprofit partner (City) • Setup of each chosen BRIDGE card enrollment center (Nonprofit)
• Setup of the card itself, from design and security features to workflow with the printing process • Configuration and testing of software, hardware, services and enrollment centers in a secure and usable setup (City) • Recruitment and training of relevant staff and employees (Nonprofit) • Communications and outreach (Both)
Sustainability considerations: Sustainability of this option looks promising, in part because having a nonprofit partner as part of the administration equation safeguards the program from changeover in administration of the City. We believe that, in order for a card like this to be sustainable in the long term: • The City would need to take on the burden of managing the technology. Most nonprofits are not adequately qualified or staffed appropriately to handle management of complex technology • Customer service would need to be monitored closely, so that the nonprofit delivers high-quality service and is held accountable • Continual outreach would be needed. The nonprofit could manage this, but having the backing and media resources of the Mayor’s Office may prove beneficial from time to time. • Project management and communication between the two partners will need to function well, since there will be no single point of ultimate responsibility. • A legal single “owner” of private data about individuals would need to be defined. This clarification would guide the program’s response in the event of an open-records law challenge. This clarification would also be critical in defining everyone’s responsibilities in case of a serious security or privacy breach. 15
overview of alternatives
EST. COSTS
$490,580 YEAR ONE
$270,700 YEAR TWO
$270,700 YEAR THREE
COST TO CARDHOLDER $5 seniors minors 17 and under $10 for adults 18+
• •
Option 4: Third-party Administered Program Oakland and Richmond,CA runs its programs via a third-party vendor. Though there is only one vendor in the market currently for this kind of service (SF Global, LLC), we believe that with the growth of Municipal IDs as a concept, other technology and security vendors will be investigating this kind of service. In Oakland’s case, in exchange for fees related to issuing the ID as well as offering an optional banking integration, the third-party vendor handles card issuance, staffing, and logistics. Since the secure ID can be issued with banking built in, the unbanked can reap a large benefit from this variation of a third-party-issued card. In such a scenario, the City would still be the ultimately responsible party, but would contract with the third party for the operations of the system. Year one, including implementation, is expected to have the following components (fewer than a fully City-developed and run program): • • • • •
Negotiating enrollment process with the third-party vendor Negotiating banking fees with the third-party vendor Work with partners like libraries, PPS, CitiParks, and/or YMCA (and similar partners) to identify ID formats which might work with their systems Identifying infrastructure needs for the enrollment centers offered by the third party vendor Coming to agreements with various civic and municipal stakeholders, particularly the City of Pittsburgh, its Police, and
various financial institutions, who might hesitate at this approach to a municipal ID Setup of each the BRIDGE card enrollment centers, per agreements with both the third-party vendor and the outside organizations who have agreed to house enrollment centers Onboarding or training of relevant staff for overall management of the program from the City’s point of view
Sustainability considerations: Sustainability of this option looks promising, in part because a funding stream (banking fees) is part of it, and also because the third party gains in scale since it runs programs in multiple places. We believe that, in order for a card like this to be sustainable in the long term: • • • •
The banking fees would need to be lowered, in part through foundation funding and through negotiations with the third party vendor, in order to prevent the perception that the fees are predatory We must deliver the message that check-cashing shops and unbanked people caught in cash-only situations are helped immensely by this Customer service would need to be monitored closely, so that the third party delivers high-quality service and is held accountable Continual outreach with the financial and law enforcement communities would be needed. In order to raise the profile of the card and encourage trust in it, those entities to develop confidence in the card and its issuing process
Since the market for municipal IDs is a rapidly changing space, we recommend that third-party vendor solutions be kept in mind as an option if adequate funding does not come through from other sources. 16
