Download:
pdf |
pdfU.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report
National Crime Victimization Survey Supplement
December 2010, NCJ 231680
Victims of Identity Theft, 2008
Lynn Langton and Michael Planty, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians
A
pproximately 11.7 million persons, representing 5% of
all persons age 16 or older in the United States,1 were
victims of one or more types of identity theft within a
2-year period (figure 1). The most common type of identity theft,
experienced by 6.2 million people during the 2-year reporting period, was the unauthorized use of an existing credit card account.
Figure 1
Percentage of persons age 16 or older who experienced at least one
attempted or successful identity theft incident during the past
2 years, 2008
This report is based on data from the 2008 Identity Theft
Supplement (ITS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS). From January to June of 2008, the NCVS-ITS collected
data from persons who had experienced one or more attempted
or successful incidents of identity theft during the 2 years
preceding their interviews.
5%
1In this publication, the term “persons” refers to persons age 16 or older in the
United States.
Percent of persons age 16 or older
6%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
Total
Existing credit Existing bank Other existing
identity theft card account
account
account
New
account
Personal
information
Note: Details do not sum to total because persons may report more than one type of identity theft.
Estimate is presented with 95%-confidence intervals shown by the lines.
Highlights
An estimated 11.7 million persons, representing 5% of all persons age 16 or older in the United States, experienced at least
one type of identity theft in a 2-year period.
The unauthorized misuse or attempted misuse of an existing
credit card was the most prevalent type of identity theft (53%
of all victims).
Among the 39% of identity theft victims who knew how their
identifying information was obtained, nearly 30% believed the
theft occurred while making a purchase.
Although the total financial cost of identity theft was nearly
$17.3 billion over a 2-year period, less than a quarter (23%) of
identity theft victims suffered an out-of-pocket financial loss
from the victimization.
About 42% of victims spent 1 day or less working to resolve
the financial and credit problems associated with the identity
theft; however, 3% continued to experience problems related
to the theft more than 6 months after discovering it.
About 15% of all victims of identity theft contacted a credit
bureau about the incident. Of those who contacted a credit
bureau, more than three quarters (76%) placed a fraud alert on
their credit report.
About 17% of all victims of identity theft contacted a law
enforcement agency to report the incident. Nearly half (48%)
of the victims who did not report the theft to law enforcement
reported it to a credit card company or bank instead.
Two in 10 victims of identity theft rated the experience as
severely distressing.
In the NCVS-ITS and this report, identity theft
victims include persons who experienced one or
more of the following incidents:
Unauthorized use or attempted use of an existing
account, such as a credit/debit card, checking,
savings, telephone, online, or insurance account.
Unauthorized use or attempted use of personal
information to open a new account, such as a
credit/debit card, telephone, checking, savings,
loan, or mortgage account.
Misuse of personal information for a fraudulent
purpose, such as getting medical care, a job, or
government benefits; renting an apartment or
house; or providing false information to law
enforcement when charged with a crime or traffic
violation.
This report focuses on the overall number,
percentage, and demographic characteristics of
victims who reported at least one type of identity
theft during a 2-year period ending in 2008. It details
the victims’ direct and indirect financial losses; the
time spent resolving problems related to the identity
theft; the percentage of victims who reported the
theft to credit card companies, credit bureaus, and
law enforcement agencies; and the level of distress felt
by identity theft victims.
This report on personal identity theft differs from
previous BJS publications on identity theft that
provided household-based estimates. For additional
information, see Identity Theft, 2005, NCJ 219411,
BJS website, November 2007 and Identity Theft
Reported by Households, 2007—Statistical Tables, NCJ
230742, BJS website, June 2010.
Prevalence and type of identity theft
More than half (53%) of identity theft
victims experienced the unauthorized use
of an existing credit card
In the NCVS-ITS, the unauthorized misuse
or attempted misuse of an existing account
was the most prevalent type of identity theft,
experienced by 10.1 million persons age 16 or
older (4% of all persons) over the 2-year period
(appendix table 1). The majority of victims
experienced the fraudulent use of their existing
credit cards (6.2 million victims or 3% of all
persons) or bank accounts (4.4 million victims
or 2% of all persons). Another 811,900 victims
(0.3% of all persons) experienced other types
of existing account theft, such as the misuse
2
or attempted misuse of an existing telephone,
online, or insurance account.
An estimated 1.7 million victims (0.7% of all
persons) reported the fraudulent misuse of
their information to open a new account, such
as a credit card or telephone account. Another
618,900 victims (0.3% of all persons) reported
the misuse of their personal information to
commit other crimes, such as fraudulently
obtaining medical care or government benefits or
providing false information to law enforcement
during a crime or traffic stop.
Many victims experienced multiple types of
identity theft. About 16% of all victims (1.8 million
victims) experienced multiple types of identity
theft during the 2-year period (table 1). For the
majority of victims of multiple types of identity
theft (65%), the thefts involved unauthorized use
of a combination of existing accounts, such as
credit card, checking, savings, telephone, or online
accounts. For the remainder of this report, victims
are placed into mutually exclusive identity theft
categories, with victims of multiple types of theft
placed in the “multiple types” category rather than
counted multiple times.
Table 1
Number and percentage of persons age 16 or older
who experienced at least one attempted or successful
identity theft incident in a 2-year period, 2008
Type
Number of victims Percent of all persons
Identity theft
11,694,600
5.0%
Existing account
8,339,500
3.5%
Credit card
4,840,600
2.0
Banking
3,047,400
1.3
Other
451,500
0.2
New account
1,118,600
0.5%
Personal information
414,500
0.2%
Multiple types
1,822,000
0.8%
Existing accountsa
1,190,900
0.5
Otherb
631,200
0.3
Note: Numbers rounded to the nearest hundred. Percentages based on persons
age 16 or older living in households in the United States (235,125,600). In
2008, 473,200 persons (0.2%) did not know or did not report whether they
were victims of identity theft during the prior 2 years. An estimated 223 million
persons (94.8%) had not experienced identity theft within the 2-year period.
aIncludes victims who experienced some combination of two or more of the
following: unauthorized use of a credit card, banking account, or other existing
account.
bIncludes victims who experienced some combination of two or more of
the following: unauthorized use of an existing account, misuse of personal
information to open a new account, or misuse of personal information for other
fraudulent purposes.
Victims of Identity Theft, 2008
Victim demographics
A greater percentage of identity theft
victims lived in higher income households
than in lower income households
A similar percentage of men and women (5%)
experienced identity theft during the 2-year
period (table 2). The percentages of victims, when
categorized by type of theft (e.g., unauthorized
use of existing account information, misuse
of information to open a new account, misuse
of personal information for other fraudulent
purposes), did not vary by gender (appendix table
2). A greater percentage of persons ages 16 to 24
(6%) were victims of at least one type of identity
theft than persons age 65 or older (4%). A greater
percentage of persons living in households with
an income of $75,000 or more experienced at least
one type of identity theft than persons living in
households with lower incomes.
Differences were observed among demographic
groups in the percentage of respondents who
experienced the unauthorized use of an existing
account, such as a credit card or bank account. A
greater percentage of persons living in households
with an income of $75,000 or more (5%)
experienced fraud involving an existing account
than persons living in households with an income
below $75,000. A greater percentage of whites
(4%) than blacks (2%) experienced theft of an
existing account in the 2-year period. Differences
across income and race categories may be related
to the prevalence and use of credit cards and bank
accounts.
