Memo to increase sample boost revised 12-18

MEMORANDUM TO: Shelly Wilkie Martinez

Office of Statistical and Science Policy

Office of Management and Budget

THROUGH: Lynn Murray

Department Clearance Officer

Department of Justice

FROM: William J. Sabol, Ph.D.

Acting Director

Bureau of Justice Statistics

SUBJECT: Submission of burden hour increase for the 2014 Identity Theft Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (OMB #1121-0317)

This memo concerns an increase of 1,512 hours to the current burden for the 2014 Identity Theft Supplement (ITS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey. The increase in burden results from a boost of the NCVS sample in 11 states from July 2013 to December 2015 to test the feasibility of collecting subnational estimates of victimization.

The 2013 NCVS Sample Boost is being conducted to test assumptions about the collection and production of state level estimates, including those pertaining to necessary sample sizes and reliability, expected response rates, victimization rates, state coverage issues, state level sample design and weighting, hiring and training of field representatives, workload and logistic concerns, and cost. In July 2013, the NCVS sample increased in 11 states—CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, GA, NC, and NJ—to ensure that these states have representative coverage with sample sizes that are sufficient to produce victimization estimates with reasonable reliability and precision. This boost resulted in a 21% increase in the total annual sample, from 201,400 to 240,200 respondents, which corresponds to an increase from 68,905 to 80,450 total sample hours (see Notice of OMB Action; ICR Reference Number 201305-1121-002).

From January 1, 2014 through June 30, 2014, the ITS will be administered at the end of the NCVS core survey to persons 16 or older, including persons in the sample boost. Based on the boost to the total NCVS sample, it is assumed the ITS sample will likewise increase by about 20%, from 78,000 to 93,600 respondents (includes eligible non-respondents).

Assuming that the 2014 ITS experiences similar response rates in core and sample boost areas as prior iterations of the ITS, about 89%, or 83,300 of the 93,600, eligible respondents will be interviewed. Based on prior ITS data it is further assumed that 7% of the 83,300 interviewed respondents will be victims of identity theft and therefore follow the long interview path in the questionnaire. The remaining 93% will not be victims of identity theft and, as such, will follow the short interview path. The short interview path requires about 3 minutes to complete and the long interview path requires approximately 15 minutes. Total expected respondent burden is therefore calculated as:

83,300X (.07) X (.25 hours) + 83,300X (.93) X (.08 hours) = 7,656 total hours. This represents an increase of 1,512 from the 6,144 hours previously requested.

2012 Terms of Clearance: Update

In addition to the request for a modification to the burden hour, this section provides an update to the terms of clearance stated in the 3/19/2012 NOA for the current ongoing Identity Theft Supplement collection (1121-0317) through 3/31/2015:

TERMS OF CLEARANCE: OMB looks forward to BJS reporting back on how useful the data from this supplement, especially relating to "victim impact," turns out to be once sufficient sample exists to conduct needed analysis.

Data from the 2012 Identity Theft Supplement were released on December 12, 2013 in a report titled ‘Victims of Identity Theft, 2012’ (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vit12.pdf). Findings from the report were highlighted in a wide range of media stories including an Associated Press story, which was picked up by print sources such as the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/govt-1-in-14-fell-prey-to-identity-theft-in-2012/2013/12/12/62a1d3e2-633e-11e3-af0d-4bb80d704888_story.html) and on radio stations such as NPR and CBSradio. The report and corresponding news stories covered findings from all sections of the survey instrument, including the section pertaining to the emotional harm experienced by identity theft victims.

In the original OMB submission BJS identified key estimates to be produced from the proposed questionnaire. The table below, listed in the original submission, details the type of information that will be available through the 2012/2014 ITS data.