conclusions The following is a list of conclusions that we drew after we completed the data collection: The BRIDGE card is a viable tool to connect Pittsburghers to essential services, cultural amenities, and to each other. We learned through the stakeholder research that the barriers to inclusion are real for many residents. An ID program could help to remove the obstacles to becoming more connected and integrated into the fabric of the community. COMMUNITY INTEGRATION Beyond a secure photo ID, cardholders will benefit strongly from integrations with other City departments and third-party organizations. Such integrations foster an environment where all City residents will find obtaining an ID attractive. Ongoing communications and community outreach will be important to the long-term sustainability of the program. Relationships with City departments, County departments, law enforcement, financial institutions, third-party integrations such as the Library, Port Authority, YMCA and retailers and restaurants will be an ongoing relationship building process. ACCESIBILITY + SECURITY To be effective, enrollment centers will need to be welcoming and accessible. Accessible means located along bus lines, and offering free or cheap parking, handicap accessible and handicap parking. Libraries, YMCAs, and CitiParks community centers are good examples of locations that would work. People will be more open to the ID if the information on the card is protected and secure. This would require a transparent security policy that is also easy to understand. To be accessible, information about card benefits will need to be available in both printed and digital formats. Gender should be an optional field on the application. For widest adoption, the ID will need to be free or low cost (under $10). If the ID cannot be low cost, there could be ways to reduce the fee for low-income people. One idea to help remove cost barriers is to allow for another cardholder to “pay it forward” and subsidize the fee of another City resident. The wording of such an option would be important, and might sound something like this: “Would you like to build a bridge? Make an additional contribution to help a less fortunate City resident get a card.” PERKS All prospective cardholders would find integrations with the Library system and the Port Authority to be desirable. The ID perks requested by stakeholders include pharmacy discounts, health and wellness discounts, free to low cost admission to local amenities like museums, entertainment venues, and sporting events, and discounts at local restaurants and retailers. ASSESING IMPACT Having a mechanism to gather feedback is valuable to assess impact and gauge interest in the program. Surveys and anonymized data from third-party integrations are common methods that other city programs use to assess impact.
17
recommendations Enrollment Guiding Principles • Applicants shall arrive to appointment prepared with the completed applications and documents. There will not be time allotted during the appointment for an enrollment counselor to help an applicant prepare the application itself. Applicants who need help preparing their applications can visit a number of community organizations that have volunteered to offer guidance (see page 20 for list). • A point system shall be used to assess whether adequate documentation has been provided. • Enrollment counselors shall be provided with technological aids to authenticate documents. These aids may include a document scanner, data verification service, or facial recognition comparison with past applicants. • The complete the application process, pass or fail, will occur during the appointment itself. The applicant will not leave any documents or copies of documents behind. • The ID shall be printed off-site and sent the to address of record for the cardholder. • The enrollment process is purely to decide whether the individual meets the qualifications to receive an ID. The enrollment counselors are not law enforcement and there are no penalties for not meeting the qualifications. • The ID renewal period shall be every 3 years. The cost to obtain the card shall be below $15.
18
recommendations
1
Application
Do it yourself
Assisted
- Complete application
- Go to location of participating organization and fill out application with a helper.
- Gather documents - Schedule appointment (online or by phone)
or
- Gather documents
or
- Schedule appointment (online or by phone)
2
Appointment
a. Application reivew - human checks for completeness b. Document review - machine checks (scanner and database) completeness and fraud
Passed
- Given checklist - Schedule new appointment
NO
Applicant will gather more docs go back to application review
YES
3
Issue ID
- Take Photo - Photo Fraud Check
NO
- Showing a duplicate - Need to re-apply
Gather documents, or talk to the manager
YES
Send for processsing
Passed
Valid ID arrives by U.S. Mail
19
recommendations
2
15
8 9
9 10
7
1
11
3 18
6 8
4 14
7
19
16
3
11
6
12
10
2
5
1
13
17
4
Enrollment Center
5
Application Help Center
Enrollment Center Options 1. Allegheny YMCA 2. Brighton Heights Senior Center 3. East Liberty Library 4. Hazelwood Senior Center 5. Hazelwood YMCA 6. Homewood YMCA 7. Mt. Washington Library 8. Northview Heights Senior Center 9. Sheraden Library 10. Sheraden Senior Center 11. Thelma Lovette YMCA
Application Help Centers
1. ACHIEVA 2. Allegheny County Jail Collaborative 3. Best Buddies 4. Catholic Charities 5. Community Options 6. Education Partnership 7. Foundation of Hope 8. Hill House 9. Judah Fellowship 10. Latino Family Center 11. Manchester Craftsman’s Guild 12. Mentoring Partnership of Southwestern PA 13. Operation Better Block 14. Operation Safety Net 15. PERSAD 16. Remake Learning Pittsburgh 17. Veterans Leadership Program 18. Veterans Place of Washington Blvd 19. Vintage Senior Services 20