20% believed the information was lost or stolen
from a wallet or checkbook, followed by 14%
who thought the information was stolen from
personnel or other files at an office. Eight percent
thought family or friends stole their information.
However, among identity theft victims who had
their personal information used for fraudulent
purposes and knew how their information was
obtained, about 4 in 10 (39%) thought that family
or friends were responsible (figure 2).
Table 2
Percentage of persons who experienced at least one attempted or successful identity
theft incident during the past 2 years, by victim characteristics, 2008
Characteristic
Total
Gender
Female
Male
Age
16-24
25-34
35-49
50-64
65 or older
Race/Hispanic origin
White, non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Black, non-Hispanic
Other race, non-Hispanic
More than one race
Household income
Less than $25,000
$25,000-$49,999
$50,000-$74,999
$75,000 or more
Unknown
Number of victims
11,694,600
Percent of persons*
5.0%
6,210,000
5,484,600
5.1
4.8
883,100
2,173,300
3,981,800
3,161,200
1,495,100
6.0
5.9
5.1
4.8
3.7
8,711,600
1,040,400
1,160,400
553,400
228,900
5.1
4.1
4.4
5.0
10.4
1,176,600
2,269,300
1,711,600
4,073,100
2,464,000
3.6
4.9
5.1
7.0
3.8
*Percentage based on all persons age 16 or older in reference category.
Recognizing identity theft
Figure 2
Most common ways offenders obtained personal information from the 4.5 million identity
theft victims who knew how the theft occurred, by type of theft, 2008
About 3 in 10 victims who knew how
their identity was stolen believed the
information was obtained during a
purchase or other transaction
Percent of victims
50%
Existing account
In 2008, 11.7 million persons had experienced
one type or one incident of identity theft during
the prior 2 years. Of these victims, about 40% had
some idea as to how the identity theft occurred
(appendix table 3). A greater percentage of victims
who experienced multiple types of identity theft
in a single incident (50%) knew how the theft had
occurred, compared to victims of all other types.
Of the 4.5 million victims who knew how their
identifying information had been obtained,
nearly 30% believed their identity was stolen
during a purchase or other transaction. Another
December 2010
New account
Personal information
Multiple types
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Stolen during
purchase/transaction
Lost or stolen
from wallet
Stolen from personnel/ Stolen from location
Family or friends
other office files
where it was stored accessed information
Note: Percentages based on the 4.5 million identity theft victims who had some idea about how their personal information was
obtained.
3
Financial impact
The total financial cost of identity theft was
nearly $17.3 billion over 2 years
The economic impact of identity theft can be
broken down into direct and indirect financial
loss. Direct financial loss refers to the monetary
amount the offender obtained from misusing
the victim’s account or personal information,
including the estimated value of goods, services,
or cash obtained. Indirect loss includes any
other costs accrued because of the identity theft,
such as legal fees, bounced checks, and other
miscellaneous expenses (postage, phone calls, or
notary fees).
In 2008, 62% of identity theft victims reported a
direct or indirect financial loss associated with the
theft during the prior 2 years. Victims of identity
theft reported a cumulative financial loss of nearly
$17.3 billion during the 2-year period. Across all
types of identity theft, victims suffering a financial
loss of at least $1 lost an average of $2,400, with a
median loss of $430 (appendix table 4).2
The percentage of victims who suffered any
financial loss varied by the type of identity
theft. Approximately 61% of victims of credit
card fraud, 70% of victims of bank card fraud,
48% of new account fraud, and 24% of personal
information fraud experienced a financial loss
during the previous 2 years. Of those victims who
experienced multiple types of identity theft, about
70% reported a financial loss. Victims of new
account fraud incurred an average financial loss of
$7,250, with a median loss of $802.
In some instances, a company, such as a credit
card or insurance company, may reimburse some
or all of the financial loss, reducing or eliminating
out-of-pocket losses. In 2008, 23% of identity
theft victims reported suffering a personal out-ofpocket loss (direct loss, indirect loss, or both) of
at least $1. Among the victims who experienced
some out-of-pocket financial loss as a result of the
theft, 36% lost less than $100, and 22% lost $1,000
or more (figure 3).
2Victims who reported in screener questions that the offender
was not successful in obtaining any money, goods, or services
from their account were not asked to report a direct financial
loss. Further review of the survey responses to follow-up
questions revealed that a small percentage of these victims
may have experienced a direct financial loss. It is not possible
to verify or reliably estimate these losses. Consequently, any
direct losses related to these cases may underestimate the
financial impact of identity theft. See Methodology for more
information on the distinction between attempted and successful identity theft.
4
Direct financial loss. In 2008, about 59% of the
11.7 million victims of identity theft reported direct
financial losses during the previous 2 years totaling
$16.6 billion (appendix table 4). The percentage of
victims who suffered a direct financial loss varied
by the type of identity theft. Approximately 59% of
credit card fraud victims, 68% of bank card fraud
victims, 42% of new account fraud victims, and 18%
of personal information fraud victims experienced
a direct financial loss during the previous 2 years.
Of those victims who experienced multiple types of
identity theft, about 69% reported a direct financial
loss.
Of the victims who reported a direct financial loss,
victims of new account fraud incurred an average
direct financial loss of $8,110, with a median loss of
$1,000. Victims who experienced the misuse of their
personal information reported an average direct loss
of $2,829 and a median direct loss of $2,500. Victims
of credit card fraud (9%) had an average direct loss
of $1,105 (median direct loss $400). Victims who
experienced multiple types of fraud reported an
average direct loss of $4,680, with a median direct
loss of $600.
Approximately 16% of all victims reported direct
out-of-pocket personal losses, which totaled $4.1
billion over the 2-year period. The 16% of victims
who suffered a direct personal loss of at least $1
lost an average of $2,228, with a median loss of
$300. A greater percentage of victims of multiple
types of identity theft (26%) and victims of bank
account theft (25%) experienced personal direct
losses, compared with victims of credit card fraud
(9%), new account fraud (5%), and the misuse of
personal information (10%).
Indirect losses. In addition to any direct
financial loss, approximately 11% of all identity
theft victims reported indirect losses which
totalled $1.04 billion over the 2-year period. The
11% of victims who suffered an indirect loss of
at least $1 reported an average indirect loss of
$788, with a median of $50, from dealing with the
identity theft over the 2 years. With the exception
of victims of fraud involving an existing account
other than a credit card or bank account, victims
of each type of identity theft who reported an
indirect financial loss had a median indirect loss
of $100 or less. Victims who experienced the
fraudulent misuse of their personal information
reported the largest average indirect loss of
$3,955, with a $100 median loss.
Victims of Identity Theft, 2008
About 42% of victims spent 1 day or less
resolving financial and credit problems
associated with identity theft; 3% took
more than 6 months
At the time of the interview, 42% of victims who
experienced identity theft within the prior
2 years reported spending a day or less to resolve
financial or credit problems associated with the
theft (appendix table 5). For each type of identity
theft, the greatest percentage of victims resolved
the problem in a day or less (figure 4). About 20%
of reporting victims spent more than a month
from the discovery of the theft trying to clear up
the problems.
