ITS Supplementary Materials

Attachments
Table of Contents

Attachment 2: BJS authorizing statute; Title 42, United States Code, Section 3732
(A2.bjslegauth.doc)………………………………………………………………………………..2
Attachment 3: Victims of Identity Theft, 2008 (A3.vit08.pdf)…………………………………....6
Attachment 4: Victims of Identity Theft, 2012 (A4.vit12.pdf)…………………………………..26
Attachment 5: Document detailing changes to the ITS instrument from 2008 to 2012
(A5.changes.pdf)…………………………………………………………………………………53
Attachment 6: Census Bureau introductory letter for new households (A6.NCVS572(L).pdf).....................................................................................................................................60
Attachment 7: Census Bureau introductory letter for reinterview households (A7.NCVS573(L).pdf)……………………………………………………………………………………….84
Attachment 8: Evaluating Nonresponse Bias in the 2014 Identity Theft Supplement to the
National Crime Victimization Survey (A8.Nonresponse bias ITS14.pdf)……………….…….108

-CITE42 USC Sec. 3732

01/26/98

-EXPCITETITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 46 - JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
SUBCHAPTER III - BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS
-HEADSec. 3732. Bureau of Justice Statistics
-STATUTE(a) Establishment
There is established within the Department of Justice, under the general authority of the Attorney General, a
Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereinafter referred to in this subchapter as ''Bureau'').
(b) Appointment of Director; experience; authority; restrictions
The Bureau shall be headed by a Director appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate. The Director shall have had experience in statistical programs. The Director shall have final authority for all
grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts awarded by the Bureau. The Director shall report to the Attorney
General through the Assistant Attorney General. The Director shall not engage in any other employment than that of
serving as Director; nor shall the Director hold any office in, or act in any capacity for, any organization, agency, or
institution with which the Bureau makes any contract or other arrangement under this Act.
(c) Duties and functions of Bureau
The Bureau is authorized to (1) make grants to, or enter into cooperative agreements or contracts with public agencies, institutions of higher
education, private organizations, or private individuals for purposes related to this subchapter; grants shall be made
subject to continuing compliance with standards for gathering justice statistics set forth in rules and regulations
promulgated by the Director;
(2) collect and analyze information concerning criminal victimization, including crimes against the elderly, and
civil disputes;
(3) collect and analyze data that will serve as a continuous and comparable national social indication of the
prevalence, incidence, rates, extent, distribution, and attributes of crime, juvenile delinquency, civil disputes, and
other statistical factors related to crime, civil disputes, and juvenile delinquency, in support of national, State, and
local justice policy and decisionmaking;
(4) collect and analyze statistical information, concerning the operations of the criminal justice system at the
Federal, State, and local levels;
(5) collect and analyze statistical information concerning the prevalence, incidence, rates, extent, distribution,
and attributes of crime, and juvenile delinquency, at the Federal, State, and local levels;
(6) analyze the correlates of crime, civil disputes and juvenile delinquency, by the use of statistical information,

about criminal and civil justice systems at the Federal, State, and local levels, and about the extent, distribution and
attributes of crime, and juvenile delinquency, in the Nation and at the Federal, State, and local levels;
(7) compile, collate, analyze, publish, and disseminate uniform national statistics concerning all aspects of
criminal justice and related aspects of civil justice, crime, including crimes against the elderly, juvenile delinquency,
criminal offenders, juvenile delinquents, and civil disputes in the various States;
(8) recommend national standards for justice statistics and for insuring the reliability and validity of justice
statistics supplied pursuant to this chapter;
(9) maintain liaison with the judicial branches of the Federal and State Governments in matters relating to
justice statistics, and cooperate with the judicial branch in assuring as much uniformity as feasible in statistical
systems of the executive and judicial branches;
(10) provide information to the President, the Congress, the judiciary, State and local governments, and the
general public on justice statistics;
(11) establish or assist in the establishment of a system to provide State and local governments with access to
Federal informational resources useful in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of programs under this Act;
(12) conduct or support research relating to methods of gathering or analyzing justice statistics;
(13) provide for the development of justice information systems programs and assistance to the States and units
of local government relating to collection, analysis, or dissemination of justice statistics;
(14) develop and maintain a data processing capability to support the collection, aggregation, analysis and
dissemination of information on the incidence of crime and the operation of the criminal justice system;
(15) collect, analyze and disseminate comprehensive Federal justice transaction statistics (including statistics
on issues of Federal justice interest such as public fraud and high technology crime) and to provide technical
assistance to and work jointly with other Federal agencies to improve the availability and quality of Federal justice
data;
(16) provide for the collection, compilation, analysis, publication and dissemination of information and
statistics about the prevalence, incidence, rates, extent, distribution and attributes of drug offenses, drug related
offenses and drug dependent offenders and further provide for the establishment of a national clearinghouse to
maintain and update a comprehensive and timely data base on all criminal justice aspects of the drug crisis and to
disseminate such information;
(17) provide for the collection, analysis, dissemination and publication of statistics on the condition and
progress of drug control activities at the Federal, State and local levels with particular attention to programs and
intervention efforts demonstrated to be of value in the overall national anti-drug strategy and to provide for the
establishment of a national clearinghouse for the gathering of data generated by Federal, State, and local criminal
justice agencies on their drug enforcement activities;
(18) provide for the development and enhancement of State and local criminal justice information systems, and
the standardization of data reporting relating to the collection, analysis or dissemination of data and statistics about
drug offenses, drug related offenses, or drug dependent offenders;
(19) provide for research and improvements in the accuracy, completeness, and inclusiveness of criminal
history record information, information systems, arrest warrant, and stolen vehicle record information and
information systems and support research concerning the accuracy, completeness, and inclusiveness of other
criminal justice record information;
(20) maintain liaison with State and local governments and governments of other nations concerning justice
statistics;

(21) cooperate in and participate with national and international organizations in the development of uniform
justice statistics;
(22) ensure conformance with security and privacy requirement of section 3789g of this title and identify,
analyze, and participate in the development and implementation of privacy, security and information policies which
impact on Federal and State criminal justice operations and related statistical activities; and
(23) exercise the powers and functions set out in subchapter
VIII of this chapter.
(d) Justice statistical collection, analysis, and dissemination to insure that all justice statistical collection, analysis,
and dissemination is carried out in a coordinated manner, the Director is authorized to (1) utilize, with their consent, the services, equipment, records, personnel, information, and facilities of other
Federal, State, local, and private agencies and instrumentalities with or without reimbursement therefor, and to enter
into agreements with such agencies and instrumentalities for purposes of data collection and analysis;
(2) confer and cooperate with State, municipal, and other local agencies;
(3) request such information, data, and reports from any Federal agency as may be required to carry out the
purposes of this chapter;
(4) seek the cooperation of the judicial branch of the Federal Government in gathering data from criminal
justice records; and
(5) encourage replication, coordination and sharing among justice agencies regarding information systems,
information policy, and data.
(e) Furnishing of information, data, or reports by Federal agencies Federal agencies requested to furnish
information, data, or reports pursuant to subsection (d)(3) of this section shall provide such information to the
Bureau as is required to carry out the purposes of this section.
(f) Consultation with representatives of State and local government and judiciary In recommending standards for
gathering justice statistics under this section, the Director shall consult with representatives of State and local
government, including, where appropriate, representatives of the judiciary.
-SOURCE(Pub. L. 90-351, title I, Sec. 302, as added Pub. L. 96-157, Sec. 2, Dec. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 1176; amended Pub. L.
98-473, title II, Sec. 605(b), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2079; Pub. L. 100-690, title VI, Sec. 6092(a), Nov. 18, 1988,
102 Stat. 4339; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330001(h)(2), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2139.)
-REFTEXTREFERENCES IN TEXT
This Act, referred to in subsecs. (b) and (c)(11), is Pub. L. 90-351, June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 197, as amended,
known as the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. For complete classification of this Act to the
Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3711 of this title and Tables.
-MISC2PRIOR PROVISIONS

A prior section 3732, Pub. L. 90-351, title I, Sec. 302, June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 200; Pub. L. 93-83, Sec. 2, Aug. 6,
1973, 87 Stat. 201; Pub. L. 94-503, title I, Sec. 110, Oct. 15, 1976, 90 Stat. 2412, related to establishment of State
planning agencies to develop comprehensive State plans for grants for law enforcement and criminal justice
purposes, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 96-157.
AMENDMENTS
1994 - Subsec. (c)(19). Pub. L. 103-322 substituted a semicolon for period at end.
1988 - Subsec. (c)(16) to (23). Pub. L. 100-690 added pars. (16) to (19) and redesignated former pars. (16) to
(19) as (20) to (23), respectively.
1984 - Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 605(b)(1), inserted provision requiring Director to report to Attorney
General through Assistant Attorney General.
Subsec. (c)(13). Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 605(b)(2)(A), (C), added par. (13) and struck out former par. (13) relating
to provision of financial and technical assistance to States and units of local government relating to collection,
analysis, or dissemination of justice statistics.
Subsec. (c)(14), (15). Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 605(b)(2)(C), added pars. (14) and (15). Former pars. (14) and (15)
redesignated (16) and (17), respectively.
Subsec. (c)(16). Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 605(b)(2)(A), (B), redesignated par. (14) as (16) and struck out former par.
(16) relating to insuring conformance with security and privacy regulations issued under section 3789g of this title.
Subsec. (c)(17). Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 605(b)(2)(B), redesignated par. (15) as (17). Former par. (17) redesignated
(19).
Subsec. (c)(18). Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 605(b)(2)(D), added par. (18).
Subsec. (c)(19). Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 605(b)(2)(B), redesignated former par. (17) as (19).
Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 605(b)(3)(A), inserted '', and to enter into agreements with such agencies
and instrumentalities for purposes of data collection and analysis''.
Subsec. (d)(5). Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 605(b)(3)(B)-(D), added par. (5).
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1984 AMENDMENT
Amendment by Pub. L. 98-473 effective Oct. 12, 1984, see section 609AA(a) of Pub. L. 98-473, set out as an
Effective Date note under section 3711 of this title.
-SECREFSECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS
This section is referred to in section 5603 of this title.

U.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
ƒƒ 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.
ƒƒ The unauthorized misuse or attempted misuse of an existing
credit card was the most prevalent type of identity theft (53%
of all victims).
ƒƒ 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.
ƒƒ 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.

ƒƒ 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.
ƒƒ 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.
ƒƒ 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.
ƒƒ 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:
ƒƒ Unauthorized use or attempted use of an existing
account, such as a credit/debit card, checking,
savings, telephone, online, or insurance account.
ƒƒ 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.
ƒƒ 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.

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

December 2013, NCJ 243779

Erika Harrell, Ph.D. and Lynn Langton, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians

A

pproximately 16.6 million persons or 7%
of all U.S. residents age 16 or older, were
victims of one or more incidents of identity
theft on 2012 (figure 1). Among identity theft victims,
existing bank (37%) or credit card accounts (40%)
were the most common types of misused information.
This report uses data from the 2012 Identity
Theft Supplement (ITS) to the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS). From January to
June 2012, the ITS collected data from persons who
experienced one or more attempted or successful
incidents of identity theft during the 12 months
preceding their interview.
Identity theft victims are defined as persons age
16 or older who experienced one or more of the
following incidents:

„„

unauthorized use or attempted use of an
existing account, such as a credit or debit card,
checking, savings, telephone, online, or insurance
account (referred to as fraud or misuse of an
existing account).