recommendations Enrollment Centers We have identified 3 types of locations essential to the enrollment process - application help centers, the main enrollment centers, and pop-up enrollment centers. Application Help Centers During the focus groups with community service providers, they suggested that their locations could serve as the preliminary step of completing the BRIDGE card application. Starting the application with an organization that an individual frequents and is comfortable with may increase participation among individuals who may be initially intimidated by the process. The application help centers identified would need to be reconfirmed during launch activities. Each organization that agrees to participate could receive training and have the opportunity to ask questions about the process being getting started. Main Enrollment Centers In the map on the previous page, we have identified a number of options based on the research that we conducted with implementation partners. We have chosen places that are embedded in the community, meet accessibility standards, and have expressed interest in being an enrollment center. Pop-up Enrollment Centers Pop-up enrollment centers allow the program to reach into specific neighborhoods and populations. They have limited dates and times and rotate to various locations around the city.
21
recommendations We recommend a point system for evaluating an applicant. Both identity and residency must be proved. We recommend that the applicant ‘score’ 3 points in the identity column, and 1 point in the residency column, for a total of 4 points, in order to receive an ID. We have put together the list of potential identity and residency proving documents, as well as their point value. The list has been customized from the NYC ID program, which is a pioneer in this wider approach to proving identity. We do not assume that this will be the final list - the final list should depend upon a number of factors, including the City Council’s review, as well as the ability to train enrollment counselors in how to validate each of the documents.
DOCUMENT LIST BY POINTS 4 POINTS
3 IDENTITY and 1 RESIDENCE • Pennsylvania (PA) Department of Transportation (DoT) Driver's License or Learner's Permit with current Pittsburgh city address • PA DoT Identification Card with current Pittsburgh address
1 POINT IDENTITY • Foreign National Identification Card • Foreign Birth Certificate • Foreign Military Photo Identification Card • Foreign Driver's License • Educational Institution ID Card: middle school, high school, universities, colleges, and post-secondary schools • U.S. High School or High School Equivalency Diploma, Post-Secondary, College or University Diploma • U.S. School Transcript • U.S. Union Photo ID • Employee Identification Card from U.S., including clergy ID • Marriage, civil union, domestic partnership or divorce certificate • U.S. Voter Registration Card • U.S. Selective Service Registration Card • Your child's U.S. Birth Certificate • Allegheny County Gun License
3 POINTS IDENTITY
• U.S. Passport or U.S. Passport Card • Foreign Passport • U.S. Driver's License or Learner's Permit Photo ID • U.S. State Identification Card • U.S. Permanent Resident Card (Green Card) • Certificate of U.S. Citizenship/Naturalization • Common Access Card • Current U.S. Work Permit • U.S. Tribal ID • U.S. Federal Government issued photo ID • Pittsburgh City ID Card
1 POINT RESIDENCY
must show current Pittsburgh City address
• Cable, Phone, or Utility Bill • Current Residential Property Lease • Local Property Tax Statement • Property Mortgage Payment Receipt • Bank Account Statement • Employment Pay Stub • Jury Summons or Court Order Issued by ` Pennsylvania State or Federal Court • Federal, PA State, or Pittsburgh City Income Tax Filing or Refund • Insurance bill (homeowner's, life, renter's, automobile, health insurance)
• Letter from Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh (HACP) • Letter from elementary, middle, high school or PA Departmentof Education licensed or approved school in the City of Pittsburgh where applicant or child is enrolled • Letter from Homeless shelter in Pittsburgh • Letter from a local Children, Youth & Family Services office or Foster Care Agency
22
2 POINTS IDENTITY
• Foreign Passport (not machine readable) • Expired U.S. or Foreign Passport (up to 3 years expired; machine readable)
• Consular Identification Card • U.S. Federal, State, or Local Government Employee ID • U.S. Birth Certificate • Visa Issued by U.S. State Department • Foreign Driver's License • Foreign National Identification Card • Social Security Card • U.S. Individual Taxpayer Identification Number Authorization Letter • U.S. Uniformed Services ID • Approval Notice Issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
1 POINT RESIDENCY
only those who are currently without an address or are survivors of domestic violence
• “Care-of Letter” Issued by nonprofit organization or religious institution in Pittsburgh serving homeless individuals or survivors of domestic violence. Entity must currently receive City funding. Letter must indicate applicant has received services from the entity for past 60 days and may use entity’s address for mailing purposes. Address on card will be “Care-of” the organization.