Victim notification of credit bureau and
consumer agencies
Of the 15% of victims who contacted
a credit bureau about an identity theft
incident, about 3 in 4 placed a fraud alert
on their credit report or requested a credit
report
The majority of victims who experienced at least
one type of identity theft during the prior 2 years
(68%) contacted a credit card company or bank
to report the misuse or attempted misuse of an
account or personal information (appendix table
6). About 15% contacted a credit bureau, and
7% of all victims contacted a credit monitoring
service about the incident. One percent of
victims reported contacting the Federal Trade
Commission, 3% contacted a government
consumer affairs agency or other consumer
protection organization, such as the Better
Business Bureau, and 4% contacted an agency
that issues identity documentation, such as the
Social Security Administration or an agency that
issues drivers’ licenses.
The largest percentage of victims who contacted
a credit bureau were those whose identifying
information was fraudulently used to open a new
account (39%), followed by victims of multiple
types of theft (24%) and victims whose personal
information was used for other fraudulent
purposes (22%).
December 2010
Figure 3
Total out-of-pocket loss for identity theft victims who experienced a direct or indirect
financial loss from identity theft during a 2-year period, 2008
Percent of victims
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Less than
$100
$100 $249
$250 $499
$500 $999
$1,000 $2,499
$2,500 $4,999
$5,000
or more
Note: Financial loss is computed from the 23% of identity theft victims who experienced a personal loss of at least $1.
Figure 4
Length of time spent clearing up problems associated with identity theft, by type of theft,
2008
Percent of victims
50%
Existing account
New account
Personal information
Multiple types
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 day or less
2-7 days
8 days to less
1 month to less
3 months to less
than 1 month
than 3 months
than 6 months
Time spent resolving problems associated with identity theft
6 months
or more
5
Victims of any type of identity theft who
contacted a credit bureau could take several
different actions. Of the 15% of victims who
contacted a credit bureau, about three-quarters
placed a fraud alert on their credit report (76%)
or requested a credit report (72%); about half
requested corrections to their credit report (50%)
or provided a police report to the credit bureau
(45%); and 30% placed a freeze on their credit
report (figure 5).
Victim notification of law enforcement
About 17% of all identity theft victims
contacted a law enforcement agency to
report the incident
In 2008, about 17% of all victims of identity
theft during the 2-year period contacted a law
enforcement agency to report the theft (figure 6).
More than a quarter of victims of new account
fraud (28%), multiple types of identity theft (26%),
and the misuse of personal information (26%)
reported the incident to the police, compared to
Figure 5
Percentage of identity theft victims who contacted a credit bureau about an identity theft
incident during the past 2 years, by action taken, 2008
Action taken
13% of victims who experienced the unauthorized
use or attempted use of an existing account
(appendix table 7).
The 80% of identity theft victims who did not
report an incident to the police offered a variety
of reasons for the lack of contact. Across all types
of identity theft, the most common reason for
not contacting the police, reported by nearly
half (48%) of all victims, was that the victim
handled it another way, such as reporting the
theft to a credit card company, bank, or other
organization. About 2 in 10 victims did not
report the incident to the police because they did
not suffer any monetary loss (22%) or because
they did not think the police could help (19%).
Another 15% of victims did not know that they
could report the incident to law enforcement,
and 7% chose not to report because they were
afraid, embarrassed, or thought reporting would
be an inconvenience. Less than 1% of victims did
not report the identity theft incident to the police
because the perpetrator was a friend or family
member.
Figure 6
Percentage of identity theft victims during the past 2
years who reported an identity theft incident to a law
enforcement agency, by type of identity theft, 2008
Percent of victims
30%
Placed a fraud alert
on credit report
Requested credit report
20%
Requested corrections
to credit report
Provided a police
report to credit bureau
10%
Placed a freeze
on credit report
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Percent of victims
Note: Percentages based on the 15% of identity theft victims who contacted a credit bureau regarding an incident of identity theft
within the previous 2 years. Details sum to more than 100% because some victims took multiple actions with the credit bureau.
0%
Total
identity
theft
Credit
card
Other New
Personal Multiple
Bank
account existing account information types
account
Types of identity theft
6
Victims of Identity Theft, 2008
Comparing Victim Impact of Identity Theft and Violent Crime
The 2009 National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS) asked victims of violent
crimes, including rape and sexual assault,
robbery, aggravated assault, and simple
assault, to rate the impact of the offense on
work, school, personal relationships, and
emotional distress. Compared to the identity
theft victims surveyed in 2008, a greater
percentage of violent crime victims reported
significant work, school, or relationship
problems due to the incident (appendix
table 8). About 3% of identity theft victims,
compared with 14% of violent crime victims,
reported significant problems at work or
school as a result of the incident (figure 7).
The same pattern held for victims who
reported significant problems with relationships between family members or friends.
About 6% of identity theft victims reported
getting into more arguments with family
or friends, not being able to trust them as
much, or not feeling as close to them after
the incident, compared with 19% of victims
of violent crime who experienced these
feelings. In addition, a greater percentage
of violent crime victims (29%) than identity
theft victims (20%) reported that the incident was severely distressing (figure 8).
The level of emotional distress on victims
varied by type of identity theft. About
11% of victims of credit card misuse and
about 30% of victims who experienced the
fraudulent misuse of their personal information described their experience as severely
distressing.
Figure 7
Percentage of identity theft victims and victims of violent offenses who reported
experiencing work or relationship problems as a result of the victimization, 2008
and 2009
Percent of victims
50%
Significant relationship problems
Significant work-related problems
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Total
Identity theft
Credit
card
Bank
account
New
account
Personal
information
Multiple
types
Total
violent crime*
Note: Victims reported their perceptions of whether the victimization experience led to significant work- or school-related
problems and problems with family and friends.
*Total violent crime includes rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. Data on victims of
violent crime were taken from the 2009 National Crime Victimization Survey.
Figure 8
Level of emotional distress reported by victims of identity theft and victims of
violent crimes, 2008 and 2009
Type of victim
Total
identity theft
None
11
Credit
card
15
Bank
account
9
New
account
13
Personal
information
Multiple
types
Total
violent crime*
0%
Mild
34
Moderate
33
42
31
30
30
36
27
20%
29
37
32
18
26
29
16
8
11
33
24
9
Severe
20
24
26
40%
60%
Percent of victims reporting distress
29
80%
100%
Note: Victims reported whether they found the victimization to be not at all distressing, mildly distressing, moderately
distressing, or severely distressing. Details may not sum to 100% due to missing data.
*Total violent crime includes rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. Data on victims of
violent crime were taken from the 2009 National Crime Victimization Survey.
December 2010
7
Victim distress and other nonfinancial
impact
it mildly distressing, 33% found it moderately
distressing, and 20% found it severely distressing.
Two in 10 victims of identity theft rated the
experience as severely distressing
The impact of identity theft on the victim’s work,
school, and family relationships, as well as the
level of distress, varied by the type of identity
theft. A greater percentage of victims who
experienced personal information fraud reported
a direct negative impact on work or school (11%)
and family relationships (13%), compared with
victims who experienced the unauthorized use
of a credit card (2% or less). Additionally, 30% of
victims of personal information fraud reported
the incident as severely distressing, compared
with 11% of victims of credit card fraud.