Figure 1
Persons age 16 or older who experienced at least one
identity theft incident during the past 12 months, by
type of theft, 2012

Bul l etin

Victims of Identity Theft, 2012

Percent
8

6

4

2

0

Total
Existing Existing
identity credit card bank
theft
account account

Other
existing
account

New
Personal
account information

Note: See table 1 for estimates and appendix table 1 for standard errors.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

Highlights
The purpose of this report is to describe the prevalence
of identity theft, its victims, and the characteristics
and effects of this crime. The 2012 Identity Theft
Supplement (ITS) of the National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS) provided the data for this report.
„„ About 7% of persons age 16 or older were victims of

identity theft in 2012.
„„ The majority of identity theft incidents (85%)

involved the fraudulent use of existing account
information, such as credit card or bank
account information.
„„ Victims who had personal information used to open

a new account or for other fraudulent purposes
were more likely than victims of existing account
fraud to experience financial, credit, and relationship
problems and severe emotional distress.

„„ About 14% of identity theft victims experienced

out-of-pocket losses of $1 or more. Of these victims,
about half suffered losses of less than $100.
„„ Over half of identity theft victims who were able to

resolve any associated problems did so in a day or
less; among victims who had personal information
used for fraudulent purposes, 29% spent a month or
more resolving problems.
„„ About 36% of identity theft victims reported

moderate or severe emotional distress as a result of
the incident.
„„ Direct and indirect losses from identity theft totaled

$24.7 billion in 2012.

BJS

„„

unauthorized use or attempted use of personal information
to open a new account, such as a credit or debit card,
telephone, checking, savings, loan, or mortgage account
(referred to as fraud or misuse of a new 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 (referred to as fraud or misuse of
personal information).

This report details the number, percentage, and demographic
characteristics of victims who reported one or more incidents
of identity theft during a 12-month period. It focuses on
the most recent incident experienced to describe victim
characteristics and victim responses to identity theft. It
describes how the victim discovered the crime; financial losses
and other consequences of identity theft, including the amount
of time victims spent resolving associated problems; reporting
of the incident to credit card companies, credit bureaus, and
law enforcement agencies; and the level of distress identity
theft victims experienced.
For 85% of identity theft victims, the most recent incident
involved the unauthorized use of an existing account
In 2012, the unauthorized misuse or attempted misuse of an
existing account was the most common type of identity theft,
experienced by 15.3 million persons age 16 or older (6% of

all persons) (table 1). The majority of victims experienced
the fraudulent use of their credit cards (7.7 million or 3%
of all persons) or bank accounts (7.5 million or 3% of all
persons). Another 1.7 million victims (0.7% of all persons)
experienced other types of existing account theft, such as
misuse or attempted misuse of an existing telephone, online, or
insurance account.
An estimated 1.1 million victims (less than 1% of all persons)
reported the fraudulent misuse of their information to open
a new account, such as a credit card. Another 833,600 victims
reported the misuse of their personal information for other
fraudulent purposes.
In 2012, 22% of victims experienced multiple incidents of
identity theft, while 77% experienced a single incident (not
shown).1 During the single or most recent identity theft
incident experienced in 2012, 8% or 1.2 million victims
experienced multiple types of identity theft during a single
incident. For 66% of victims of multiple types of identity theft,
the incident involved the unauthorized use of a combination
of existing accounts, such as credit card, checking, savings,
telephone, or online accounts. The remaining 34% who
experienced multiple types of identity theft during a
single incident (less than 3% of all victims) reported some
combination of misuse of an existing account, misuse of
personal information to open a new account, and personal
information used for other fraudulent purposes.
1About

1% of victims did not know whether they experienced one or more
than one incident.

Table 1
Persons age 16 or older who experienced at least one identity theft incident in the past 12 months, by type of theft, 2012
Type of identity theft
Total
Existing account
Credit card
Bank
Other
New account
Personal information
Multiple types
Existing accountb
Otherc

Anytime during the past 12 monthsa
Number of victims
Percent of all persons
16,580,500
6.7%
15,323,500
6.2%
7,698,500
3.1
7,470,700
3.0
1,696,400
0.7
1,125,100
0.5%
833,600
0.3%
~
~
~
~
~
~

Number of victims
16,580,500
14,022,100
6,676,300
6,191,500
1,154,300
683,400
622,900
1,252,000
824,700
427,400

Most recent incidentb
Percent of all persons
6.7%
5.7%
2.7
2.5
0.5
0.3%
0.3%
0.5%
0.3
0.2

Percent of all victims
100%
84.6%
40.3
37.3
7.0
4.1%
3.8%
7.6%
5.0
2.6

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to victims who reported multiple incidents of identity theft and rounding. See appendix table 1 for standard errors.
~Not applicable.
aIdentity theft classified as a single type.
bIncludes victims who experienced two or more of the following: unauthorized use of a credit card, bank account, or other existing account.
cIncludes 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.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

2

Persons in households with higher annual incomes were
more likely to experience identity theft than persons in
lower-income households
A similar percentage of males and females (7%) experienced
identity theft in 2012 (table 2). Across all types of identity
theft, prevalence rates did not vary significantly by sex. After
accounting for whether a person owned a credit card and bank
account, prevalence rates for existing credit card and existing
banking account misuse did not vary by sex.
Persons ages 16 to 17 (less than 1%) were the least likely to
experience identity theft, followed by persons ages 18 to 24
(5%) and 65 or older (5%). After accounting for credit card
ownership, persons ages 16 to 24 were the least likely to
experience the misuse of an existing account, while persons
age 65 or older had a similar prevalence rate as persons ages
25 to 34. Among those who had a bank account, persons ages
16 to 17 and 65 or older were the least likely to experience
banking account fraud.

A greater percentage of white non-Hispanics (7%) experienced
identity theft in 2012 than black non-Hispanics (5%) and
Hispanics (5%). This relationship also held true for the misuse
of an existing credit card account among persons who had a
credit card. However, among persons who had a bank account,
there were no significant differences in the prevalence of bank
account misuse among whites, blacks, and Hispanics.
Overall, persons in the highest income category (those with
an annual household income of $75,000 or more) had a higher
prevalence of identity theft than persons in other income
brackets. After accounting for credit card ownership, persons
in the highest income bracket had the highest rate of existing
credit card account misuse. Among persons who had a bank
account, there were no significant differences in the prevalence
of identity theft across income categories, with the exception of
the unknown category.

Table 2
Persons age 16 or older who experienced at least one identity theft incident during the past 12 months, by victim characteristics,
2012

Characteristic
Total
Sex
Male
Female
Age
16–17
18–24
25–34
35–49
50–64
65 or older
Race/Hispanic origin
Whiteb
Blackb
Hispanic/Latino
Other raceb,c
Two or more racesb
Household income
$24,999 or less
$25,000–$49,999
$50,000–$74,999
$75,000 or more
Unknown

New account or
Any identity theft
Misuse of existing credit card
Misuse of existing bank account
personal informationa
Number Percent of Number Percent of Percent of persons Number Percent of Percent of persons Number Percent of
of victims all persons of victims all persons with credit card
of victims all persons with bank account of victims all persons
16,580,500 6.7%
7,698,500
3.1%
4.5%
7,470,700
3.0%
3.5%
1,864,100
0.8%
7,902,800
8,677,700

6.6%
6.9

3,932,000
3,766,400

3.3%
3.0

4.8%
4.3

3,320,100
4,150,600

2.8%
3.3

3.3%
3.8

851,200
1,012,900

35,200 !
1,466,400
3,293,500
4,914,800
4,739,400
2,131,100

0.4% !
4.8
7.8
8.0
7.8
5.0

4,300 !
331,400
1,177,500
2,222,100
2,590,400
1,372,800

0.1% !
1.1
2.8
3.6
4.2
3.2

0.7% !
2.6
4.1
4.8
5.4
4.1

16,300 !
937,400
1,718,100
2,344,600
1,853,300
601,100

0.2% !
3.1
4.1
3.8
3.0
1.4

0.6% !
4.1
4.7
4.3
3.3
1.6

12,417,600
1,494,100
1,544,100
841,400
270,700

7.3%
5.0
5.2
6.4
9.0

6,258,500
301,400
509,100
523,900
102,000

3.7%
1.0
1.7
4.0
3.4

4.9%
2.1
3.1
5.4
5.9

5,295,000
896,300
834,300
302,700
133,400

3.1%
3.0
2.8
2.3
4.4

3.4%
4.2
3.8
2.7
5.3

1,146,400
361,500
254,000
54,000
48,200

0.7%
1.2
0.8
0.4
1.6

1,888,000
2,809,100
2,598,500
6,274,800
3,010,100

4.9%
5.4
7.7
10.0
5.1

413,200
1,026,100
1,084,600
3,668,900
1,505,700

1.1%
2.0
3.2
5.9
2.6

2.6%
3.0
4.1
6.8
3.7

1,068,800
1,490,200
1,305,800
2,389,800
1,216,200

2.8%
2.9
3.8
3.8
2.1

3.9%
3.4
4.2
4.0
2.4

419,400
443,500
259,000
426,100
316,100

1.1%
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5

5,800 !
182,400
406,700
531,900
501,500
235,800

0.7%
0.8
0.1% !
0.6
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.6

Note: Estimates are based on the most recent identity theft incident. Includes successful and attempted identity theft in which the victim experienced no loss. See appendix
table 2 for standard errors.
! Interpret with caution; estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.
aIncludes the misuse of personal information to open a new account or to commit other fraud.
bExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
cIncludes persons identifying as American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

3

The most common way victims discovered the identity
theft was from contact by a financial institution about a
problem
The way victims discovered that their identifying information
was misused varied by the type of identity theft. Among
victims who experienced the unauthorized use of an existing
account, 45% discovered the identity theft when a financial
institution contacted them about suspicious activity on
their account (figure 2). In comparison, 15% of victims who

experienced the misuse of personal information to open a
new account or for other fraudulent purposes discovered the
incident when a financial institution contacted them. Victims
of these other types of identity theft were more likely than
victims of existing account misuse to discover the incident
when another type of company or agency contacted them
(21%) or after they received an unpaid bill (13%). Twenty
percent of victims of existing account misuse discovered
the incident because of fraudulent charges on their account,
compared to 8% of victims of other types of identity theft.

Figure 2
Most common ways victims discovered identity theft, by type of theft, 2012
Percent
50

Existing account misuse

40
30

Other identity theft*

20
10
0

Contacted by financial
institution about
suspicious account
activity

Noticed
fraudulent
charges on
account

Noticed money
missing from
account

Contacted by
company
or agency

Contacted financial
institution to
report a theft

Credit card declined,
check bounced, or account
closed due to
insufficient funds

Received a bill or
contacted about
an unpaid bill

Note: Estimates are based on the most recent incident of identity theft. See appendix table 3 for estimates and standard errors for all ways that victims discovered the identity
theft.
*Includes identity theft incidents involving the misuse of personal information to open a new account or for other fraudulent purposes.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

4

The majority of identity theft victims did not know how
the offender obtained their information

9 in 10 identity theft victims did not know anything about
the offender

About 32% of identity theft victims knew how the offender
obtained their information (figure 3). Victims who
experienced multiple types of identity theft during a single
incident (47%) were among the most likely victims to know
how the offender obtained the information. Victims who had
an existing credit card account misused (24%) were among
the least likely to know how the offender obtained the account
information. Of the 5.3 million victims who knew how the
identity theft occurred, the most common way offenders
obtained information (43%) was to steal it during a purchase
or other transaction (not shown).

Overall, most identity theft victims (91%) in 2012 did not
know anything about the identity of the offender (table 3).
However, the percentage of victims who knew something
about offender varied depending on the type of identity theft.
Victims who had personal information used to open a new
account (25%) or for other fraudulent purposes (23%) were
more likely than victims of existing account misuse (7%) to
know something about the offender. Across all types of identity
theft, victims who experienced the misuse of an existing credit
card (3%) were the least likely to know something about
the offender.