• Letter from City agency, nonprofit organization, or religious institution in Pittsburgh that provides services to individuals without a home address (No address on card). • Letter from City agency, nonprofit organiza tion, or religious institution in Pittsburgh that provides services to survivors of domestic violence (No address on card). • Letter Issued by a Hospital or Health Clinic in Pittsburgh (no address will appear on the card).
recommendations For identity, the large majority of documents provided by applicants will be state-issued documents, like driver’s licenses, national ID cards, or passports. These types of documents typically fall into the two or three sections of the points list. Items which include address (like a current Pennsylvania ID card or Driver’s License) will score an additional point for residency. However, we assume that, for many populations, the whole point of getting the BRIDGE card is that some of these documents are out of reach, for financial or other reasons. Hence, we are recommending that a wider array of identity-proving documents be approved for verifying identity. TECHNOLOGICAL ASSISTANCE IN VALIDATING DOCUMENTS In order to validate that offered documents are correct, we recommend that two kinds of technology be used in the overall system: an authenticating document scanner, and a third-party data validation service. Though we recommend that enrollment counselors be well trained in how to review documents and spot problems, these two additional services will increase the validity and trustworthiness of the IDs in this program.
Authenticating document scanner: These scanners have become widely available since the provisions of the PATRIOT Act have been implemented. They take a document, scan it (with a variety of kinds of light waves, like UV), and compare the document with known databases of document structure and features.
Identity data verification service: These services have become available in response to banks’ needs to “Know Your Customer” in a CIP (Customer Identification Program). They take offered data, and cross-reference it with publicly and commercially-available data. In response, the service will flag any discrepancies, and will allow enrollment counselors to identify fraud. *We do not recommend keeping cardholder documents on file.
Notify Customer Maintain Customer Records*
CIP
Conduct Sanction Screening
23
Gather Customer Info
Verify Customer Info
recommendations Front of Card
PITTSBURGH BRIDGE CARD
Considerations Card needs to have various security features to prevent fraud. We recommend the following features.
61214143958421
NAME
Last name,
First name
ADDRESS
Photo
1398 Penn Ave Pittsburgh, PA 15203 DATE OF BIRTH EYE COLOR
Mary DYoland
BROWN
EXPIRATION
Recommended Features • Two versions of the photo - a large and small version • Photo could be in B&W or color depending on vendor • A signature under the photo • Name area provides room for long names • A unique ID number, 14 digits, starting with the same 5 digits for all IDs • Holographic pattern at bottom and top of ID • Holographic ID icon placed over ID (not shown) • City seal behind text as hologram • Special section for Veteran call-out • Gender will be an optional field on the application form
03/16/1978
HEIGHT
5’ 9”
GENDER
F
second photo
04/16/2019
VETERAN
Back of Card Considerations Limited graphics for ease and budget of printing and for those graphics to be black and white. Recommended Features • 1-D codabar bar code representing the 14-digit ID number • PDF417 bar code to embed info from front of card • BRIDGE card disclaimer • Language preference • Emergency contact • Space for Person with Disability language (source: CDC.gov) • Drug discount line • Room for partner logos or if space is limited just their company names
Bridge ID
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in www.pittsburghpa.gov/bridge
Language Preference: Spanish Person with a Disability Emergency Contact: Sample, Person 412-555-1234
Pittsburgh Rx Prescription Drug Discount BIN
GRIP
Show your pharmacist: 00567 847637FY
PARTNER LOGO
24
PARTNER LOGO
PARTNER LOGO
recommendations Technology Recommendations Our analysis of the technology component of launching a municipal ID program included meetings with a number of vendors that are either working with an existing ID program or that have contracts with the departments of motor vehicles across the U.S. The technology analysis focuses around five components - hardware, software, database services, data storage, and appointment setting systems. HARDWARE The following mix of hardware is recommended for a single enrollment center location: • PC/Monitor/Color Printer • High-end, Windows-based, and supportable by the organization will be enough. High level of memory and high-quality graphics card necessary to handle encrypted communications and high-quality images simultaneously • Specialized authenticating document scanner Example vendors that offer a document scanner: MorphoTrust, Entrust DataCard, IDScan • Checks offered documents against a continually-updated database of authentic document types • Recommendation is to scan and keep