U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

National Crime Victimization Survey Supplement
Victims of Identity Theft, 2008

December 2010 NCJ 231680

Lynn Langton and Michael Planty, Ph.D.,
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 from:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2172

This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be
available. To view a list of all in the series go to
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=60
-----------------------------------------------------------

Approximately 11.7 million persons, representing 5% of
all persons age 16 or older in the United States,
***Footnote 1 In this publication, the term “persons” 
refers to persons age 16 or older in the United Staates.***
(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.
------------------------------------------------------------
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 (http://bjs.ojp. 
usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/it05.pdf) and Identity Theft
Reported by Households, 2007 Statistical Tables
(http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/itrh07st.pdf).

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, which was 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 or
3% of all persons) or bank accounts (4.4 million or 2% of all
persons). Another 811,900 (0.3% of all persons) victims
experienced other types of existing account theft, such as
the misuse 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 15% 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.

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 income of $75,000 or more (5%) experienced fraud
involving an existing account than persons living in
households with 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.

Recognizing identity theft

About 3 in 10 victims who knew how their identity was stolen
believed the information was obtained during a purchase or
other transaction.

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 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 wasobtained, about 4 in 10 (39%)
thought that family or friends were responsible (figure 2).

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).***(Footnote 2 Victims
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.)***

The percentage of victims that 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 that experienced multiple
types of identity theft, about 70% reported a financial loss.
Of the victims that reported any 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).

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. 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. Victims 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 fraud 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.

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 majority of victims resolved the
problem in a day or less (figure 4). Over a quarter (27%) 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%).

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 13% of victims who
experienced the unauthorized use or attempted use of an
existing account.

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 (appendix table 7).
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.

Victim distress and other nonfinancial impact

Two in 10 victims of identity theft rated the experience as
severely distressing.

Victims who experienced a direct financial loss were asked
how the identity theft affected their lives.***(Footnote 3
Only 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.)*** 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 it mildly distressing, 33%
found it moderately distressing, and 20% found it 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.

---------------------------------------------------------
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).
------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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
<http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus/cvus07mt.pdf>.

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 inan ITS response rate of 77.3%. The combined
overall NCVS-ITS unit response rate for NCVS 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 asuccessful 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 and 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 10 Victims of Identity Theft, 2008 capture
the number of times a type of identity theft 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 over reporting
due to joint account holders who may have been double-counted. 

Lack of data on risk of identity theft. Data 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.
 ------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Justic Programs * Innovation * Partnerships *Safer
Neighborhoods * http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
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.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2222>.
-------------------------------------------------------------

12/8/2010/JER 8:50am