U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics November 2011, NCJ 236245 Identity Theft Reported by Households, 2005-2010 Lynn Langton, BJS Statistician ------------------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available on BJS website at: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2207. This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be available. To view a list of all reports in the series go to http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=60 ------------------------------------------------------------- In 2010, 7.0% of households in the United States, or about 8.6 million households, had at least one member age 12 or older who experienced one or more types of identity theft victimization (figure 1). This percentage was similar to the 7.3% of households that experienced identity theft in 2009. However, it represented an increase from the 5.5% of households, or 6.4 million households, that were victims of one or more types of identity theft in 2005. The increase in identity theft victimization from 2005 to 2010 was largely attributable to an increase in the misuse or attempted misuse of existing credit card accounts. During this period, the percentage of households that experienced the misuse of an existing credit card account increased by about 50%, from 2.5% to 3.8%. The percentage of households that experienced the misuse of personal information to open a new account or for another fraudulent purpose declined by about 30%, from 0.9% in 2005 to 0.6% in 2010. This data brief presents data on identity theft victimization from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). It primarily focuses on changes in the nature of identity theft victimization and the characteristics of households with at least one member who was a victim from 2005 to 2010. Annual estimates for 2008 are not included because only 6 months of household identity theft data were collected that year. Identity theft is defined as the unauthorized use or attempted misuse of an existing credit card or other existing account, the misuse of personal information to open a new account or for another fraudulent purpose, or a combination of these types of misuse. From 2005 to 2010, most households victimized by identity theft experienced the misuse of an existing credit card account Among households in which at least one member experienced one or more types of identity theft, 64.1% experienced the misuse or attempted misuse of an existing credit card account in 2010 (figure 2). From 2005 to 2010, the misuse of an existing credit card account was the fastest growing type of identity theft, with the number of victimized households increasing from about 3.6 million (56.3% of victimized households) in 2005 to 5.5 million (64.1% of victimized households) in 2010. The number of households that experienced the misuse of an existing account other than a credit card account, such as a banking, savings, or Paypal account, increased from about 2.3 million in 2005 to 3.0 million in 2010 (not shown in a table). However, there was no measureable change in the percentage of victimized households that experienced the misuse of another existing account from 2005 to 2010 (about 35%). The percentage of victimizations involving the misuse of personal information declined during this time, from 23.2% in 2005 to 14.2% in 2010. Identity theft victimization increased among households in urban and suburban areas from 2005 to 2010 Regardless of the age of the head of household, the percentage of households victimized by identity theft was higher in 2010 than in 2005 (table 1). In both years, households headed by a person age 65 or older had the lowest rate of identity theft victimization compared to households headed by persons in any age category under 65. From 2005 to 2010, the percentage of households that experienced identity theft increased among non-Hispanic white and Asian-headed households, and Hispanic-headed households. The percentage of victimized households among non-Hispanic black and Indian-headed households, as well as those headed by non-Hispanic persons of two or more races, was similar in 2005 and 2010. The percentage of households that experienced identity theft increased from 2005 to 2010, regardless of the marital status of the head of household. In both years, a higher percentage of households with a married head of household experienced identity theft victimization compared to households with a non-married head. From 2005 to 2010, the percentage of households that experienced identity theft increased among households with an income of $75,000 or more and among households in the unreported income category (table 2). The percentage of victimized households increased slightly among households with incomes of $7,500 to $14,999, $35,000 to $49,999, and $50,000 to $74,999. There was no measurable change in the percentage of households that experienced identity theft among those in the lowest income bracket or those that made $15,000 to $24,999 or $25,000 to $34,999. In 2010, a higher percentage of households with an income of $75,000 experienced identity theft victimization compared to households in lower income brackets. The percentage of households in urban and suburban areas with at least one member who experienced identity theft increased from 2005 to 2010. However, the percentage of households in rural areas that experienced identity theft (3.9%) was the same in 2005 and 2010. Regardless of the head of household characteristics, increases in household identity theft between 2005 and 2010 can be primarily attributed to increases in the misuse of existing credit card accounts (not shown in a table). The general patterns of identity theft victimization by head of household characteristics may be related to exposure and opportunities for victimization. For example, a married head of household suggests at least two adults in the household, which could mean more opportunity for victimization, compared to a household with one non-married adult. Additionally, the higher percentage of households in the top income category that experienced identity theft victimization may be related to these households having a greater number of banking accounts, credit card accounts, or other types of accounts compared to lower income households, thus increasing the opportunity that an account could be misused. Therefore, many of the variables examined in this report may be related to one another and to other variables not included in the analyses or the survey. A lower percentage of households experienced direct financial loss from identity theft in 2010 compared to 2005 From 2005 to 2010, the percentage of all households with one or more type of identity theft that suffered no direct financial loss increased from 18.5% to 23.7% (table 3). After adjusting for inflation, among the households that lost $1 or more, the total average financial loss did not change from 2005 to 2010. This suggests that for households that experienced a loss, the amount of loss was comparable in each year. In 2010, over half of households (50.8%) that experienced the misuse of personal information reported no direct financial loss from the misuse at the time of the survey interview. Households that did experience a financial loss of $1 or more resulting from the misuse of personal information had higher average ($13,160) and median ($800) losses than households that experienced other types of identity theft. In 2010, households reported a total financial loss of approximately $13.3 billion (table 4). While 9.0% of victimized households experienced the misuse of personal information, this form of misuse accounted for 29.4% of the total direct financial loss in 2010. In contrast, the misuse of existing credits cards accounted for 54.0% of identity theft victimizations and 31.8% of the total direct financial loss. 