data only for the amount of time it takes to verify data, then remove any data scanned/stored • High-quality camera with backdrop Example camera vendors: MorphoTrust, Higgins3, Advantidge • High-quality camera needs to provide resolution for IDs themselves as well as biometric check • Necessary other pieces: signature pad, e-seek reader (for quick entry of driver’s licenses), and receipt printer • Networking equipment as needed to ensure encrypted and auditable connections back to the NOC SOFTWARE ID issuance software will be needed. Examples of software vendors include: MorphoTrust Image Server, and Entrust DataCard Secura. The choice of ID issuance software will depend on the card printing approach finally chosen as well as the central database of issued IDs. Client software will be installed on machines at each enrollment location center. DATABASE SERVICES The other service we recommend using is LexisNexis InstantID, a publicly available datascreening database. Hooking into this database allows rapid cross-referencing of offered data from applicant with available databases from multiple public, business, and government sources, and will flag problems related to identity verification. Having this type of system is strongly recommend because it lends credibility to the identity verification and gives financial institutions and law enforcement the confidence to accept the
25
recommendations ID. IDNYC is using LexisNexis and it is recommended by the American Bankers Association as the sole identity validation solution. The second service we recommend is a biometric check on the photo taken during the appointment. Vendor examples: Face First and MorphoTrust Face Examiner Workstation This system will identify duplicate faces to prevent fraudulent issuance of multiple BRIDGE cards to the same individual. Another service to be considered is an ID database for online research of offered documents by the applicant. This may be helpful for cases where the enrollment counselor is not able to identify a document. With respect to training, we recommend using the AAMVA Fraud Detection and Remediation. CONFIGURATION • Segregated network segments for all communication • End-to-end encryption for all data about individual applicants DATA STORAGE As a rule, we recommend that as little data as possible be stored about individual applicants. The privacy and security of those documents should be paramount. Identification and residency documents will be scanned or reviewed only for the purpose of validation and authentication. Once they are authenticated, the documents will be handed back to the applicant. Such documents should not be copied. If an applicant needs to come back for a new appointment due to not being able to authenticate document, then the applicant should be handed back all documents and no copies/scans be kept. A case management system which retained copies of documents or other personally identifiable information would need to be used. Images of applicants should be stored for two purposes only: • Biometric duplicate check • Production of the ID itself In general, applicant data should be: • Stored in an encrypted database at rest • Encrypted in transit • Segregated on a separate virtual network Vendor selection should be guided, in part, by their ability to meet these security requirements in their proposal. 26
recommendations APPOINTMENT SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend a web-based system for appointments. It will be important to even out the flow of applicants at enrollment centers, give applicants choices so they can plan ahead, and space them out in a way consistent with the actual length of time appointments tend to take. There are dozens of appointment systems available at reasonable costs. As the City looks for a vendor, we recommend that the system include: • Multi-lingual capability • Ability to show additional special-case information about the appointment (for instance: non-standard document appointment, Spanish-speaker appointment, etc) • Ability for specific enrollment centers to download and manage the schedule for their location • Ability for 3-1-1 to create or other I&P staff to manage appointments as operationally convenient Keep in mind that these appointments should be considered as covered by an expectation of privacy, just like a medical appointment, and so they should not be accessed by unauthorized individuals. CARD FORMAT/STRUCTURE Overall, the security of the card should balance among the following three demands: • Fraud-prevention (and so include features which defeat fraud) • Cost-effectiveness (and so not include more features than is reasonable) • Integration-ready (and so allow partners to use certain features in its own systems) One thing which we recommend the card shouldn’t do is serve as a tracking card for the City. Any “tracking” of an individual should be solely between the individual and a partner which chooses to use an integration feature. Beyond that, we don’t recommend the City track anything personally identifiable but the database of cards issued. See sample recommendation of the design of the ID on page 30.