Victims who experienced a direct financial
loss were asked how the identity theft affected
their lives.3 Approximately 3% of these victims
reported that the identity theft caused significant
problems with their job or schoolwork, or
trouble with a supervisor, coworkers, or peers
(appendix table 8). Additionally, about 6% of
victims attributed significant problems with
family members or friends to the identity theft
victimization, including getting into more
arguments or fights, not feeling that they could
trust family or friends as much, or not feeling as
close to family or friends as before the theft.
Victims were also asked to rate how distressing
the identity theft was for them. About 11% did
not find the theft distressing at all, 34% found
3Only victims of identity theft who reported that an offender
had successfully obtained money, goods, or services, or
successfully used their information for other fraudulent purposes, were asked questions about how the incident affected
their lives. See Methodology for more information on the
distinction between attempted and successful identity theft.
Victims who spent more time resolving
financial and credit problems resulting from
the identity theft were more likely to experience
severe distress than victims who cleared up
the problems more quickly (figure 9). Among
victims who spent more than 6 months resolving
problems resulting from the theft, over 40% felt
the identity theft was severely distressing; less
than 15% of victims who spent a day or less
resolving problems found the incident severely
distressing.
Figure 9
Percentage of victims reporting work/school or relationship problems or distress resulting from identity theft, by
length of time spent resolving financial and credit problems associated with the theft, 2008
Time spent resolving problems due to identity theft
Work or school problems
1 day or less
Family/friend problems
Feelings that incident was severely distressing
2-7 days
8 days to less
than 1 month
1 to less
than 3 months
3 to less
than 6 months
6 months
or more
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Percent of victims
Note: Victims who reported an attempted identity theft were not asked about victim impact. See Methodology for more details.
8
Victims of Identity Theft, 2008
Methodology
The National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS) is an annual data collection conducted
by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS). The NCVS collects
information on nonfatal crimes, reported and
not reported to the police, against persons age
12 or older in a nationally representative sample
of U.S. households. Survey results are based on
data gathered from residents living throughout
the United States, including persons living in
group quarters, such as dormitories, rooming
houses, and religious group dwellings. The survey
excludes personnel living in military barracks
and persons living in an institutional setting,
such as a correctional or hospital facility. For
more detail, see Survey Methodology for Criminal
Victimization in the United States, 2007 at .
The 2008 Identity Theft Supplement (ITS) was the
first supplement to the annual NCVS to collect
nationwide, individual data on the prevalence
of and victim response to the attempted or
successful unauthorized use of an existing
account, use of personal information to open a
new account, or misuse of personal information
for other fraudulent purposes. The 2008 ITS
focused on measuring the prevalence of identity
theft, its economic and emotional costs, and
the victim response to this type of offense. The
ITS also collected data on the characteristics of
identity theft victims, how victims discovered the
identity theft, the time spent resolving problems
associated with the theft, victims’ interactions
with law enforcement and credit bureaus, and
measures taken to avoid or minimize the risk of
becoming an identity theft victim.
Between January and June 2008, the ITS was
administered to persons age 16 or older, asking
about any experience with identity theft in the
previous 2-year period. Thus, all identity theft
incidents occurred between January 2006 and
June 2008. ITS interviews were conducted only
after the respondent successfully completed the
regular NCVS interview. All NCVS and ITS
interviews were conducted in a computer-assisted
personal interviewing (CAPI) environment.
Interviews were conducted by telephone or by
personal visit. A final sample size of 56,480 out
of the original 73,071 NCVS-eligible respondents
completed the ITS questionnaire, resulting in
an ITS response rate of 77.3%. The combined
overall NCVS-ITS unit response rate for NCVS
December 2010
households, NCVS persons, and ITS persons was
69.7%. Because of the level of nonresponse, a bias
analysis was conducted. To the extent that those
who responded to the survey and those who did
not differ in important ways, there is a potential
for biases in estimates from the survey data.
The results of the analysis suggest that there is
little or no bias of substantive importance due to
nonresponse in the ITS estimates.
Attempted versus successful identity theft
The ITS was originally designed to distinguish
victims of attempted identity theft from victims
who experienced a direct loss or the actual misuse
of personal information to open a new account or
for other fraudulent purposes. However, the survey
instrument could not fully distinguish attempts
from successes.
About 800 respondents (28%) stated at the survey
outset that the offender was not successful in
obtaining any money, products, or services from
their account or was not successful in using
their identity for a fraudulent purpose. These
respondents were then directed into the “Attempted
but failed” module and were asked slightly
different questions from the approximately 2,000
respondents (72%) who reported being victims of a
successful incident of identity theft.
Respondents in the “Attempted but failed” module
were not asked questions pertaining to direct
financial loss or victim impact. A subsequent
review of responses to follow-up questions in the
“Attempted but failed” module revealed that a small
percentage of these victims may have experienced
some direct loss. It is not possible to verify or
reliably estimate these losses. Consequently, the
inability to include the direct losses related to these
cases may lead the survey to underestimate the
financial impact of identity theft.
Other limitations
Estimates from the ITS were based on respondents’
self-reports of any identity theft victimization that
occurred during the previous 2 years. As with any
self-report survey, respondents may not recall
past events accurately or at all. Given the nature of
identity theft, respondents may not have been aware
that they were being or had been victimized.
The ITS asked respondents about the types of
identity theft experienced, not the number of
occurrences. Because the instrument did not
capture the number of times a type of identity theft
9
occurred during the 2-year period, a prevalence
rate rather than an incidence rate was computed.
Limitations due to skip patterns. The ITS
contained a number of skip patterns that resulted
in different base counts of victims for several
sections of the analysis. For instance, victims
who experienced multiple types of identity theft
from separate incidents (0.1%) were not asked
questions pertaining to how their identity was
stolen. Likewise, victims who were directed to
answer questions in the “Attempted but failed”
module were not asked about direct financial
loss or about any distress or relationship or work
problems resulting from the incident.
Possible overreporting of losses from
jointly held accounts. Persons may have
experienced the unauthorized use of a jointly
held account. Joint accounts present a difficultly
with counting financial harm or loss because
of the potential for double-counting the same
loss (e.g., both account holders report the same
$500 loss). Moreover, because financial loss was
not attributed to a particular type of identity
theft, victims of multiple types of identity theft
may have experienced some financial loss
from a joint account and some financial loss
from an independently held account. Thus, it
was not possible to correct for any potential
overreporting due to joint account holders who
may have been double-counted.
needed to estimate the likelihood of a person
with an existing account (such as a credit card,
savings, or checking account) becoming a victim
of identity theft are currently not available. The
NCVS did not ask respondents about the number
and types of financial accounts they hold, and
such estimates are not available from other
sources.
Standard error computations
Comparisons between the percentages and
rates for this report are tested to determine if
observed differences were statistically significant.
Differences described as greater than, higher,
lower, or different passed a test at the 0.05 level
of statistical significance (95%-confidence level).
Values described as slightly, marginally, or
somewhat different passed a test at the 0.10 level
of statistical significance (90%-confidence level).
Caution is required when comparing estimates
not explicitly discussed in this special report.