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 from 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 the homeless, Armed Forces personnel living in military barracks, and persons living in an institutional setting, such as a correctional or hospital facility. For more detail, see Criminal Victimization in the United States, Statistical Tables, Methodology on the BJS website at http://www.bjs.gov. Beginning in July 2004, questions were added to the NCVS to provide ongoing estimates of identity theft victimization. NCVS household identity theft data are available for July through December of 2004, a full year in 2005 and 2007, July through December of 2008, and a full year in 2009 and 2010. During the first six months of 2008, households were administered a supplemental NCVS survey on identity theft that replaced the regular households NCVS questions during that period. (See Victims of Identity Theft, 2008, BJS Web, NCJ 231680 for data from the supplemental identity theft survey.) Because a full year of household identity theft data are not available for 2004 or 2008, these years are not included in this data brief. Technical Notes Standard error computations When national estimates are derived from a sample rather than the entire population, as is the case with the NCVS, caution must be used when drawing conclusions about the size of one population estimate in comparison to another or about whether a time series of population estimates is changing. Although one estimate may differ in absolute terms from another, they may not be different statistically because estimates based on responses from a sample of the population each have some degree of sampling error. The sampling error, or margin of error, of an estimate depends on several factors, including the amount of variation in the responses, the size and representativeness of the sample, and the size of the subgroup for which the estimate is computed. One measure of the sampling error associated with an estimate is the standard error. The standard error can vary from one estimate to the next. In general, an estimate with a smaller standard error provides a more reliable approximation of the true value than an estimate with a larger standard error. Estimates with relatively large standard errors are associated with less precision and reliability and should be interpreted with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) is a measure of an estimate's reliability. The CV is the ratio of the standard error to the estimate. In this report, the CV was calculated for all estimates, and in cases where the CV was greater than 25%, the estimate was noted with a "!" symbol (interpret data with caution, coefficient of variation exceeds 25%). In cases where the CV was greater than 50%, the estimate was determined not to meet reporting standards, noted with a "/" symbol, and suppressed. A statistical test is used to determine whether differences in means or percentages are statistically significant once sampling error is taken into account. Comparisons made in the text were tested for statistical significance at the p < .05 level to ensure that the differences were larger than might be expected due to sampling variation. Significance testing calculations were conducted at the Bureau of Justice Statistics using statistical programs developed specifically for the NCVS by the U.S. Census Bureau. These programs take into consideration many aspects of the complex NCVS sample design when calculating estimates. Standard errors for average annual estimates were calculated based on the ratio of the sums of victimizations and respondents across years. Comparing financial loss in 2005 and 2010 In 2008, the household identity theft questions pertaining to financial loss were changed. From 2004 to 2007, the amount of financial loss that a respondent could report was capped at $99,996. Beginning with the 2008 data collection, the cap was increased to allow respondents to report up to $999,996 in direct financial losses resulting from identity theft victimization. Because of this change, it is not possible to compare total financial losses in 2005 with total financial losses in 2010. Any increase from 2005 to 2010 could be attributed to either actual loss increases or to increases in the amount of loss respondents were allowed to report. Methodological changes to the NCVS in 2006 Methodological changes implemented in 2006 may have affected the crime estimates for that year to an extent that they were not comparable to estimates from other years. Evaluation of 2007 and later data from the NCVS conducted by BJS and the Census Bureau found a high degree of confidence that estimates for 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 are consistent with and comparable to estimates for 2005 and previous years. The reports, Criminal Victimization, 2006, BJS Web, NCJ 219413; Criminal Victimization, 2007, BJS Web, NCJ 224390; Criminal Victimization, 2008, BJS Web, NCJ 227777; Criminal Victimization, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231327; and Criminal Victimization, 2010, BJS Web, NCJ 235508, are available on the BJS website at http://www.bjs.gov. ------------------------------------------------------------- Office of Justice Programs * Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods * http://www.ojp.gov ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. James P. Lynch is director. This report was written by BJS statistician Lynn Langton. Erika Harrell verified the report. Jill Thomas edited the report, Barbara Quinn produced the report, and Jayne Robinson prepared the report for final printing under the supervision of Doris J. James. November 2011, NCJ 236245 The full text of each report is available in PDF and ASCII formats on the BJS website at www.bjs.gov.  Tables are also available in PDF and CSV formats. Related datasets are made available on the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data website at http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/index.jsp. ------------------------------------------------------------- 11/21/2011/TLD/ 11:15 a.m.