Figure 3
Identity theft victims who knew how their personal
information was obtained, by type of theft, 2012

Table 3
Identity theft victims who knew something about the
offender, by type of theft, 2012
Type of identity theft
Total
Existing account
Credit card
Bank
Other
New account
Personal information
Multiple types
Existing accounta
Otherb

Percent
50
40
30
20
10
0

Total
Existing Existing
identity credit card bank
theft
account account

Other
existing
account

New
Personal Multiple
account information types*

Victim knew something about the offender
8.6%
6.6
2.7
9.2
15.9
24.6
22.9
15.1
11.0
23.1

Note: Estimates are based on the most recent incident of identity theft. See
appendix table 5 for standard errors.
aIncludes victims who experienced two or more of the following: 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.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity
Theft Supplement, 2012.

Note: Estimates are based on the most recent incident of identity theft. See
appendix table 4 for estimates and standard errors.
*Includes victims who experienced more than one type of identity theft in a single
incident.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimziation Survey, Identity
Theft Supplement, 2012.

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

5

Two-thirds of identity theft victims reported a direct
financial loss
The economic impact of identity theft is comprised of direct
and indirect financial loss. Direct financial loss, the majority
of the total loss associated with identity theft, 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 caused by the identity theft,
such as legal fees, bounced checks, and other miscellaneous
expenses (e.g., postage, phone calls, or notary fees). Direct
and indirect losses do not necessarily reflect personal losses to
victims, as victims may be reimbursed for some or all of the
direct and indirect losses.
In 2012, 68% of identity theft victims reported a combined
direct and indirect financial loss associated with the most
recent incident (appendix table 8). Overall, victims who
experienced a direct and indirect financial loss of at least $1
lost an average of $1,769 with a median loss of $300.
The amount of financial loss varied by the type of identity theft.
Approximately 69% of credit card fraud, 74% of bank fraud,
46% of new account fraud, and 38% of personal information
fraud victims experienced a financial loss during the past 12
months. Of those victims who experienced multiple types of
identity theft, 69% reported a financial loss.
In 2012, 66% of the 16.6 million victims of identity theft
reported a direct financial loss as a result of the identity theft
incident. About 68% of credit card fraud victims, 74% of bank
fraud victims, 42% of new account fraud victims, and 32% of
personal information fraud victims reported that the offender
obtained money, goods, or services. Of those victims who
experienced multiple types of identity theft, 67% reported a
direct financial loss associated with the incident.

Direct and indirect identity theft losses
totaled $24.7 billion in 2012
Identity theft victims reported a total of $24.7 billion
in direct and indirect losses attributed to all incidents
of identity theft experienced in 2012 (table 4).2 These
losses exceeded the $14 billion victims lost from all other
property crimes (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and theft)
measured by the National Crime Victimization Survey in
2012. Identity theft losses were over 4 times greater than
losses due to stolen money and property in burglaries
($5.2 billion) and theft ($5.7 billion), and eight times the
total losses associated with motor vehicle theft ($3.1
billion).
2For victims who experienced multiple incidents of identity theft, the total

includes losses from all incidents experienced during the past 12 months.

Table 4
Mean, median, and total losses attributed to identity
theft and property crime, 2012
Identity thefta
Property crimeb
Burglary
Motor vehicle theft
Theft

Mean
$2,183
$915
2,378
7,963
447

Median
$300
$150
600
4,000
100

Total (in
thousands)
$24,696,300
$13,991,700
5,234,800
3,079,900
5,677,000

Note: See appendix table 6 for standard errors.
aBased on 11.3 million persons 16 or older who experienced one or more
incidents of identity theft with known losses of $1 or more.
bBased on 15.3 million household property crimes, 2.2 million burglaries,
400,000 motor vehicle thefts, and 12.7 million household thefts with
known losses of $1 or more. In 2012, 19% of completed burglaries had
unknown loss amounts.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
2012, and National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement,
2012.

Of those who reported a direct financial loss, victims who
experienced the misuse of their personal information reported
a mean direct loss of $9,650 and a median direct loss of
$1,900. Victims of new account fraud incurred an average
loss per incident of $7,135 and a median loss of $600. Victims
of multiple types of fraud reported an average direct loss of
$2,140 with a median direct loss of $400, while victims of
existing account misuse had an average loss of $1,003 per
incident with a median direct loss of $200.
In addition to any direct financial loss, 6% of all identity theft
victims reported indirect losses associated with the most recent
incident of identity theft. Victims who suffered an indirect loss
of at least $1 reported an average indirect loss of $4,168, with
a median of $30. With the exception of victims of personal
information fraud, identity theft victims who reported indirect
financial loss had a median indirect loss of $100 or less.

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

6

In 2012, 14% of identity theft victims suffered an out-ofpocket financial loss
In some instances, a company (e.g., credit card or insurance
company) may reimburse some or all of the financial loss,
reducing or eliminating the out-of-pocket losses for victims. At
the time of the interview, 14% of victims of identity theft had
experienced personal out-of-pocket financial losses of $1 or
more. Of these victims who suffered an out-of-pocket financial
loss, 49% had total losses of $99 or less (figure 4). About 18%
of victims reported out-of-pocket expenses of $100 to $249. An
additional 16% of identity theft victims reported that out-ofpocket expenses of $1,000 or more.
Victims of identity theft who experienced existing
account misuse were the least likely to have credit-related
problems
In addition to suffering monetary losses, some identity theft
victims experienced other financial and legal problems. They
paid higher interest rates on credit cards, they were turned
down for loans or other credit, their utilities were turned off,
or they were the subject of criminal proceedings. Victims who
experienced the misuse of an existing account were generally
less likely to experience financial and legal problems as a result
of the incident than victims who had other personal information
misused. In 2012, 2% of victims of existing account misuse
experienced problems with debt collectors, compared to 17%
of victims who had personal information misused (figure 5).
Two percent of victims of existing account misuse experienced

credit-related problems (e.g., higher interest rates or repeatedly
having to correct information on a credit report), compared to
12% of victims of other types of identity theft. Less than 1% of
victims of existing account misuse and 3% of victims of other
types of identity theft had utilities cut off or service denied, legal
problems (e.g., being arrested), or other problems (e.g., income
tax issues).
Figure 4
Total out-of-pocket loss for identity theft victims experiencing
a loss of $1 or more, 2012
Percent

50
40
30
20
10
0

$99 or
less

$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 14% of identity theft victims who
experienced a personal loss of at least $1. Estimates are based on the most recent
incident of identity theft. See appendix table 7 for estimates and standard errors.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity
Theft Supplement, 2012.

Figure 5
Victims who experienced financial or legal problems as a result identity theft, by type of theft, 2012
Percent
20
Exisiting account misusea
15
Other identity theftb
10

5

0

Credit-related
problemsc

Banking
problemsd

Problems with
debt collectors

Utilities cut off or
new service denied

Legal
problemse

Other
problemsf

Note: Estimates are based on the most recent identity theft incident. See appendix table 10 for estimates and standard errors.
aIncludes victims who experienced multiple types of existing account misuse.
bIncludes identity theft incidents involving the misuse of personal information to open a new account or for other fraudulent purposes.
cIncludes problems such as having to correct the same information on a credit report repeatedly, being turned down for credit or loans, or paying higher interest rates.
dIncludes problems such as being turned down for a checking account or having checks bounce.
eIncludes being the subject of a lawsuit or other criminal proceedings, or being arrested.
fIncludes problems such as being turned down for a job, losing a job, or problems with income taxes.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

7

identity theft victims reported significant problems with family
members or friends, compared to 19% of violent crime victims.

Identity theft victims were less likely than violent crime
victims to have significant school, work, or relationship
problems as a result of the crime
The 2012 NCVS asked victims of violent crime (including
rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple
assault) about the impact of the victimization on work, school,
and personal relationships, and the amount of emotional
distress it caused. Compared to violent crime victims surveyed
in 2012, a lower percentage of identity theft victims reported
significant problems at work or school or with family members
or friends due to the incident (figure 6). About 1% of identity
theft victims reported significant problems at work or school,
compared to 12% of violent crime victims. Similarly, 4% of

The percentage of identity theft victims who reported
significant problems at work or school as a result of the
incident varied by type of identity theft. About 6% of victims
who had personal information used to open a new account
reported significant problems at work or school, compared to
about 1% of victims of existing credit card and bank account
misuse (appendix table 11). The largest percentage of identity
theft victims who had significant problems with family or
friends had their personal information used to create new
accounts (10%) or for other fraudulent purposes (10%).

Figure 6
Victims of identity theft and violent crime who experienced problems as a result of the victimization, 2012
Percent
20
Family/friend relationship problemsa
15
Work/school problemsb
10

5

0

Total identity theft

Existing credit card

Existing bank account

New account

Personal information

Multiple types*

Total violent crime

Note: Estimates are based on the most recent incident of identity theft. Victims reported their perceptions of whether the victimization led to significant problems and
problems at work or school with family and friends. Total violent crime includes rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. Includes violent crime
victims (14%) with missing information on relationship, work, and school problems due to crime. See appendix table 11 for estimates and appendix table 12 for standard
errors.
*Includes victims who experienced more than one type of identity theft in a single incident.
aIncludes 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 crime.
bIncludes victims reporting significant problems with job or school, such as trouble with boss, coworker, or peers.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2012, and National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

8

Identity theft victims (10%) were also less likely than violent
crime victims (29%) to report that the victimization was
severely distressing (figure 7). However, the level of emotional
distress varied by type of identity theft. Thirty-two percent of

victims of personal information fraud reported that they found
the incident severely distressing, compared to 5% of credit card
fraud victims. Twenty-two percent of victims of new account
fraud reported that the crime was severely distressing.

Figure 7
Level of emotional distress reported by identity theft and violent crime victims, 2012
Total identity theft

None, 21

Credit card

26

Bank account

Mild, 43
47

18

New account

Multiple types
Total violent crime
0

10

32
32

30
20

30

22

25

38
19

11

30

27

12

5

28

34

16

Severe, 10

22

42

14

Personal information

Moderate, 26

18

23
40

50

60

29
70

80

90

100

Note: Estimates are based on the most recent incident of identity theft. Victims reported whether they found the victimization to be not at all distressing, mildly distressing,
moderately distressing, or severly distressing. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Excludes identity theft victims (less than 1%) and violent crime victims (15%) with
missing data on emotional distress. See appendix table 11 for estimates and appendix table 12 for standard errors.
*Includes victims who experienced more than one type of identity theft in a single incident.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2012, and National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

9

The majority of identity theft victims spent a day or less
resolving associated financial and credit problems
At the time of the interview, 86% of identity theft victims had
resolved any problems associated with the incident (appendix
table 13). Of these, the majority spent a day or less clearing
up the problems, while about 10% spent more than a month
(figure 8). Victims of the misuse of existing accounts (54%)
were more likely to resolve any associated financial and
credit problems within a day, compared to victims of new
account fraud (42%) and victims of multiple types of identity
theft (36%). Among victims who had resolved all problems
associated with the identity theft, 29% who experienced the

misuse of personal information for fraudulent purposes spent
over a month clearing up the problems, compared to 9% of
victims of existing account misuse.
Whether identity theft victims had resolved associated
problems or not at the time of the interview, victims reported
spending an average of about 9 hours clearing up the issues.
Victims of existing credit card account misuse spent an
average of 3 hours resolving problems, while victims whose
personal information was used to open a new account or for
other fraudulent purposes spent an average of about 30 hours
resolving all problems (not shown).