Lack of data on risk of identity theft. Data
10
Victims of Identity Theft, 2008
Appendix Table 1
Number and percentage of persons age 16 and older who experienced at least one attempted or successful
identity theft incident during the previous 2 years, 2008
Type
Identity theft
Existing account
Credit card
Banking
Other
New account
Personal information
Multiple types
Existing accountsc
Otherd
Identity theft reporteda
Number of
Percent of
victims
all persons
11,694,600
5.0%
10,080,600
4.3%
6,224,500
2.6
4,374,500
1.9
811,900
0.3
1,666,400
0.7%
618,900
0.3%
~
~
~
~
~
~
Type of identity theft victimb
Number of
Percent of
victims
all persons
11,694,600
5.0%
8,339,500
3.5%
4,840,600
2.0
3,047,400
1.3
451,500
0.2
1,118,600
0.5%
414,500
0.2%
1,822,000
0.8%
1,190,900
0.5
631,200
0.3
Note: Numbers rounded to the nearest hundred. Percentages based on persons age 16 or older living in households in the United States (235,125,600). In 2008,
473,200 persons (0.2%) did not know or did not report whether they were victims of identity theft during the prior 2 years. An estimated 223 million persons (94.8%)
had not experienced identity theft within the 2-year period. The survey was not able to fully distinguish attempts from successes. See Methodology for more detail. See
standard error table 1 below.
~Not applicable.
aAllows for multiple responses. Subcategories may not sum to totals because some victims reported more than one type of identity theft.
bIdentity theft classified as a single type.
cIncludes victims who experienced some combination of two or more of the following: unauthorized use of a credit card, bank account, or other existing account.
dIncludes victims who experienced some combination of two or more of the following: unauthorized use of an existing account, misuse of personal information to open
a new account, or misuse of personal information for other fraudulent purposes.
Standard Error Table 1
Standard errors for the number and percentage of persons age 16 or older who experienced at least one attempted
or successful identity theft incident during the previous 2 years, 2008
Type
Identity theft
Existing account
Credit card
Banking
Other
New account
Personal information
Multiple types
Existing accounts
Other
Identity theft reported
Number of
Percent of
victims
all persons
310,941
0.12
284,989
0.11
207,132
0.08
165,677
0.07
63,547
0.03
87,701
0.04
60,655
0.03
~
~
~
~
~
~
Type of identity theft victim
Number of
Percent of
victims
all persons
310,941
0.12
242,332
0.10
173,412
0.07
129,800
0.05
44,845
0.02
67,974
0.03
49,143
0.02
107,661
0.04
82,046
0.03
60,829
0.03
~Not applicable.
December 2010
11
Appendix Table 2
Percentage of persons who experienced at least one attempted or successful incident of identity theft during the
past 2 years, by victim characteristics, 2008
Characteristic
Total
Gender
Female
Male
Age
16-24
25-34
35-49
50-64
65 or older
Race/Hispanic origin
White, non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Black, non-Hispanic
Other race, non-Hispanic
More than one race
Household income
Less than $25,000
$25,000-49,999
$50,000-74,999
$75,000 or more
Unknown
Total identity theft
5.0%
Existing account
3.5%
New account
0.5%
Personal information
0.2%
Multiple types*
0.8%
5.1%
4.8%
3.7
3.4
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.8
0.8
6.0%
5.9%
5.1%
4.8%
3.7%
3.5
3.8
3.6
3.7
2.9
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.4^
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
1.3
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.4
5.1%
4.1%
4.4%
5.0%
10.4%
3.9
2.3
2.5
3.5
6.9
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.9^
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.1^
0.8^
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.8^
3.6%
4.9%
5.1%
7.0%
3.8%
2.2
3.4
3.6
5.4
3.5
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.6
Note: See standard error table 2 below.
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
*Includes victims who experienced some combination of identity theft types.
Standard Error Table 2
Standard errors for the percentage of persons who experienced at least one attempted or successful incident of
identity theft during the previous 2 years, by victim characteristics, 2008
Characteristic
Total
Gender
Female
Male
Age
16-24
25-34
35-49
50-64
65 or older
Race/Hispanic origin
White, non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Black, non-Hispanic
Other race, non-Hispanic
More than one race
Household income
Less than $25,000
25,000-49,999
$50,000-74,999
$75,000 or more
Unknown
Total identity theft
0.12
Existing account
0.10
New account
0.03
Personal information
0.02
Multiple types
0.04
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.55
0.29
0.19
0.19
0.20
0.41
0.25
0.15
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.16^
0.07
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.22
0.13
0.08
0.06
0.07
0.15
0.29
0.30
0.41
1.44
0.12
0.21
0.23
0.38
1.33
0.03
0.11
0.14
0.17
0.44^
0.02
0.10
0.09
0.06^
0.43^
0.05
0.12
0.11
0.18
0.56^
0.26
0.23
0.30
0.24
0.18
0.19
0.20
0.23
0.21
0.15
0.08
0.74
0.09
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.11
0.08
0.11
0.09
0.06
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
12
Victims of Identity Theft, 2008
Appendix Table 3
Percentage of victims who experienced an attempted or successful identity theft incident during the previous 2 years and knew how their information
was stolen, by type of identity theft and offender method of obtaining identifying information, 2008
Existing account
Total
identity theft
11,694,600
New
Personal
account
information
Total
1,118,600
414,500 1,822,000
Multiple types
Existing
Otherb
accountsa
1,190,900
631,200
Offender method
Total
Credit card Banking
Other
Total number of victims
8,339,500 4,840,600 3,047,400
451,500
Victim knew how personal information was obtained
No
58%
59%
64%
52%
63% ^
57%
61%
48%
46%
53%
Yes
39
38
34
47
28^
36
27
50
53
44
Method by which information was obtained
Stolen during a purchase or other transaction
29%
34%
46%
24%
3% ^
8%^
5% ^
22%
25%
15% ^
Lost or stolen from wallet
20
20
16
26
--^
15
11^
23
29
8^
Stolen from personnel files or other files maintained
by an office
14
12
11
12
34^
30
26^
11
7^
23
10
9
8
10
12^
11^
10^
16
14
23
Stolen from storage locationc
Family or friends accessed information
8
6
3
7
23^
20
39^
7
5^
14^
Computer was hacked
4
5
4
5
10^
--^
3^
7
8^
6^
Responded to spam email or phone call
4
5
2^
7
10^
2^
--^
2^
3^
--^
Data exposed on Internet
4
4
4
3^
7^
3^
6^
5^
6^
--^
Stolen from mailbox or garbage
3
3
2^
4
--^
8^
--^
3^
2^
5^
3
3
3
3^
--^
4^
--^
4^
3^
5^
Otherd
Note: Table population includes victims who experienced a single type or incident of identity theft over the 2-year period. Victims who suffered multiple types of identity theft from separate incidents (0.1%) are excluded.
Details percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding and to the inability of some respondents to provide a response. See standard error table 3 below.
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
--Less than 0.5%.
aIncludes victims who experienced some combination of two or more of the following: the unauthorized use of a credit card, bank account, or other existing account in one identity theft incident.
bIncludes victims who experienced some combination of two or more of the following: unauthorized use of an existing account, misuse of personal information to open a new account, misuse of personal information for
other fraudulent purposes.
cIncludes information stolen from a home, car, or office where it was stored.
dIncludes such methods as address changed at the post office; data breach; clerical mistake; and theft by acquaintance, employee, or contractor.