27
recommendations TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARTNERS Our recommendation is that the BRIDGE card be a secure self-standing photo identification card. If an individual were to choose that no integrations be enabled with respect to the card, that would be a completely reasonable choice, especially for the privacy-conscious. However, we recommend that there be opportunities for partners (like a library, parks department, museum, athletic club, or business) to use the card in its operations. We recommend this in two ways: • Use the PDF417 2-D Barcode on the back of the card for “quick entry” of member or customer data, particularly during on-boarding or sign-up. Scanning this code will allow the name, address, and other data of the individual be added rapidly to partner systems, minimizing problems with data entry and saving staff time. • Use the 1-D member ID Barcode on the back for already-existing customer, loyalty, membership, quick authorization, or other tracking purposes. The 1-D member barcode in particular requires some additional comment, because some membership computer systems might not be compatible with our suggestion. A partner system will likely already have a membership numbering scheme. We suggest that: • Partners adjust their systems and allow the BRIDGE card 14-digit number as a valid length and format for a membership number • If a 14-digit ID is too long for partner’s existing systems, the first 5 digits of the ID number will always be the same, so they can be excluded (or partially used) • Example: Partner system has 11-digit ID numbers. Partner can exclude the first 3 digits of the ID number and use the rest of the number. • Using an 11-or-longer member ID number is recommended, for aggregate reporting purposes: by querying member numbers, partner will be able to report on usage of the card. • Partners adjust their systems and add the BRIDGE card number as a valid membership number, or change the member’s number • If that adjustment is not feasible, adjust systems to add a field to the member’s profile, adding the BRIDGE card number, and have barcode scanning use that number as well.
28
recommendations SPECIAL CASE: COUNTY-WIDE MUNICIPAL ID We discussed and analyzed the prospect of having Allegheny County itself run the Municipal ID. This kind of special case does not come up for places like San Francisco or New York City. San Francisco is a combined county/city, and New York City is made up of five counties (the five boroughs). Here in Pittsburgh there is significant overlap between City and County when it comes to social services. On the positive side,with the County involved, the pool both of applicants and of funding may increase. One significant challenge of a county-wide card, in the Allegheny County context, is the large multiplicity of small jurisdictions with their own government and police department. In the Pittsburgh case, the Mayor and City Council can provide guidance to a singular police department. However, in the County case, entities from Aleppo to Wilmerding will all need their own process of awareness, approval (or not), and possible acceptance of a Municipal ID card. On the plus side, however, the County (and all its services) can partner with the City, make the Municipal ID acceptable to a wide variety of ID-requiring circumstances (particularly Allegheny County Police and Health and Human Services), and create a presumption that smaller entities should be prepared for and ultimately need to accept the Municipal ID. For enrollment counselors, training would need to widen. Documents accepted for identity would generally be the same; however, documents accepted for residency would need to widen enough to capture the full range of residency-proving documents which anyone in the County could reasonably be expected to have. Hence, a full reappraisal of residency-proving documents would be recommended before moving ahead with an option like this special case. The most likely scenario for the County being involved would be at a later stage of the Municipal ID project, after launched and thoroughly tested. In such a case, the County would need to work with the City, Nonprofit, or third-party agency in charge of the ID program, and figure out reasonable and secure access to the central database and services involved with the issuing system. This work would be involved with any borough or township interested in joining the Municipal ID card system, in fact.
29
30
31