Figure 8
Length of time spent resolving financial and credit problems associated with identity theft, by type of identity theft, 2012
Percent
60
50

Existing account
New account
Personal information
Multiple types*

40
30
20
10
0

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

Note: Estimates are based on the most recent incident of identity theft. See appendix table 13 for estimates and appendix table 14 for standard errors.
*Includes victims who experienced more than one type of identity theft in a single incident.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

10

14% of persons experienced identity theft at some point during their lives
Resolving the problems caused by identity theft may take
more than a year for some victims. Of the 20.3 million
persons age 16 or older who experienced the misuse of
existing accounts or other personal information prior
to 2012, 7% were still resolving the problems associated
with the identity theft more than a year later (table 5). A
greater percentage of persons who experienced the misuse
of personal information to open a new account (16%) or
for other fraudulent purposes (15%) prior to 2012 had
unresolved problems more than a year later, compared to
persons who experienced existing account misuse (4%).

Overall, 14% of persons age 16 or older, or 34.2 million
persons, experienced one or more incidents of identity theft
during their lives. The lifetime prevalence rate for identity
theft varied to some degree with age. Younger persons, ages
16 to 17 (1%) and 18 to 24 (7%) and persons ages 65 or
older (11%) had the lowest lifetime prevalence rates, while
between 15% and 17% of persons ages 25 to 64 experienced
identity theft at some point in their lives (not shown
in table).

Table 5
Persons age 16 or older who experienced identity theft at any point in their lives, type of identity theft they experienced
outside of the past year, and ongoing problems from identity theft that occurred outside of the past year, 2012
Number of persons
Experienced at least one incident of identity theft during lifetime
No
Yes
Experienced at least one incident of identity theft outside of past 12 months
No
Yes
Type of identity theft experienced
Existing account
Credit card
Bank account
Other account
New account
Personal information
Multiple types
Existing accountsb
Otherc

Percent of
all persons

Percent with unresolved problems
resulting from identity thefta

211,327,500
34,237,400

86.0%
13.9

~
7.8%

225,127,300
20,334,600

91.6%
8.3

~
7.3%

15,311,100
8,860,400
5,721,700
729,000
1,585,100
1,947,700
1,450,300
572,800
877,500

6.2%
2.3
3.6
0.3
0.6
0.8
0.6%
0.2
0.4

4.0%
2.8
5.9
7.7
16.1
14.9
20.6%
11.1
26.7

Note: Detail may not sum to same population total due to a small number of victims who did not know whether they experienced identity theft during the lifetime or
outside of the past 12 months. See appendix table 15 for standard errors.
~Not applicable.
aBased on number of persons who experienced the identity theft.
bIncludes victims who experienced two or more of the following: unauthorized use of a credit card, bank account, or other existing account.
cIncludes 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.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

11

The level of emotional distress victims experienced
was related to the length of time they spent resolving
problems

Figure 10
Identity theft victims who reported the incident to police, by
type of identity theft, 2012

Victims who spent more time resolving the financial and
credit-related problems associated with the identity theft
incident were more likely to experience problems with work
and other relationships and severe emotional distress than
victims who were able to resolve the problems relatively
quickly. Among identity theft victims who spent 6 months
or more resolving financial and credit problems due to the
theft, 47% experienced severe emotional distress (figure 9).
In comparison, 4% of victims who spent a day or less clearing
up problems reported that the incident was severely
distressing. Similarly, 14% of victims who spent 6 months or
more resolving issues related to the identity theft reported
having significant problems with family members or friends,
compared to about 2% of victims who spent a day or less
resolving problems.

Percent
50
40
30
20
10
0

Fewer than 1 in 10 identity theft victims reported the
incident to police

Total
identity
theft

Existing Existing
Other
bank
credit
existing
account card account account

New
Personal Multiple
account information types*

Note: Estimates are based on the most recent identity theft incident. See appendix
table 17 for estimates and reasons victims did not report to police. See appendix
table 18 for standard errors.
*Includes victims who experienced more than one type of identity theft in a single
incident.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity
Theft Supplement, 2012.

In 2012, about 9% of identity theft victims reported the
incident to police (figure 10). Victims of personal information
fraud were the most likely to report the incident to police
(40%), followed new account fraud victims (23%) and victims
of multiple types of identity theft (22%). Fewer than 10% of
victims of existing credit card (4%), existing bank account
(9%), and other existing account misuse (6%) reported the
incident to police.

Figure 9
Identity theft victims who reported work/school or family/friend problems or distress, by length of time spent resolving associated
financial and credit problems, 2012
Time spent resolving problems
due to identity theft

Work/school problemsa
Family/friend relationship problemsb
Feelings that incident was severely distressing

1 day or less
2 to 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
Note: Estimates are based on the most recent incident of identity theft. See appendix table 16 for estimates and standard errors.
aIncludes victims reporting significant problems with job or school, such as trouble with boss, coworker, or peers.
bIncludes 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 crime.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

The 91% of identity theft victims who did not report an
incident to police offered a variety of reasons for not reporting
(appendix table 17). Among all victims who did not report
the incident to police, the most common reason was that the
victim handled it another way (58%). About a third (29%)
of nonreporting victims did not contact police because they
suffered no monetary loss. One in five nonreporting victims
did not think that the police could help and another 15% did
not know how to report the incident to law enforcement.
Of the 9% of identity theft victims who contacted a credit
bureau, 7 in 10 placed a fraud alert on their credit report
In 2012, 88% of all victims of identity theft reported the
incident to one or more nonlaw enforcement agencies, either
government or commercial (not shown). About 86% of identity
theft victims contacted a credit card company or bank to
report misuse or attempted misuse of an account or personal
information (appendix table 19). Six percent of all identity theft
victims contacted a credit monitoring service, 3% contacted an
agency that issues identity documentation, (e.g., Social Security

Administration or an agency that issues drivers’ licenses), 1%
contacted the Federal Trade Commission, and 1% contacted
a government consumer affairs agency or other consumer
protection organization, (e.g., Better Business Bureau).
Nine percent of identity theft victims contacted a credit bureau
to report the incident. Victims whose identifying information
was fraudulently used to open a new account (30%) were
most likely to contact a credit bureau, followed by victims
of multiple types of theft (20%) and victims whose personal
information was used for other fraudulent purposes (19%).
Victims of any type of identity theft who contacted a credit
bureau could take several different actions. About 70% of
victims who contacted a credit bureau placed a fraud alert on
their credit report (figure 11). Two-thirds (66%) of victims
who contacted a credit bureau requested a credit report, 41%
requested corrections to their credit report, 38% placed a
freeze on their credit report, and 19% provided a police report
to the credit bureau.

Figure 11
Identity theft victims who contacted a credit bureau, by action taken, 2012
Action taken
Placed a fraud alert
on credit report
Requested a credit report

Requested a correction
credit report
Provided a police report
to the credit bureau
Placed a freeze
on credit report
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent
Note: Estimates are based on victims who contacted a credit bureau regarding the most recent incident of identity theft experienced within the past 12 months. Details sum
to more than 100% because some victims took multiple actions with the credit bureau. See appendix table 19 for estimates and appendix table 20 for standard errors.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

13

About 85% of persons took some action to prevent
identity theft victimization
The ITS asked persons about actions they took during the prior
12 months to prevent identity theft, such as checking credit
reports, shredding documents with personal information, and
changing passwords on financial accounts. In 2012, 85% of
persons engaged in one or more of the preventative actions
asked about in the survey (table 6). A greater percentage of
victims (96%) than nonvictims (84%) engaged in at least one
preventative action. However, about 12% of victims who took
preventative action did so in response to experiencing identity
theft in the past year.
Overall, the two most common preventative actions in 2012
were checking bank or credit statements (75%) and shredding
or destroying documents with personal information (67%). A
higher percentage of victims than nonvictims engaged in both
of these preventative actions. However, about 13% of victims

began shredding or destroying documents with personal
information as a result of experiencing identity theft during
the prior 12 months and 26% began checking bank or credit
statements as a result of the victimization.
Less than 10% of victims purchased identity theft protection
(4%) or insurance (6%) or used an identity theft security
program on the computer (6%) after experiencing identity
theft, while about a quarter of victims checked financial
accounts or changed passwords on these accounts as a result of
the victimization.
Among persons who did not experience identity theft in 2012,
37% checked their credit report; 27% changed passwords on
financial accounts; 16% used identity theft security programs
on their computer; 5% purchased identity theft insurance or
used a credit monitoring service; and 3% purchased identity
theft protection.

Table 6
Actions victims and nonvictims took during the past 12 months to reduce the risk of identity theft, by whether the action was taken
in response to the theft, 2012

Type of action
Any
Checked credit report
Changed passwords on financial accounts
Purchased identity theft insurance/credit monitoring service
Shredded/destroyed documents with personal information
Checked bank or credit statements
Used identity theft security program on computer
Purchased identity theft protection

Total
84.5%
37.9
28.6
5.3
67.4
74.8
16.6
3.5

Nonvictims
83.7%
36.8
26.6
4.9
66.5
73.6
16.1
3.2

Percent of persons age 16 or older
Victim during prior 12 months
Action taken in response to Action taken independently
Total
identity theft
of identity theft in past year
96.4%
11.8%
84.6%
53.1
15.0
38.1
56.1
24.4
31.7
11.8
5.7
6.1
79.8
13.0
66.8
91.8
25.6
66.2
24.5
5.7
18.8
6.8
3.9
3.0

Note: Estimates are based on the most recent incident of identity theft. About 1% of victims and nonvictims did not know or did not report whether actions were taken. See
appendix table 21 for standard errors.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

14

Methodology
Data collection
The Identity Theft Supplement (ITS) was administered as a
supplement to the Bureau of Justice Statistic’s (BJS) National
Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS collects
data on crime reported and not reported to the police against
persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative
sample of U.S. households. The sample includes persons
living in group quarters (such as dormitories, rooming
houses, and religious group dwellings) and excludes persons
living in military barracks and institutional settings (such
as correctional or hospital facilities) and the homeless. (For
more information, see the Survey Methodology in Criminal
Victimization in the United States, 2008, NCJ 231173, BJS
website, May 2011.)
From January 1, 2012, through June 30, 2012, persons age
16 or older in sampled NCVS households received the ITS at
the end of the NCVS interview. Proxy responders and those
who complete the NCVS interview in a language other than
English did not receive the ITS. All NCVS and ITS interviews
were conducted using computer-assisted personal interviewing
(CAPI). Interviews were conducted by telephone or by
personal visit. A final sample size of 69,814 of the original
NCVS-eligible respondents completed the ITS questionnaire,
resulting in a response rate of 91.9%.
The combined overall NCVS-ITS unit response rate for
NCVS households, NCVS persons, and ITS persons was
68.2%. 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 potential for bias in estimates from the survey data.
However, the result of the nonresponse bias analysis suggested
that there was little or no bias of substantive importance due to
nonresponse in the ITS estimates.
The ITS collected individual data on the prevalence of and
victim response to the attempted or successful misuse of an
existing account, misuse of personal information to open a
new account, or misuse of personal information for other
fraudulent purposes. Respondents were asked whether they
experienced any of these types of misuse during the 12 months
prior to the interview. For example, persons interviewed in July
2012 were asked about identity theft incidents that occurred
between July 2011 and June 2012. To simplify the discussion of
the findings, this report refers to all identity theft experienced
during the 12 months prior to the interviews as occurring
in 2012.
Persons who reported one or more incidents of identity
theft during 2012 were asked more detailed questions about
the incident and response to the incident, such as how they
discovered the identity theft; financial, credit, and other
problems resulting from the incident; time spent resolving
associated problems; and reporting to police and credit

bureaus. For most sections of the survey instrument, the ITS
asked victims who experienced more than one incident during
the 12-month reference period to describe only the most recent
incident when answering questions. The ITS asked victims who
experienced multiple incidents of identity theft during the year
to report on the total financial losses suffered as a result of all
incidents. The ITS asked both victims and nonvictims a series
of questions about identity theft they experienced outside
of the 12-month reference period and about measures they
took to avoid or minimize the risk of becoming an identity
theft victim.
Comparison of 2012 findings to prior BJS identity theft
statistics
This report uses data that differ from previous BJS statistical
collections on the topic of identity theft. Due to the differences,
it was not possible to compare the identity theft estimates
presented in this report to previously reported estimates.
Initial BJS reports on identity theft used household-level data
from the core NCVS. Data were reported for the household
as a whole rather than for individual respondents, and the
questions were more limited, providing less detail on the
characteristics of the incident and the victim response. For
additional information, see Identity Theft, 2005, NCJ 219411,
BJS website, November 2007, Identity Theft Reported by
Households, 2007 - Statistical Tables, NCJ 230742, BJS website,
June 2010, and Identity Theft Reported by Households, 2005 2010, NCJ 236245, BJS website, December 2010.
In 2008, BJS conducted the first Identity Theft Supplement to
the NCVS. Like the 2012 ITS, the 2008 ITS collected detailed
information on victim experiences with identity theft from
persons age 16 or older. For more information, see Victims
of Identity Theft, 2008, NCJ 231680, BJS website, December
2010. Following the administration of the first ITS, BJS made
substantial changes to the survey instrument, making it
difficult to compare across the 2008 and 2012 datasets. Some of
the major changes to the survey from 2008 to 2012 included—
„„