Standard Error Table 3
Standard errors for the percentage of victims who experienced an attempted or successful identity theft incident during the previous 2 years and
knew how their information was stolen, by type of identity theft and offender method of obtaining identifying information, 2008
Offender method
Victim knew how personal information was obtained
No
Yes
Stolen during a purchase or other transaction
Lost or stolen from wallet
Stolen from personnel files or other files maintained by an office
Stolen from storage location
Family or friends accessed information
Computer was hacked
Responded to spam email or phone call
Data exposed on internet
Stolen from mailbox or garbage
Other
Existing account
Total
identity theft Total Credit card Banking Other
1.0
1.0
1.6
1.4
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.2
1.2
2.0
1.7
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
1.4
1.3
2.7
2.0
1.6
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.7^
1.0
0.8^
0.9
2.1
2.0
2.6
2.9
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.2
1.5
0.9^
1.3
1.0^
4.9^
4.4^
3.0^
~^
9.4^
5.8^
7.8^
5.5^
5.5^
4.6^
~^
~^
New
account
Personal
information
3.3
3.3
3.1^
4.0
5.4
4.0^
4.0
~^
1.3^
1.7^
2.7^
2.2^
4.7
4.4
4.4^
6.4^
8.3^
7.7^
10.7^
3.2^
~^
4.6^
~^
~^
Multiple types
Existing
Total accounts Other
2.6
2.6
3.6
2.8
2.2
2.8
2.0
1.9
1.1^
2.0^
1.6^
1.6^
3.2
3.1
4.4
3.6
2.2^
2.7
1.8^
2.5^
1.6^
2.8^
1.8^
1.7^
4.4
4.2
5.1^
3.7^
5.7
6.5
5.3^
3.1^
~^
~^
3.6^
3.6^
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
~Not applicable.
December 2010
13
Appendix Table 4
Financial loss from identity theft among victims who experienced at least one attempted or successful identity theft incident during the previous
2 years, by type of theft and type of loss, 2008
Financial loss
Total number of victims
Total
identity theft
11,694,600
Existing account
Credit
card
Banking
4,840,600
3,047,400
Total
8,339,500
Other
451,500
New
account
1,118,600
Personal
information
414,500
Total
1,822,000
Multiple types
Existing
accounta
1,190,900
Otherb
631,200
Combined direct and indirect
loss
$17,291,882,200 7,086,915,800 3,209,788,700
3,024,667,300
852,458,800
3,852,239,700
377,530,900
5,975,196,800 1,997,280,900 3,977,915,900
Mean
2,400
1,340
1,086
1,409
4,511
7,250
3,764
4,661
2,292
9,684
Median
430
400
400
400
300
802
200
500
402
1,100
Percent of victims experiencing
a loss
62%
63%
61%
70%
42%
48%
24%
70%
73%
65%
Direct lossc
$16,563,564,500 6,666,963,300 3,163,550,600
2,715,874,500
787,538,200
3,848,796,500
209,875,500
5,837,929,200 1,960,541,600 3,877,387,600
Mean
2,394
1,301
1,105
1,304
4,446
8,110
2,829
4,680
2,293
9,879
Median
500
400
400
400
300
1,000
2,500
600
500
1,200
Percent of victims experiencing
a loss
59%
61%
59%
68%
39%
42%
18%
69%
72%
62%
Direct out-of-pocket loss
$4,082,018,300 2,073,007,600
591,163,500
1,160,759,800
321,084,300
261,784,600
138,377,000^ 1,608,849,100
641,258,800
967,590,300
Mean
2,228
1,633
1,355
1,515
4,798
4,577
3,445^
3,457
2,129
5,896
Median
300
300
200
400
300
1,000
2,500^
400
300
600
Percent of victims
experiencing a loss
16%
15%
9%
25%
15%
5%
10%^
26%
25%
27%
Indirect lossd
$1,044,301,600
546,220,700
96,667,500
384,632,500
64,920,600^
61,694,400
249,107,200
1,872,793,00
48,979,400
138,299,900
Mean
788
662
292
830
2,169^
378
3,955
684
390
932
Median
50
30
10
60
200^
50
100
80
30
100
Percent of victims experiencing
a loss
11%
10%
7%
15%
7%^
15%
15%
15%
11%
24%
Total out-of-pocket losse
$5,126,319,800 2,619,228,200
687,831,000
1,545,392,300
386,004,900
323,479,100
387,484,100
1,796,128,400
690,238,200 1,105,890,200
Mean
1,870
1,458
988
1,531
4,200
1,518
4,175
2,811
1,792
4,356
Median
200
200
100
300
300
100
800
300
200
500
Percent of victims experiencing
a loss
23%
21%
14%
33%
19%
19%
22%
35%
32%
40%
Note: Number of victims and total loss amounts rounded to the nearest hundred. Mean and median losses based on victims who experienced a loss of $1 or more. Twenty-eight percent of victims were not asked about
direct losses from identity theft. See Methodology for more detail. Of the victims who were asked about direct losses, 5% did not provide information on the amount of the loss. Details may not sum to totals due to unknown
or undisclosed loss amounts. See standard error table 4 below.
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
aIncludes victims who experienced some combination of two or more of the following: unauthorized use of a credit card, bank account, or other existing account.
bIncludes victims who experienced some combination of two or more of the following: unauthorized use of an existing account, misuse of personal information to open a new account, or misuse of personal information for
other fraudulent purposes.
cDirect loss includes the value of goods, services, credit, loans, cash, and anything else a person obtained while misusing personal information.
dIndirect loss includes any additional costs incurred in the course of addressing the identity theft, such as legal fees, bounced check fees, and any miscellaneous expenses like postage, phone calls, or notary fees.
eIncludes direct out-of-pocket loss, indirect loss, or both.
Standard Error Table 4
Standard errors for financial loss from identity theft among victims who experienced at least one attempted or successful identity theft incident
during the previous 2 years, by type of theft and type of loss, 2008
Financial loss
Combined direct and indirect loss
Mean
Percent of victims experiencing a loss
Direct loss
Mean
Percent of victims experiencing a loss
Direct out-of-pocket loss
Mean
Percent of victims experiencing a loss
Indirect loss
Mean
Percent of victims experiencing a loss
Total out-of-pocket loss
Mean
Percent of victims experiencing a loss
Existing account
Credit
card Banking
Other
Total
391
1.2
172
1.3
91
1.7
232
1.7
3,562
5.1
3,988
3.1
1,772
4.9
964
2.4
786
2.9
2,433
3.9
396
1.2
161
1.3
87
1.7
202
1.7
3,562
5.0
4,409
3.2
785
4.6
956
2.6
764
3.1
2,464
4.0
447
0.8
401
1.0
475
1.0
462
1.8
4,175
3.6
3,392
1.4
1,089^
2.6^
1,048
2.1
1,100
2.6
2,130
3.4
192
0.7
201
0.7
110
0.8
328
1.4
1,202^
2.5^
131
2.9
1,976
4.7
309
1.5
281
1.6
514
3.3
343
0.9
339
1.0
340
1.1
429
1.9
3,508
4.0
946
3.0
1,539
4.8
817
2.1
934
2.7
1,461
3.8
New account
Personal
information
Multiple types
Existing
Total
account Other
Total
identity theft
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
14
Victims of Identity Theft, 2008
Appendix Table 5
Length of time victims spent resolving problems associated with any attempted or successful identity theft incident that occurred during the past
2 years, 2008
Time to resolve
Total number of victims
1 day or less
2 to 7 days
8 days to less than 1 month
1 month to less than 3 months
3 months to less than 6 months
6 months or more
Unknown
Total identity theft
11,694,600
42%
16
15
13
4
3
7
Total
8,339,500
44%
17
16
12
3
2
5
Existing account
Credit card
Banking
4,840,600 3,047,400
50%
35%
16
19
14
20
10
16
3
4
2
2
5
4
New
Personal
Other
account information Total
451,500 1,118,600
414,500 1,822,000
47%
39%
46%
33%
12
14
5^
18
18
7
5^
17
8^
12
9^
16
4^
5
4^
5
1^
8
7^
5
10
14
23
7
Multiple types
Existing
accounta
Otherb
1,190,900 631,200
35%
29%
18
18
20
10
15
17
4
8
3^
9
5
10
Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding. See standard error table 5 below.
