Q&A: Combatting fraud in the public sector

What steps can the UK public sector and their contact centres take to reduce the chance of card fraud?

One example of emerging technology adopted by central government departments to reduce the chance of card fraud is voice biometrics. It utilises short sound bites of a person’s voice to match and verify their unique voice characteristics, such as accent or speech patterns, as a means of identification.

In addition to voice biometrics, traditional identification and verification methods can also be employed at the front end of the IVR (Interactive Voice Response) system. For example, it can use specific information related to the individual, such as their National Insurance number, postcode or NHS number to prove that the caller is indeed the person they claim to be. This can also help to map their journey on the customer service platform, so once verified, agents can proceed with the conversation.

For public sector organisations, it is highly recommended to implement Level One PCI-compliant automated payment solutions for any card transactions, especially given the diverse demographic public sector organisations need to manage. This ensures the highest security standards are met, especially when handling sensitive payment information.

Public sector organisations should also look to harness Natural Language Processing (NLP), in order to ensure the public is routed into the correct channel first time round. This should not only enhance their customer experience, it should reduce chances for fraud, as the agent will be adequately skills to handle the request.

There are various technologies in contact centres to cater to different demographics as well. For example, voice biometrics is more applicable to younger individuals who prefer quick and easy authentication, but many still rely on traditional methods. These authentication measures also extend to digital channels, allowing online identification and verification. However, for sensitive requests, phone interactions are usually preferred.

By incorporating these measures, organisations can establish a secure IVR platform that adheres to industry best practices and provides a safe environment for automated transactions.

How can organisations improve their communication channels and educate citizens on the dangers of fraud?

When it comes to a digital context, there is no standard approach, though there are ways to build robustness in digital channels, such as implementing FAQs and secure messaging for sharing sensitive data. Public sector organisations often utilise third-party tools for secure communication. This approach involves confirming the citizen’s comfort level with the chosen mechanism. By leveraging secure mechanisms, fraud risks are reduced, thus providing risk mitigation from a citizen’s perspective.

Businesses lacking such messaging measures, including FAQs and prompts, may face limitations in their digitalisation efforts. Some interactions may still require phone conversations with agents if secure mechanisms for information exchange are not in place. For instance, using email as a medium may not be feasible without proper security measures.

Therefore, education is an important aspect. Proactive communication with citizens through newsletters, emails, texts, and marketing campaigns can play a significant role in conveying information on how to use services effectively. Larger central government departments commonly implement this proactive approach, while smaller ones may not emphasise it as much as they might do.

What is the state of IVR adoption in the UK public sector?

In the wider public sector, the adoption of IVR technology is prevalent and has become a standard approach for many organisations. The term encompasses various applications, including traditional DTMF (Dual Tone Multifrequency) IVR systems where users navigate using keypad inputs.

The maturity of IVR solutions is an important factor to consider. An outdated approach to IVR is still in use in some instances, relying heavily on programmatic options and limited automation opportunities. This can result in customers being unnecessarily transferred between agents or teams, leading to problems and inefficiencies. For example, many student loans companies still rely on simpler IVR systems that offer limited options, often resulting in transfers to agents without a clear understanding of the customer’s specific needs.

In contrast, larger central government departments have more advanced IVR systems. These organisations have access to greater funding and budgets, allowing them to deploy technologies like natural language processing and keyword analysis. These advanced systems can analyse citizens’ input and route the interaction to the most suitable agent based on their skills and should be the norm – or at least a focal point – for public sector organisations going forward.

It’s also important to consider security measures, including automated identification and verification processes, to prevent fraud. Technologies like voice biometrics and one-time passwords (OTPs), often sent via SMS, are commonly used to enhance security during IVR interactions.

Any other advice or best practices for the public sector to help mitigate fraud?

The quantity of fraudulent activities is a significant challenge as it increases the likelihood of falling victim to scams. The more fake emails received, the greater the chance of making a mistake or being deceived. These instances tend to exploit moments of vulnerability when individuals may not be as diligent as they would normally be, leading to potential hacking incidents.

Public sector businesses face an even greater challenge in addressing these issues due to their wide reach across the entire UK population. With a large group of older demographics, who may be more susceptible to scams, educating and raising awareness become crucial in mitigating the risks.

However, certain security aspects can’t be overlooked. For instance, email handles and the details within emails play a crucial role. While a fraudulent email may appear legitimate at first glance, there are often subtle indicators, such as a different domain name.

It’s important to note that email scams are not the only form of deception, and its essential public sector organisations educate citizens so they have a comprehensive understanding of the different methods employed beyond the commonly thought of phishing attacks. There are various schemes that prey on individuals, such as promises of unpaid tax refunds, which ultimately lead to financial losses as well as significant emotional impact. There needs to be adequate processes in place to manage and mitigate this risk.