Changing from a 2-year to 1-year reference period. The
2008 ITS asked about identity theft experienced in the 2
years prior to the interview. The 2-year reference period
was intended to capture incidents of identity theft that were
discovered more than 12 months prior to the interview but
were still causing problems for the victim. The 2012 ITS
used a 12-month reference period to be more consistent
with the NCVS and other NCVS supplements. The 2012
ITS added a special section about identity theft experienced
outside of the 1-year reference period to capture identity
theft incidents with long-term consequences.

„„

Integrating of successful and attempted identity theft
incidents. The 2008 ITS tried to distinguish attempted
identity theft from successfully completed identity theft.
It asked slightly different questions depending on whether
respondents screened into the attempted or successful
module. However, the distinction between an attempted

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

15

and successful incident of identity theft was not clear, and
the two types were combined for reporting purposes to
the extent possible. The 2012 ITS defined identity theft as
attempted or completed misuse of personal information and
collected the same information from all victims.
„„

Focusing on the most recent incident of identity theft for
detailed follow-up questions. In the 2008 ITS, victims
were asked one set of questions about the characteristics of
identity theft and the response to identity theft, regardless
of the number of incidents they experienced during the
2-year reference period. This made it impossible to attribute
the incident characteristics or monetary loss to one specific
type of identity theft. The 2012 ITS asked victims to identify
whether they experienced one or more than one incidents
of identity theft during the year.3 Victims who experienced
more than one incident were asked to describe only the
most recent incident when responding to detailed questions
about the nature of and experiences with identity theft
victimization.

Possible over-reporting of losses from jointly held
accounts
Persons may have experienced the unauthorized use of a
jointly held account. Joint accounts present a difficulty with
counting financial harm or loss because of the potential for
double-counting loss (e.g., both account holders report the
same $500 loss). 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. Therefore, it was not possible to correct for any
potential over-reporting due to joint account holders who may
have been double counted.

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.
In order to generate standard errors around estimates from
the ITS, the Census Bureau produces generalized variance
function (GVF) parameters for BJS. The GVFs take into
account aspects of the NCVS complex sample design and
represent the curve fitted to a selection of individual standard
errors based on the Jackknife Repeated Replication technique.
The GVF parameters were used to generate standard errors
for each point estimate (i.e., numbers or percentages) in the
report.
In this report, BJS conducted tests to determine whether
differences in estimated numbers and percentages were
statistically significant once sampling error was taken into
account. Using statistical programs developed specifically
for the NCVS, all comparisons in the text were tested for
significance. The primary test procedure used was Student’s
t-statistic, which tests the difference between two sample
estimates. To ensure that the observed differences between
estimates were larger than might be expected due to sampling
variation, the significance level was set at the 95% confidence
level.
Data users can use the estimates and the standard errors of
the estimates provided in this report to generate a confidence
interval around the estimate as a measure of the margin of
error. The following example illustrates how standard errors
can be used to generate confidence intervals:
According to the ITS, in 2012, an estimated 6.7% of
persons age 16 or older experienced identity theft (see
table 1). Using the GVFs, BJS determined that the estimate
has a standard error of 0.3 (see appendix table 1). A
confidence interval around the estimate was generated
by multiplying the standard errors by ±1.96 (the t-score
of a normal, two-tailed distribution that excludes 2.5% at
either end of the distribution). Therefore, the confidence
interval around the estimate is 6.7 ± (0.3 X 1.96) or 6.1
to 7.3. In other words, if different samples using the
same procedures were taken from the U.S. population
in 2012, 95% of the time the percentage of persons
who experienced identity theft would be between 6.1%
and 7.3%.

Standard error computations
When national estimates are derived from a sample, as is the
case with the ITS, caution must be taken when comparing
one estimate to another. Although one estimate may be larger
than another, estimates based on a sample have some degree
of sampling error. The sampling error of an estimate depends
on several factors, including the amount of variation in the
responses, the size of the sample, and the size of the subgroup
for which the estimate is computed. When the sampling error
around the estimates is taken into consideration, the estimates
that appear different may, not be statistically different.
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, for a given metric, an
estimate with a smaller standard error provides a more reliable
3Victims received the following definition of an identity theft incident: “An
incident of identity theft occurs when your identity is stolen. A stolen credit
card or debit card may be used multiple times, but this should be considered
a single incident. Also, if multiple credit card numbers and a social security
number were obtained at the same time, this should be considered a
single incident.”

In this report, BJS also calculated a coefficient of variation
(CV) for all estimates, representing the ratio of the standard
error to the estimate. CVs provide a measure of reliability and
a means to compare the precision of estimates across measures
with differing levels or metrics. In cases where the CV was
greater than 50%, or the unweighted sample had 10 or fewer
cases, the estimate was noted with a “!” symbol (interpret data
with caution; estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or
the coefficient of variation exceeds 50%).

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

16

Many of the variables examined in this report may be related
to one another and to other variables not included in the
analyses. Complex relationships among variables were not fully

explored in this report and warrant more extensive analysis.
Readers are cautioned not to draw causal inferences based on
the results presented.

Appendix Table 1
Standard errors for figure 1: Persons age 16 or older who experienced at least one identity theft incident in the past 12 months by
type of theft, 2012 and table 1: Persons age 16 or older who experienced at least one identity theft incident in the past 12 months,
by type of theft, 2012
Type of identity theft
Total
Existing account
Credit card
Bank
Other
New account
Personal information
Multiple types
Existing account
Other

Anytime during the past 12 months
Number of victims
Percent of all persons
750,223
0.3%
713,433
0.3
455,777
0.2
446,837
0.2
167,153
0.1
127,633
0.1
104,992
-~
~
~
~
~
~

Most recent incident
Percent of all persons
0.3%
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
--0.1
---

Number of victims
750,223
673,954
414,852
394,659
129,787
92,348
87,000
136,881
104,263
68,425

Percent of all victims
~
1.4
1.7
1.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.4

~Not applicable.
--Less than 0.05%.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

Appendix Table 2
Standard errors for table 2: Persons age 16 or older who experienced at least one identity theft incident during the past
12 months, by victim characteristics, 2012

Characteristic
Total
Sex
Male
Female
Age
16–17
18–24
25–34
35–49
50–64
65 or older
Race/Hispanic origin
White
Black
Hispanic/Latino
Other race
Two or more races
Household income
$24,999 or less
$25,000–$49,999
$50,000–$74,999
$75,000 or more
Unknown

Any identity theft
Misuse of existing credit card
Number Percent of Number Percent of Percent of persons
of victims all persons of victims all persons with credit card
750,223
0.3%
455,777
0.2%
0.3%

Misuse of existing bank account
Number Percent of Percent of persons
of victims all persons with bank account
446,837
0.2%
0.2%

New account or
personal information
Number Percent of
of victims all persons
177,890
0.1%

463,715
493,153

0.4
0.4

291,937
283,702

0.2
0.2

0.3
0.3

260,879
302,628

0.2
0.2

0.2
0.3

106,429
119,168

0.1
0.1

15,317
151,852
259,485
338,604
330,527
194,365

0.2
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4

4,831
58,300
131,486
199,821
221,219
145,410

0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3

0.8
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4

9,955
113,304
168,559
207,061
177,204
85,034

0.1
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2

0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2

5,680
40,300
66,310
78,638
75,739
47,176

0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1

623,114
153,735
157,099
105,629
51,382

0.4
0.5
0.5
0.7
1.5

397,484
54,934
76,471
77,875
28,387

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.9

0.3
0.4
0.4
0.7
1.5

355,777
110,054
105,050
55,086
33,337

0.2
0.4
0.3
0.4
1.0

0.2
0.5
0.4
0.5
1.2

129,204
61,572
49,389
19,568
18,313

0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.6

179,393
233,453
221,677
398,169
244,419

0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.4

66,983
120,182
124,607
278,794
154,516

0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.3

0.4
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4

123,421
153,467
140,705
209,698
134,298

0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2

0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3

67,615
70,047
49,998
68,294
56,601

0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

17

Appendix Table 3
Ways that victims discovered identity theft, by type of theft, 2012
Any identity theft
Percent
Standard error
Contacted by financial institution about suspicious
activity
Noticed fraudulent charges on account
Noticed money missing from account
Notified by a company or agency
Contacted financial institution to report a theft
Credit card declined, check bounced, or account closed
due to insufficient funds
Received a bill or contacted about an unpaid bill
Notified by a known person
Discovered through credit report or credit monitoring service
Problems applying for a loan, government benefits
or with income taxes
Notified by police
Received merchandise or a card that the victim did not
order or did not receive a product the victim had ordered
Another wayb

42.1%
18.6
9.9
6.4
5.5

1.7%
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.6

Existing account misuse
Percent
Standard error
45.2%
19.8
10.5
4.7
5.7

Other identity thefta
Percent
Standard error

1.8%
1.3
0.9
0.6
0.7

15.2%
7.5
4.6
20.9
3.3

2.5%
1.8
1.3
2.9
1.1

5.0
4.3
1.3
1.3

0.6
0.5
0.3
0.3

5.4
3.3
1.0
0.9

0.6
0.5
0.2
0.2

1.6
13.4
4.5
4.8

0.7
2.4
1.3
1.4

1.2
0.8

0.3
0.2

0.1
0.3

0.1
0.1

10.7
5.7

2.1
1.5

0.7
2.8

0.2
0.4

0.5
2.4

0.2
0.4

1.9 !
5.9

0.8
1.5

Note: Estimates are based on the most recent identity theft incident.
! Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.
aIncludes incidents involving the use of personal information to open a new account or for other fraudulent purposes.
bVictim noticed suspicious phishing activity, hacked computer, account information missing or stolen, or discovered the theft by accident.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

Appendix Table 4
Estimates and standard errors for figure 3: Identity theft
victims who knew how their personal information was
obtained, by type of theft, 2012
Type of identity theft
Total
Existing credit card account
Exsiting bank account
Other existing account
New account
Personal information
Multiple types*

Estimate
32.0%
24.4
35.4
39.0
36.7
33.4
46.5

Standard error
1.6%
1.9
2.3
4.3
5.2
5.2
4.3

*Includes victims who experienced more than one type of identity theft in a single
incident.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity
Theft Supplement, 2012.