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
aIncludes victims who experienced some combination of two or more of the following: unauthorized use of a credit card, bank account, or other existing account.
bIncludes victims who experienced some combination of two or more of the following: unauthorized use of an existing account, misuse of personal information to open a new account, or misuse of personal information for
other fraudulent purposes.
Standard Error Table 5
Standard errors for the length of time victims spent resolving problems associated with any attempted or
successful identity theft incident that occurred during the previous 2 years, 2008
Total
Time to resolve
identity theft
1 day or less
0.98
2-7 days
0.75
8 days to less than 1 month
0.72
1 month to less than 3 months
0.71
3 months to less than 6 months
0.36
6 months or more
0.35
Unknown
0.49
Total
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.5
Existing account
Credit
card
Banking
1.5
1.8
1.2
1.5
0.9
1.7
0.9
1.6
0.5
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.8
New
Personal
Other account information Total
5.5
3.2
4.9
2.4
3.5
2.2
2.2^
2.2
3.8
1.6
2.4^
2.0
2.5^
2.1
3.2^
2.2
1.9^
1.0
2.1^
1.2
1.0^
2.0
3.1^
1.0
3.0
2.2
4.2
1.4
Multiple types
Existing
account Other
3.2
3.6
2.7
3.2
2.8
2.3
2.5
3.3
1.3
2.4
1.0^
2.2
1.3
2.6
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
December 2010
15
Appendix Table 6
Percentage of victims who experienced at least one attempted or successful identity theft incident during the past 2 years and contacted an
organization about the theft, by type of theft, type of organization, and credit bureau action, 2008
Organization
Total number of victims
Credit card company or bank
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Consumer agencyc
Document issuing agencyd
Credit monitoring service
Credit bureaue
Placed a fraud alert on credit report
Requested credit report
Requested corrections to credit report
Provided a police report to credit bureau
Placed a freeze on credit report
Total
identity theft
11,694,600
68%
1
3
4
7
15
76
72
50
30
45
Existing account
Total
Credit card Banking
8,339,500 4,840,600
3,047,400
69%
64%
77%
1
--^
1^
1
1
2
2
2
3
5
6
4
10
10
9
72
70
77
63
60
66
35
31
38
39
21
34
25
36
45
Other
451,500
67%
--^
--^
4^
5^
7^
49^
100^
66^
12^
49^
New
account
1,118,600
53%
3^
10
9
14
39
78
84
71
29
44
Personal
information
414,500
38%
5^
6^
13
11^
22
72
81
57
38^
39^
Multiple types
Existing
Total
accounta
1,822,000
1,190,900
78%
77%
2^
--^
4
2^
10
8
9
6
24
17
83
75
72
58
57
41
34
30
57
54
Otherb
631,200
78%
5^
7
12
16
37
89
85
72
38
59
Note: See standard error table 6 below.
--Less than 0.5%.
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
aIncludes victims who experienced some combination of two or more of the following: the unauthorized use of a credit card, bank account, or other existing account.
bIncludes victims who experienced some combination of two or more of the following: unauthorized use of an existing account, misuse of personal information to open a new account, or misuse of personal information
for other fraudulent purposes.
cIncludes government consumer affairs agencies and agencies such as the Better Business Bureau.
dIncludes agencies that issue drivers’ licenses or Social Security cards.
ePercentage of victims who took actions with a credit bureau, based on the number of victims who contacted a credit bureau. Percentages may sum to more than 100% due to respondents taking multiple actions with
the credit bureau and unknown responses.
Standard Error Table 6
Standard errors for the percentage of victims who experienced at least one attempted or successful identity theft incident during the previous 2 years
and contacted an organization about the theft, by type of theft, type of organization, and credit bureau action, 2008
Organization
Credit card company or bank
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Consumer agency
Document issuing agency
Credit monitoring service
Credit bureau
Place a fraud alert on credit report
Request credit report
Request corrections to credit report
Provide a police report to credit bureau
Place a freeze on credit report
Total
identity theft
0.9
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.7
2.2
2.3
2.8
2.4
2.5
Total
1.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.7
3.2
3.3
3.5
3.2
3.4
Existing account
Credit card Banking
1.4
1.8
0.1^
0.4^
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.8
0.7
1.0
1.0
4.1
5.9
4.0
6.1
4.3
5.5
3.6
6.4
4.2
6.5
Other
4.5
~^
~^
2.3^
2.1^
2.7^
19.9^
~^
17.6^
11.6^
19.9^
New account
3.9
1.1^
2.3
1.8
2.3
3.3
4.2
3.3
5.4
5.3
5.3
Personal
information
5.2
2.2^
2.4^
4.5
3.6^
5.0
10.2
8.3
12.5
9.4^
12.0^
Multiple types
Existing
Total account Other
2.2
2.8
3.5
0.7^
~^
1.8^
0.9
0.9^
2.0
1.5
1.7
2.8
1.5
1.4
3.2
2.2
2.4
4.1
3.9
6.6
4.2
4.4
7.2
5.5
5.2
7.2
6.1
5.0
6.9
6.3
4.9
7.9
6.6
~Not applicable.
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
16
Victims of Identity Theft, 2008
Appendix Table 7
Percentage of victims who experienced at least one attempted or successful identity theft incident during the past 2 years and reported the incident
to a law enforcement agency, by type of identity theft and reasons for not reporting, 2008
Victim response
Total number of victims
Victimization reported to law enforcement
Victimization not reported
Reasons for not reportingc
Did not know to reportd
No monetary loss
Handled it another waye
Did not think the police could helpf
Offender was a family member or friend
Personal reasonsg
Total
identity theft
11,694,600
17%
80
Total
8,339,500
13%
85
15
22
48
19
1
7
15
24
51
17
--^
7
Existing account
Credit card
Banking
4,840,600 3,047,400
9%
19%
88
80
15
27
53
15
--^
5
14
20
49
18
--^
11
Other
451,500
9%
82
Personal
New account information
Total
1,118,600
414,500 1,822,000
28%
26%
26%
67
60
72
16
22
43
24
1^
4^
21
15
35
24
1^
7
18
18^
28
34
1^
5^
14
17
42
23
1^
6
Multiple types
Existing
accounta
Otherb
1,190,900 631,200
23%
33%
75
65
12
22
47
21
1^
6
20
6
32
29
1
5
Note: Percentage of victims reporting and not reporting to police do not sum to 100% because approximately 3% of victims did not provide responses. See standard error table 7 below.