Estimates that can be generated from the 2012 ITS	Relevant questions
Rate/percent of persons 16 or older who experienced one or more types of attempted/successful/both id theft during the past year	Q1a, Q2a, Q3, Q4, Q5 + Q37
Rate/percent of credit card holders 16 or older who experienced attempted or successful misuse of existing credit card	Q2a + Q37
Rate/percent of banking account holders 16 or older who experienced attempted or successful misuse of existing checking, savings, debit, or ATM account	Q1a + Q37
Rate/percent of persons 16 or older who experienced attempted or successful misuse of an existing credit card	Q2a
Rate/percent of persons 16 or older who experienced attempted or successful misuse of an existing banking account	Q1a
Rate/percent of persons 16 or older who experienced attempted or successful misuse of another existing account	Q3
Rate/percent of persons 16 or older who experienced attempted or successful use of personal information to open a new account	Q4
Rate/percent of persons 16 or older who experienced attempted or successful use of personal information for other fraudulent purpose	Q5
Rate/percent of persons 16 or older who experienced multiple types of attempted or successful identity theft	Q6b
Rate/percent of persons 16 or older who experienced multiple incidents of id theft during the past year	Q6a and Q6b
Percent of id theft victimizations that involved attempted or successful existing account misuse	Q1a, Q2a, Q3, Q4, Q5
Percent of id theft victimizations that involved attempted or successful use of personal information to open a new account	Q1a, Q2a, Q3, Q4, Q5
Percent of id theft victimizations that involved attempted or successful use of personal information for other fraudulent purposes.	Q1a, Q2a, Q3, Q4, Q5
Demographic characteristics of persons 16 or older who experienced one or more types of id theft during the past year	NCVS core + Q1a, Q2a, Q3, Q4, Q5 + Q37
Financial loss (direct and indirect) attributed to all successful and attempted incidents of id theft experienced by victims 16 or older during the past year	Q45 and Q46
Type of id theft experienced during most recent incident	Q6a, Q6b, Q7
How the most recent incident of id theft was discovered, by type of id theft	Q8, Q9
How long the misuse occurred during the most recent id theft incident, by type of id theft	Q10
How the victim’s personal information was obtained during the most recent incident of id theft, by type of theft	Q11, Q12
Percent of most recent id theft incidents reported to police, by type of id theft	Q18
Reasons for not reporting to the police among those who did not report, by type of id theft	Q25
Percent of most recent id theft incidents reported to credit bureau, by type of id theft	Q14, Q15
Time spent resolving most recent id theft incident, by type of id theft	Q39, Q40, Q41
Financial loss (direct and indirect) attributed to most recent id theft incident, by type of theft	Q36, Q37, Q38
Emotional distress experienced as result of most recent id theft incident, by type of id theft	Section E
Percentage of respondents who have taken various actions to prevent personal information from being obtained in response to an experience with identity theft	Section I
Percentage of respondents who have taken various actions to prevent personal information from being obtained as a preventative measure	Section I
Percent of persons 16 or older who experienced at least one incident of identity theft at any point their lives, by type of theft experienced	Q1a, Q2a, Q3, Q4, Q5+ Q47, Q48
Percent of persons 16 or older who experienced an incident of identity theft more than 12 month prior to the interview but were experiencing the consequences of id theft within the 12 month reference period	Section H

The recent report was successful in reporting on almost all of these estimates with many disaggregated by identity theft type. As in 2008, the findings from the emotional harm/victim impact section of the instrument that were included in the report were based on questions asked of all identity theft victims. The items asked whether the victim experienced problems with friends and family, problems with work or school, and how distressing being a victim was to them. These findings are of utility for agencies like the Office for Victims of Crime and organizations like the National Identity Theft Victims Assistance Network Project, which work to understand and address the consequences of victimization for victims. The current report was able to report out on these three larger categories for key identity theft crime types compared to incidents of violent crime (figures 6, 7 and 9).

The changes to the ITS instrument from 2008 and 2012 prohibit the direct comparison or aggregation of data from the two sources and the 2012 data alone does not provide sufficient sample sizes to report findings from the parts of the victim impact section that were asked of only the victims who experienced problems at work or with family members or experienced moderate or severe levels of distress. These items include measures specific types of distress (e.g., feeling worried/anxious, angry, sad or depressed), use of professional help (e.g., use of counseling/therapy, medication) and physical problems associated with the crime (e.g., headaches, trouble sleeping).

When the 2014 data is available, it may be possible to combine the 2012 and 2014 data and produce more detailed estimates pertaining to the impact on victims. Additionally, as part of the general NCVS instrument redesign project that will begin in 2014, this section of victim impact questions, which is also present on the core NCVS, will receive a complete assessment. The results of that assessment and any resulting changes to the ITS will be addressed in the OMB packet for the 2016 ITS.

If there are any questions concerning this request, please contact Michael Planty, Victimization Unit Chief, Bureau of Justice Statistics, at (202) 514-1062 or by email at Michael.Planty@usdoj.gov.