Appendix Table 5
Standard errors for table 3: Identity theft victims who knew
something about the offender, by type of theft, 2012
Type of identity theft
Total
Existing account
Credit card
Bank
Other
New account
Personal information
Multiple types
Existing account
Other

Victim knew something about the offender
0.8%
0.7
0.6
1.2
3.0
4.5
4.6
2.8
2.9
5.4

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity
Theft Supplement, 2012.

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

18

Appendix Table 7
Estimates and standard errors for figure 4: Total out-of-pocket
loss for identity theft victims experiencing a loss of $1 or more,
2012

Appendix Table 6
Standard errors for table 4: Mean losses attributed to identity
theft and property crime, 2012
Mean
$3,404
$1,621
2,630
4,881
1,129

Identity theft
Property crime
Burglary
Motor vehicle theft
Theft

Percent of victims
Estimate
Standard error
48.8%
3.5%
17.9
2.5
8.4
1.7
8.5
1.7
9.9
1.8
3.1
1.0
3.4
1.0

Total out-of-pocket loss
$99 or less
$100–$249
$250–$499
$500–$999
$1,000–$2,499
$2,500–$4,999
$5,000 or more

Note: Standard errors for median and total losses were not calculated.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2012,
and National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity
Theft Supplement, 2012.

Appendix Table 8
Financial loss among victims who experienced at least one attempted or successful identity theft incident during the previous 12
months, by type of theft and type of loss, 2012

Total number of victims
Combined direct and
indirect loss
Mean
Median
Percent experiencing a loss
Direct loss
Mean
Median
Percent experiencing a loss
Direct out-of-pocket loss
Mean
Median
Percent experiencing a loss
Indirect loss
Mean
Median
Percent experiencing a loss
Total out-of-pocket loss
Mean
Median
Percent experiencing a loss

Existing account
Credit
card
Bank
Other
6,676,300 6,191,500 1,154,300

New
account
683,400

Personal
information Total
622,900 1,252,000

Multiple types
Existing
account
Other
824,700
427,400

Total identity
theft
16,580,500

Total
14,022,100

$1,769
$300
67.5

$1,008
$200
69.7

$1,435
$300
68.7

$580
$200
74.3

$1,027
$200
50.9

$6,510
$500
46.2

$21,804
$1,500
37.9

$3,187
$400
68.8

$2,772
$350
68.4

$3,974
$600
69.5

$1,409
$300
66.4

$1,003
$200
69.0

$1,448
$300
68.1

$551
$200
73.7

$1,057
$200
48.6

$7,135
$600
42.2

$9,650
$1,900
32.5

$2,140
$400
67.3

$1,161
$300
68.3

$4,119
$600
65.2

$4,313
$200
9.0

$2,188
$100
7.7

$4,176
$200
3.1

$1,754
$100
11.5

$1,600
$100
14.4

$1,598
$1,000
8.9

$19,463
$1,800
15.0

$8,464
$200
20.0

$3,691
$100
16.8

$14,335
$300
26.3

$4,168
$30
6.3

$257
$10
5.2

$39
$10
4.0

$434
$20
6.2

$133
$10
6.7

$75
$40
10.1

$37,797
$400
13.6

$5,901
$90
12.9

$14,327
$50
7.8

$338
$100
22.8

$4,804
$100
13.5

$1,565
$80
11.6

$1,991
$40
6.5

$1,444
$90
15.8

$1,264
$70
19.0

$863
$300
17.4

$34,352
$700
23.4

$9,001
$200
27.3

$8,572
$60
20.2

$9,409
$200
40.9

Note: See appendix table 9 for standard errors.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

19

Appendix Table 9
Standard errors for appendix table 8: Financial loss among victims who experienced at least one attempted or successful identity
theft incident during the previous 12 months, by type of theft and type of loss, 2012

Total number of victims
Combined direct and indirect loss
Mean
Percent experiencing a loss
Direct loss
Mean
Percent experiencing a loss
Direct out-of-pocket loss
Mean
Percent experiencing a loss
Indirect loss
Mean
Percent experiencing a loss
Total out-of-pocket loss
Mean
Percent experiencing a loss

Existing account
Credit card Bank
414,852 394,659

Total identity
theft
750,223

Total
673,954

$3,051
1.7

$2,281
1.8

$2,737
2.3

$2,712
1.7

$2,275
1.8

$4,866
0.8

Multiple types
Existing
Total
account
Other
136,881
104,263
68,425

Other
129,787

New
account
92,348

Personal
information
87,000

$1,718
2.2

$2,303
4.5

$6,057
5.4

$11,700
5.4

$4,149
4.1

$3,856
4.8

$4,660
6.2

$2,750
2.3

$1,674
2.2

$2,338
4.5

$6,361
5.4

$7,484
5.2

$3,369
4.1

$2,454
4.8

$4,749
6.4

$3,408
0.8

$4,784
0.6

$3,037
1.3

$2,896
2.9

$2,894
2.8

$10,985
3.8

$6,973
3.2

$4,482
3.5

$9,283
5.6

$4,779
0.7

$1,134
0.6

$438
0.7

$1,482
1.0

$814
2.0

$606
3.0

$15,942
3.6

$5,747
2.6

$9,280
2.4

$1,304
5.3

$5,152
1.0

$2,863
1.0

$3,244
1.0

$2,745
1.6

$2,563
3.3

$2,106
3.9

$15,101
4.6

$7,208
3.7

$7,021
3.9

$7,382
6.4

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

Appendix Table 10
Estimates and standard errors for figure 5: Victims who experienced financial or legal problems as a result of identity theft, by type
of theft, 2012
Type of problems experienced
Credit-related problemsb
Banking problemsc
Problems with debt collectors
Utilities cut off or new service denied
Legal problemsd
Other problemse

Any identity
theft
2.6%
2.1
3.3
0.6
0.5
0.5

Estimates
Exisiting
account misuse
1.6%
1.6
1.7
0.5
0.2 !
0.3

Other identity
thefta
11.6%
6.7
16.7
1.7 !
2.9
2.6

Any identity
theft
0.4%
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2

Standard errors
Exisiting
account misuse
0.3%
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1

Other identity
thefta
2.2%
1.6
2.6
0.8
1.1
1.0

Note: Estimates are based on the most recent identity theft incident.
! Interpret estimate with caution; estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.
aIncludes identity theft incidents involving the misuse of personal information to open a new account or for other fraudulent purposes.
bIncludes problems such as having to correct the same information on a credit report repeatedly, being turned down for credit or loans, or paying higher interest rates.
cIncludes problems such as being turned down for a checking account or having checks bounce.
dIncludes being the subject of a lawsuit or other criminal proceedings, or being arrested.
eIncludes problems such as being turned down for or losing a job or problems with income taxes.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

20

Appendix Table 11
Identity theft and violent crime victims who experienced emotional distress, by type of identity theft or violent crime, 2012

Total identity theft
Existing account misuse
Credit card
Bank
Other
New account
Personal information
Multiple types
Existing accountc
Otherd
Total violent victimization
Rape/sexual assault
Robbery
Aggravated assault
Simple assault

Total number
of victims
16,580,500
14,022,100
6,676,300
6,191,500
1,154,300
683,400
622,900
1,252,000
824,666
427,371
5,901,100
316,700
695,400
892,900
3,996,100

Significant work- or
school-related problemsa
1.5%
0.9
0.5
1.1
1.8 !
6.1 !
5.2 !
3.9
3.7 !
4.3 !
12.3%
27.5
14.0
9.8
11.4

Significant family or
friend relationship
problemsb
3.7%
2.9
1.6
3.7
5.9
10.1
10.4
5.9
5.5
6.6 !
18.9%
28.8
27.0
12.8
18.1

Distress related to crime
None
20.7%
21.9
25.6
18.2
21.1
14.3
16.4
12.1
16.2
4.3 !
19.0%
24.2 !
13.0
19.2
19.5

Mild
42.7%
44.2
46.7
42.1
41.6
33.9
27.2
38.0
41.2
31.8
29.7%
16.4
20.8
24.0
33.7

Moderate
26.2%
25.5
22.4
28.3
28.4
30.2
24.6
32.2
31.3
33.8
22.6%
17.5
26.0
30.3
20.7

Severe
10.5%
8.3
5.3
11.4
8.9
21.7
31.8
17.7
11.3
30.1
28.8%
41.9
40.1
26.5
26.0

Note: Estimates are based on the most recent identity theft incident. See appendix table 12 for standard errors.
! Interpret with caution; estimates based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.
aIncludes victims reporting significant problems with job or school, such as trouble with boss, coworker, or peers.
bIncludes 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 crime.
cIncludes victims who experienced two or more of the following: unauthorized use of a credit card, banking account, or other existing account.
dIncludes victims who experienced two or more of the following: use of an existing account, misuse of personal information to open a new account, or misuse of personal
information of other fraudulent purposes.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2012 and National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

Appendix Table 12
Standard errors for appendix table 11: Identity theft and violent crime victims who experienced emotional distress, by type of
identity theft or violent crime, 2012

Total identity theft
Existing account misuse
Credit card
Bank
Other
New account
Personal information
Multiple types
Existing account
Other
Total violent victimization
Rape/sexual assault
Robbery
Aggravated assault
Simple assault

Total number
of victims
750,223
673,954
414,852
394,659
129,787
92,348
87,000
136,881
104,263
68,425
355,502
51,953
85,975
101,200
273,940

Significant work- or
school-related problems
0.3%
0.2
0.2
0.4
1.0
2.3
2.2
1.4
1.6
2.4
1.3%
5.9
3.2
2.4
1.4

Significant family or
friend relationship
problems
0.5%
0.5
0.4
0.7
1.8
3.0
3.2
1.8
2.0
3.0
1.6%
6.0
4.2
2.7
1.8

Distress related to crime
None
1.3%
1.4
1.9
1.7
3.4
3.6
3.9
2.6
3.5
2.4
1.6%
5.6
3.1
3.3
1.9

Mild
1.7%
1.8
2.4
2.4
4.3
5.1
4.9
4.1
4.9
6.0
2.0%
4.8
3.8
3.7
2.4

Moderate
1.5%
1.5
1.8
2.1
3.9
4.9
4.7
3.9
4.6
6.1
1.8%
4.9
4.2
4.0
1.9

Severe
0.9%
0.8
0.8
1.3
2.3
4.3
5.2
3.1
2.9
5.9
2.0%
6.7
4.8
3.8
2.2

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

21

Appendix Table 13
Identity theft victims who resolved associated problems and length of time spent resolving problems, 2012
Time to resolve
Victim resolved problems associated
with theft
No
Yes
Length of time to resolve problems
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 length of time
Do not know

Total

Existing account
Credit
card
Bank

Other

New
account

8.8%
86.2

6.4%
89.7

4.7%
91.7

7.0%
89.4

13.2%
79.6

25.7%
57.0

34.2%
45.7

13.5%
83.3

9.7%
88.5

20.8%
73.3

52.3
19.3
17.7
7.3
2.1
0.8
0.5
5.0%

54.2
19.0
17.6
6.6
1.5
0.5
0.5
3.9%

60.9
17.7
12.5
6.2
1.5
0.3
0.8
3.6%

46.1
20.7
23.9
7.0
1.3
0.6
0.3
3.6%

57.7
17.6
13.4
7.4
2.7
1.2
-7.2%

41.9
17.3
15.9
9.4
10.8
3.7
1.0
17.3%

42.8
14.4
11.5
14.4
8.0
6.1
2.8
20.1%

36.4
24.4
21.2
12.1
3.6
2.2
-- !
3.2%

42.4
24.2
22.4
7.5
3.1 !
0.5 !
-- !
1.8% !