--Less than 0.05%.
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
aIncludes victims who experienced some combination of two or more of the following: the unauthorized use of a credit card, bank account, or other existing account.
bIncludes victims who experienced two or more of the following: unauthorized use of an existing account, misuse of personal information to open a new account, or misuse of personal information for other fraudulent
purposes.
cPercentages computed from the number of victims who did not report the identity theft to a law enforcement agency. Percentages may sum to more than 100% because some victims gave multiple reasons for not
reporting.
dIncludes victims who did not know they could report to the police and victims who did not know which agency was responsible for identity theft crimes.
eIncludes victims who reported the theft to a credit card company, bank, or other organization instead and victims who took care of the theft independently.
fIncludes victims who did not think the police would do anything, did not want to bother the police, thought they discovered the crime too late for the police to help, and could not identify the offender or provide
information to assist the police.
gIncludes victims who were afraid to report, too embarrassed to report, or thought reporting would be an inconvenience.
Standard Error Table 7
Standard errors for the percent of victims who experienced at least one attempted or successful identity theft incident during the previous 2 years
and reported the incident to a law enforcement agency, by type of identity theft and reasons for not reporting, 2008
Victim response
Victimization reported to law enforcement
Victimization not reported
Reasons for not reporting
Did not know to report
No monetary loss
Handled it another way
Did not think the police could help
Offender was a family member or friend
Personal reasons
Total
identity theft
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.3
1.0
0.2
0.6
Total
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.1
~^
0.7
Existing account
Credit
card
Banking
0.9
1.6
1.1
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.4
~^
0.6
1.5
1.7
2.6
1.7
~^
1.5
Other
2.8
4.0
New
account
3.0
3.2
4.1
4.5
5.0
4.3
0.9^
2.1^
3.1
2.6
4.1
3.3
0.7^
1.9
Personal
information
5.5
5.7
4.9
5.3^
6.0
7.5
1.2^
2.6^
Total
2.2
2.1
1.8
2.4
3.2
2.4
0.5^
1.3
Multiple types
Existing
account
2.7
2.7
2.2
3.2
3.6
2.8
0.6^
1.6
Other
3.8
3.9
3.9
2.8
5.6
4.8
0.7
2.5
~Not applicable.
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
December 2010
17
Appendix Table 8
Percentage of victims who experienced at least one identity theft incident during the past 2 years or a violent crime incident during the prior year and
experienced emotional or physical problems as a result of the incident, by type of identity theft or violent crime, 2008 and 2009
Victim impact
Total number of victims
Significant work-related problemsc
Significant relationship problemsd
Overall, how distressing was the identity thefte
Not at all
Mildly
Moderately
Severely
Total
identity
theft
Total
11,694,600 8,339,500
3%
2%
6%
5%
11%
34
33
20
12%
37
32
17
Identity theft
Existing account
Multiple types
Credit
New
Personal
Existing
card
Banking Other
account information Total
account
Other
4,840,600 3,047,400 451,500 1,118,600
414,500 1,822,000 1,190,900 631,200
1%
2%
3%^
7%^
11%^
4%
2%^
8%^
2%
8%
9%^
7%
13%^
9%
4%^
19%
15%
42
31
11
9%
30
33
26
6%^
36
32
15^
13%
24
29
29
9%^
16^
37
30
8%
32
36
24
7%
36
37
18
10%
24
32
34
Total
5,006,800
14%
19%
18%
27
26
29
Violent victimizations (2008-2009)
Rape or sexual
Aggravated Simple
assault
Robbery assault
assault
198,100
556,300
949,700 3,302,700
28%
19%
16%
11%
40%
24%
20%
17%
12%^
16^
28
43
11%
18
26
45
15%
25
23
37
20%
30
27
23
Note: Data on victims of violent crime are from the 2008-2009 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). On the Identity Theft Supplement (ITS), victims who reported an attempted identity theft did not respond to
victim impact items. See Methodology for more detail. See standard error table 8 below.
^ Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
aIncludes victims who experienced some combination of two or more of the following: unauthorized use of a credit card, banking account, or other existing account.
bIncludes victims who experienced some combination of two or more of the following: unauthorized use of an existing account, misuse of personal information to open a new account, or misuse of personal information for
other fraudulent purposes.
cIncludes victims reporting significant problems with job or schoolwork or trouble with boss, coworker, or peers.
dIncludes victims reporting significant problems with family members or friends, including getting into more arguments or fights than before, not feeling able to trust them as much, or not feeling as close to them as before
the identity theft.
eSubcategories may not sum to 100% because 2.3% of total responding victims were unable to provide information on distress.
Standard Error Table 8
Standard errors for the percent of victims who experienced at least one incident of identity theft during the previous two years and experienced
emotional or physical problems as a result of the incident, by type of identity theft or violent crime, 2008 and 2009
Identity theft
Victim impact
Significant work-related problems
Significant relationship problems
Overall, how distressing was the identity theft?
Not at all
Mildly
Moderately
Severely
Total
identity theft
0.4
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.1
0.9
Total
0.3
0.7
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.0
Existing account
Credit
card
Banking
0.4
0.6
0.6
1.4
1.5
1.9
1.7
1.1
1.3
1.9
2.0
2.1
Other
2.9^
3.5^
New
account
2.6^
2.0
3.0^
5.9
6.5
4.3^
2.5
2.9
3.5
3.3
Personal
information
4.9^
4.7^
3.2^
5.3^
7.0
6.7
Multiple types
Existing
Total
account Other
1.2
1.3^
2.4^
1.5
1.3^
3.1
1.6
2.6
2.8
2.3
1.7
3.7
3.6
2.6
3.3
3.8
4.7
4.5
Violent victimizations (2008-2009)
Rape or sexual
Aggravated
Total
assault
Robbery
assault
1.2
7.0
3.6
2.7
1.3
7.1
4.0
2.4
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.5
4.3^
5.3^
7.6
6.9
2.6
3.1
3.7
4.6
2.5
3.3
2.7
3.5
Simple
assault
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.7
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
18
Victims of Identity Theft, 2008
December 2010
19
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
ncj231680
Washington, DC 20531
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
DOJ/BJS
Permit No. G-91
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Office of Justic Programs • Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods • http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov
The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of
Justice. James P. Lynch is the director.
Agency sponsors for the Identity Theft Supplement (ITS) included Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), National Institute of
Justice (NIJ), and Office for Victims of Crime (OVC).
This Special Report was written by Lynn Langton and Michael Planty, Ph.D..
Donald Farole, Jr., Ph.D. verified the report. Katrina Baum, Ph.D., coordinated the
initial efforts for the development of the identity theft survey, including instrument
design, cognitive testing, and collaboration with sponsoring agencies.
Catherine Bird and Jill Duncan edited the report, Barbara Quinn produced the
report, and Jayne Robinson prepared the report for final printing under the
supervision of Doris J. James.
December 2010, NCJ 231680
This report in portable document format and in ASCII and its related
statistical data and tables are available at the BJS website: http://bjs.gov/index.
cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2222.
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Modified | 2011-03-15 |
| File Created | 2011-03-15 |