22.6
25.1
18.6
22.9
4.9 !
4.9 !
-- !
5.9% !

Total identity
theft

Personal
information

Multiple types
Existing
Total account
Other

Note: Estimates are based on the most recent identity theft incident. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. See appendix table 14 for standard errors.
--Less than 0.05%.
! Interpret estimate with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coefficient or variation greater than 50%.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

Appendix Table 14
Standard errors for appendix table 13: Identity theft victims who resolved associated problems and length of time spent resolving
problems, 2012
Time to resolve
Victim resolved problems associated
with theft
No
Yes
Length of time to resolve problems
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 length of time
Do not know

Total identity
theft

Total

Existing account
Credit
card
Bank

Other

New
account

Personal
information

Multiple types
Existing
Total account
Other

0.8%
1.3

0.7%
1.2

0.8%
1.4

1.0%
1.6

2.8%
3.7

4.6%
5.5

5.3%
5.6

2.7%
3.3

2.7%
3.4

5.1%
6.0

1.9
1.3
1.3
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.6

2.0
1.4
1.3
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.5

2.4
1.7
1.4
1.0
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.7

2.5
1.9
2.0
1.1
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.7

4.9
3.5
3.0
2.3
1.3
0.9
-2.0

6.7
4.9
4.8
3.7
4.0
2.3
1.2
3.9

7.7
5.2
4.7
5.2
3.9
3.4
2.3
4.3

4.4
3.8
3.6
2.8
1.5
1.1
-1.3

5.2
4.4
4.2
2.5
1.6
0.6
-1.1

6.1
6.3
5.6
6.1
2.9
2.9
-2.8

--Less than 0.05%.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

22

Appendix Table 15
Standard errors for table 5: Persons age 16 or older who experienced identity theft at any point in their lives, type of identity theft
they experienced outside of the past year, and ongoing problems from identity theft that occurred outside of the past year, 2012
Number of persons
Experienced at least one incident of identity theft during lifetime
No
Yes
Experienced at least one incident of identity theft outside of past 12 months
No
Yes
Type of identity theft experienced
Existing account
Credit card
Bank account
Other account
New account
Personal information
Multiple types
Existing accounts
Other

Percent of all persons

Percent with unresolved problems
resulting from identity theft

1,538,646
1,170,040

0.6%
0.5

~
0.6%

1,247,612
853,299

0.5%
0.3

0.1%
0.7

0.3
0.2
0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.1
---

0.5
0.5
1.0
2.5
2.7
2.4
3.1
3.4
4.2

713,065
499,949
374,551
96,275
159,840
183,122
150,748
82,447
108,544

~Not applicable.
--Less than 0.05%.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

Appendix Table 16
Estimates and standard errors for figure 9: Identity theft victims who reported work/school or relationship problems or distress,
by length of time spent resolving associated financial and credit problems, 2012
Time spent resolving problems due to identity theft
1 day or less
2 to 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

Work/school problemsa
Estimate
Standard error
0.4%
0.2%
0.5
0.3
1.4
0.6
2.7
1.3
1.4
1.6
3.0
3.6

Family/friend
relationship problemsb
Estimate
Standard error
1.6%
0.4%
2.4
0.8
4.6
1.1
1.8
1.0
14.1
5.1
14.4
7.7

Feelings that incident
was severely distressing
Estimate
Standard error
3.9%
0.7%
7.2
1.4
13.6
2.0
18.4
3.4
34.3
7.2
46.6
11.4

aIncludes victims reporting significant problems with job or school, such as trouble with boss, coworker, or peers.

bIncludes 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 crime.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

23

Appendix Table 17
Victims who did and did not report identity theft to police, by type of theft and reason for not reporting, 2012
Victim response
Reported to police
Did not report to police
Reasons for not reporting
Did not know to reportc
No monetary loss
Handled it another wayd
Did not think the police could helpe
Offender was a family member or friend
Personal reasonsf
Location of the theftg
Otherh

Total identity
theft
9.3%
90.5
15.2
28.9
57.9
20.2
1.5
3.3
1.3
1.3

Total
6.2%
93.7

Existing account
Credit
card
Bank
3.7% 8.8%
96.1
90.9

Other
5.8%
94.2

New
account
23.0%
76.5

15.0
29.9
59.2
19.5
1.2
3.0
1.4
0.7

14.4
32.6
59.8
18.4
0.3 !
2.9
1.6
0.7

16.5
30.4
52.1
29.3
4.1 !
3.1 !
2.0 !
1.1 !

14.1
21.4
47.0
25.2
6.6 !
4.7 !
0.9 !
5.0 !

15.4
26.6
59.8
18.9
1.5
3.0
1.0
0.7

Personal
information
39.5%
59.9
23.2
20.4
34.0
21.2
2.6 !
10.3 !
-- !
12.7

Multiple types
Existing
Total
accounta
Otherb
21.8%
17.0%
31.1%
77.6
82.5
68.0
15.0
23.4
55.8
25.9
2.5 !
4.9
1.0 !
2.5 !

15.8
23.4
59.0
23.5
2.6 !
2.9 !
0.9 !
1.3 !

13.2
23.3
48.4
31.6
2.2 !
9.8 !
1.2 !
5.5 !

Note: Estimates are based on the most recent identity theft incident. Detail may not sum to total due to victims who reported multiple reasons for not contacting police. See
appendix table 18 for standard errors.
--Less than 0.05%.
! Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.
aIncludes victims who experienced 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.
cIncludes victims who did not know they could report the incident and victims who did not know what agency was responsible for identity theft crimes.
dIncludes victims who reported the incident to another organization, such as a credit card company; victims who took care of it themselves; victims who reported that the
credit card company, bank, or other organization took care of the problem; victims who reported a family member took care of the problem; and victims who thought the
credit card company, bank, or other organization would handle the problem.
eIncludes victims who didn’t think the police would do anything, victims who didn’t want to bother the police, victims who thought it was too late for the police to help, and
victims who couldn’t identify the offender or provide much information to the police.
fIncludes victims who were afraid to report the incident, victims who were embarrassed, victims who thought it was too inconvenient, and victims who didn’t want to think
about the incident.
gIncludes victims of identity theft that occurred out of state or outside of the United States.
hIncludes victims who reported that the identity theft just occurred or is still ongoing and plan to report soon, victims who were not sure it was a crime, victims who were
contacted by law enforcement, and victims who did not report for other reasons.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

24

Appendix Table 18
Standard errors for table 17: Victims who did and did not report identity theft to police, by type of theft and reason for not
reporting, 2012
Victim response
Reported to police
Did not report to police
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
Location of the theft
Other

Total identity
theft
0.8%
1.1
1.2
1.6
1.9
1.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.3

Total
0.7%
1.0
1.2
1.7
1.9
1.4
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.2

Existing account
Credit
card
Banking
0.7%
1.2%
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.2
2.4
1.7
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.3

1.6
2.1
2.5
1.8
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.3

Other
1.8%
2.2

New
account
4.4%
4.8

3.1
4.1
4.6
4.0
1.5
1.3
1.0
0.8

4.0
4.8
6.1
5.1
2.7
2.3
1.0
2.4

Personal
information
5.5%
5.6
5.7
5.4
6.5
5.5
2.0
3.9
-4.4

Multiple types
Existing
Total account
Other
3.4%
3.6%
6.0%
3.7
4.0
6.3
3.1
3.8
4.8
4.0
1.2
1.8
0.8
1.3

3.7
4.4
5.4
4.4
1.5
1.6
0.9
1.0

5.0
6.4
7.8
7.1
2.0
4.3
1.5
3.2

--Less than 0.05%.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

Appendix Table 19
Identity theft victims who contacted an organization, by type of theft, type of organization, and credit bureau action, 2012
Organization
Percent organization
Credit card company or bank
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Consumer agencyc
Document issuing agencyd
Credit monitoring service
Credit bureaue
Percent credit bureau
Placed a fraud alert on their credit report
Requested a credit report
Requested corrections to their credit report
Provided a police report to the credit bureau
Placed a freeze on their credit report

Total

Existing account
Credit
card
Bank

Other

New
account

86.0%
1.0
0.9
2.7
5.8
8.7

89.6%
0.4
0.6
1.2
4.2
6.2

93.8%
0.4 !
0.3 !
1.2
4.5
6.4

93.0%
0.1 !
0.6
1.3
3.7
5.7

46.7%
1.6 !
2.0 !
1.0 !
4.3
7.6

64.8%
4.9 !
3.8 !
5.2 !
16.0
30.0

26.4%
5.0 !
1.7 !
21.3
11.8
19.3

86.9%
4.4
1.8 !
8.8
15.4
20.2

92.0%
1.6 !
1.3 !
8.9
12.9
11.0

77.2%
9.7 !
2.6 !
8.4 !
20.4
38.0

69.8
65.6
41.2
18.5
37.8

63.5
59.8
36.9
12.0
35.1

57.7
52.9
35.1
9.7
27.4

71.9
63.8
39.7
15.5
45.2

57.6
77.0
33.9 !
9.6 !
32.2 !

81.6
79.7
63.7
27.6
45.4

81.4
80.5
26.9 !
30.3 !
28.9 !

76.1
66.9
44.5
27.3
45.2

82.6
59.1
41.8 !
25.7 !
53.4

72.5
71.2
46.0
28.2
40.6

Total identity
theft

Personal
information

Multiple types
Existing
Total accounta
Otherb

Note: Estimates are based on the most recent identity theft incident. See appendix table 20 for standard errors.
aIncludes victims who experienced 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: the 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.
ePercent of victims who took actions with a credit bureau, based on the number of victims who contacted a credit bureau. Details may sum to more than 100% because some
respondents took multiple actions with the credit bureau.
! Interpret with caution; estimates based on 10 or fewer sample cases or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

25

Appendix Table 20
Standard errors for appendix table 19: Identity theft victims who contacted an organization, by type of theft, type of organization,
and credit bureau action, 2012
Organization
Percent organization
Credit card company or bank
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Consumer agency
Document issuing agency
Credit monitoring service
Credit bureau
Percent credit bureau
Placed a fraud alert on their credit report
Requested a credit report
Requested corrections to their credit report
Provided a police report to the credit bureau
Placed a freeze on their credit report

Existing account
Credit
card
Bank

Total identity
theft

Total

1.3%
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8

1.2%
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.7

1.2%
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.8
0.9

1.3%
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.9

3.9
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.9

4.9
5.0
4.7
3.0
4.7

6.6
6.6
6.2
3.6
5.7

6.6
7.0
7.0
4.9
7.1

Other

New
account

4.4%
0.9
1.0
0.7
1.5
2.1

5.3%
2.1
1.8
2.1
3.8
4.9

13.0
11.2
12.3
7.4
12.1

7.1
7.4
8.8
7.9
8.9

Personal
information
4.8%
2.2
1.2
4.4
3.4
4.2
9.0
9.2
9.9
10.3
10.2

Multiple types
Existing
Total account Other
3.0%
1.5
0.9
2.2
2.9
3.3
7.2
7.9
8.2
7.2
8.2

2.9%
1.1
1.0
2.6
3.1
2.9
9.9
12.8
12.7
11.1
12.9

5.7%
3.6
1.8
3.4
5.1
6.3
9.0
9.2
9.9
8.8
9.7

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

Appendix Table 21
Standard errors for table 6: Actions victims and nonvictims took during the past 12 months to reduce the risk of identity theft, by
whether the action was taken in response to the theft, 2012

Type of action
Any
Checked credit report
Changed passwords on financial accounts
Purchased identity theft insurance/credit monitoring service
Shredded/destroyed documents with personal information
Checked bank or credit statements
Used identity theft security program on computer
Purchased identity theft protection

Total
0.6%
0.8
0.7
0.3
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.2

Nonvictims
0.7%
0.8
0.7
0.3
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.2

Percent of persons age 16 or older
Victim during prior 12 months
Action taken in response
Action taken independently
Total
to identity theft
of identity theft in past year
0.7%
1.0%
1.4%
1.8
1.1
1.7
1.8
1.4
1.6
1.0
0.6
0.7
1.5
1.0
1.7
1.1
1.4
1.7
1.4
0.6
1.2
0.7
0.5
0.4

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Identity Theft Supplement, 2012.

V i c t i m s o f i d e n t i t y t h e f t, 2012 | DEC e m b e r 2013

26

The Bureau of Justice Statistics, located in the Office of Justice Programs,
U.S. Department of Justice, collects, analyses, and disseminates statistical
information on crime, criminal offenders, victims of crime, and the operation
of justice systems at all levels of government. William J. Sabol is acting
director.
This report was written by Erika Harrell, Ph.D. and Lynn Langton, Ph.D.
Shannan Catalano, Ph.D. verified the report. Agency partners for the Identity
Theft Supplement (ITS) included Office for Victims of Crime, National
Institute of Justice, and the Federal Trade Commission.
Vanessa Curto and Jill Thomas edited the report, and Barbara Quinn
produced the report.
December 2013, NCJ 243779

Office of Justice Programs
Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods
www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Identity Theft Supplement
An Overview of Issues and Problems in 2008 and the Resulting Changes
for 2012 and Beyond
Problem 1. Inability to distinguish attempted from successful incidents of identity
theft.
Cause
Instrument dichotomy- Successes versus Attempts
The household NCVS identity theft questions measure whether a household was
victimized by the use or attempted use of personal information for fraudulent purposes.
The supplement, however, was designed to differentiate episodes of id theft as either
successes (meaning some monetary loss, new account opened, or personal information
was used to complete a fraudulent act) or attempts. Attempts were directed to a separate
‘Attempted but failed module’ and therefore, were skipped out of questions pertaining to
the most recent date of the identity theft (items 7d1 and 7d2), victim impact, and direct
financial loss. The attempt module included modified questions pertaining to victim
response, police response, and relationship to the offender. The survey instrument blurs
the distinction between the two modules. For example, a victim of credit card theft should
be in the attempt module if the offender was not successful in charging anything to the
credit card. However, in the first question of the attempt module, one response option is
that the victim discovered the attempted identity theft after he/she ‘contacted the credit
card company to report a theft and was told that fraudulent charges had already been
made.’

Solution
Single instrument with identification of successes and attempts during the data
analysis
Rather than attempt to separate successes from attempts in the instrument, all victims and
attempted victims will be asked the same questions. The identification of attempted
versus successful identity theft victimizations will be done during the analysis on the
basis of whether the victim suffered any direct loss as a result of the theft. If the direct
losses are zero and the offender did not obtain any money or services using the victim’s
identity, this is an attempted theft. If the offender obtained any money or services,
regardless of whether the victim was reimbursed, this will be classified as a successful
incident of identity theft. The single module approach will significantly simplify the
instrument and provides a clearer means of distinguishing between attempted and
successful incidents of identity theft.
Problem 2. Inability to report a 1-year prevalence of the number and percentage of
identity theft victims.
Cause
Missing date information
Asking respondents to remember incidents during a two-year reference period and then
ask them to pinpoint the year and month in which the incident occurred was challenging

for respondents. For 148 cases (success only), the month of the last incident of id theft
was missing so it is not known whether the id theft occurred in the past year or the past
two years. The date of last incident was not asked of those respondents in the attempted
module at all, so it was not possible to attribute attempts to a one- or two- year reference
period. Therefore, all 2008 data had to be reported for a two-year reference period, which
is more complicated for data uses who are generally conditioned to expect annual rates
and frequencies.
Solution
One-year reference period
In order to simplify the instrument and ensure the ability to report on the annual
prevalence of identity theft victimization, the reference period was reduced from two
years to one year. An analysis of the 2008 cases that could be classified as within a oneor two- year reference period, revealed a disproportionate number of incidents occurring
during the most recent 12-months, compared to the number occurring in months 13-24.
This is in line with other research that suggests that a 12-month reference period results
in less recall error than a longer reference period. Thus, the one year reference period not
only simplifies the instrument but also eliminates some of the error associated with a
respondent’s inability to recall information that happened more than 12-months earlier.
Long-term consequences
OVC raised concerns that identity theft victimization can take years to resolve. The
reduction in reference period would exclude victims who experienced identity theft more
than 12-month prior to the interview but were still experiencing the consequences of the
identity theft. In order to include these victims and ensure that these potentially serious
cases were being picked up, a new section on the long-term consequences of identity
theft was added to the instrument. The new section targets respondents who experienced
the identity theft more than one-year previously and would have been excluded from the
majority of questions about the consequences of identity theft victimizations, but who are
still working to resolve the problems associated with the theft.
Problem 3. Inability to attribute the consequences of identity theft victimization to a
single type or incident of identity theft.
Cause
Lack of specification following the screener
In the 2008 ITS, identity theft victims did not specify whether they experienced one or
more incidents of identity theft. Regardless of the number of incidents experienced,
victims moved forward from the screener to the follow-up questions without any
specification of the particular incident to which they referred with their responses.
Therefore, the response to the detailed questions cannot be attributed to a particular type
or incident of identity theft. For the victims who reported multiple types of identity theft,
it was unknown whether the multiple types occurred at the same time or separate times,
yet the follow-up questions do not ask the respondent to consider one particular incident

in his or her responses. A victim that experienced multiple incidents may have responded
one way one time and another way another time, but these responses are all melded into
one. Similarly, a victim may have experienced more than one incident of the same type of
theft (for example, the victim experienced two separate situations in which an existing
credit card account number was misused) but again, the follow-up questions assume that
the response and consequences are associated with a single incident.
Solution
Focus on most recent incident
The revised instrument provides the respondent with instructions on how to define an
incident (i.e. please count a series of related misuses or transactions as a single incident
or occasion) and then asks if they experienced one or more incident during the prior 12months. For those who experienced more than one incident, the field representative
instructs them to consider only the most recent incident in their response to the follow-up
questions. While this approach may introduce some error among respondents who have
difficulty discerning whether misuses should be attributed to the same incident, it
provides substantial clarification to the 2008 approach.

Problem 4. Inability to adjust for possible double counting of monetary losses due to
individuals with joint accounts.
Cause
The complexity of ascertaining how to treat joint accounts
Ascertaining whether the respondent is reporting the misuse of a joint account that has
already been noted by another respondent is difficult. A victim could be a joint account
holder with someone under the age of 16, someone outside of the household, or have
experienced the misuse of more than one account with only one being a joint account and
in all these scenarios the victim’s responses would not be examples of a potential double
counting of the same victimization.
The 2008 ITS contained a series of questions pertaining to joint account. However, for
several reasons the 2008 data was ultimately not adjusted to account for these joint
accounts. First, joint accounts were only defined for successes and not attempts.
Therefore, we could only adjust for direct loss in successes and not indirect loss for
attempts with joint accounts. Joint accounts with persons outside of the survey age range
(under the age of 16) could only be identified for accounts with persons within the
household and not for accounts with persons outside the household. Additionally, victims
of multiple types of identity theft only reported if one of the accounts used was a joint
account but did not specify the number of used accounts that were jointly held or if any
of the used accounts were not joint accounts. Therefore, it was not clear how much of the
reported 2-year financial loss should be adjusted for joint accounts.
Solution

Removal of joint account questions
It was determined that the joint account questions were unnecessarily burdensome and
complicated for respondents without having much practical use. These questions were
removed in the revised instrument. In terms of the prevalence of identity theft, the
argument can be made that each holder of a joint account that is misused is a victim of a
crime and may suffer personal consequences as a result of this victimization. The direct
financial losses may be somewhat overestimated because of the double counting of loss
coming from a small number of misused joint accounts. The readers will be made known
of this potential error and also of the areas in which the direct financial losses associated
with identity theft may be underestimated (for example, the losses suffered by child
identity theft victims).
Problem 5: Inability to report on victim impact for all victims
Cause
Attempt versus success modules
In 2008, the victim impact items were only asked for successes. However, it is quite
likely that even if nothing was successfully taken or used, a person will still need to go
through the process of acquiring new cards, information, credit checks/alerts, etc. and this
could have a similar impact on the victim’s life, stress and relationships as a successful
crime. The inability to report on the emotional and physiological impact of identity theft
for all victims may have been confusing for the reader. It can also be seen as diminishing
the potential seriousness of having some one attempt to use one’s personal information.
Solution
Single module approach
The elimination of the attempted versus successful modules will solve this problem. All
victims will be asked questions about the emotional and physiological impact of
victimization.
Problem 6: Offender data not collected for the majority of victims
Cause
Skip patterns
First, the skip process for “success” did not function properly. The skip pattern
inadvertently skipped out single types of successful/completed thefts. Only successes
from multiple types with a single theft and all attempts were given the offender questions.
Only 276 cases out of the 1970 successful cases received the offender questions.
Second, offender questions were only asked if the victim experienced one type of identity
theft(s) or if multiple types of theft occurred during a single episode. If the victim
experienced more than one incident of the same type of id theft (e.g. multiple credit card
thefts during the course of two years) the offender information would only be provided
for one incident. If the victim experienced multiple types of id theft resulting from
separate incidents (86 cases), the offender questions were not asked.

Solution
Simplification and checking of CAPI instrument
The revised instrument has been simplified to reduce the number of skip patterns and
check items. This will reduce error on the part of the field representatives and the
programmers of the CAPI instrument. BJS has also requested a review copy of the CAPI
instrument prior to administration to ensure that it functions properly and the skip
patterns were programmed correctly.
Problem 7: Inability to adjust for victim risk and exposure
Cause
The 2008 ITS did not ask respondents questions about credit card or banking account
ownership and use. Thus the prevalence of respondents who experienced the misuse of an
existing credit card or banking account is based on the total population, rather than on the
population of those respondents who had these types of existing accounts in the first
place. Without this baseline information there was no way to assess individual risk or
exposure which severely limited our ability to establish demographic estimates and to
understand patterns of victimization.
Solution
The revised instrument contains questions in the screener about whether the respondent
had a credit card and banking account during the prior 12-months. Respondents who did
not have an existing credit card are skipped out of the question about the misuse of an
existing credit card account and the same with banking accounts. This change will allow
for the calculation of a rate of credit card account misuse among those who had a credit
card which is a more accurate calculation.
Problem 8: Inability to establish causal ordering of risk avoidance behaviors and
victimization
Cause
The 2008 ITS asked all respondents, victims and non-victims, to report on whether they
had engaged in risk avoidance behaviors, such as shredding documents and getting
regular credit reports during the past year. However, the 2008 ITS did not ask whether
these behaviors occurred prior to or as the result of an identity theft victimization. Thus,
the analysis could not speak to the effectiveness of these behaviors in preventing identity
theft or to the percentage of respondents that engaged in these behaviors proactively
versus the percentage that engaged in these behaviors to prevent further victimization.
Solution
In the revised ITS, a respondent who reports ‘yes’ to any of the risk avoidance behavior
questions is immediately asked “Did you do this in response to the most recent or any
prior misuse of your personal information?” This addition will not increase the
respondent’s burden significantly but will provide important context for when the

behavior began in relation to any identity theft victimization that the respondent
experienced.