Figures and Trends On Identity Theft FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION INFORMATION ON IDENTITY THEFT FOR CONSUMERS AND VICTIMS Customer Service The Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse was launched in November of 1999. As of September 30, 2000, the Federal Trade Commission has processed over 26,000 entries from consumers and victims of identity theft. Of these entries, 60 percent were complaints, reporting incidents in which an identity theft occurred. Forty percent were requests for information. Consumers can contact the Clearinghouse in a variety of ways, but the most common mode of contact was by phone: 89 percent of the entries were received via the toll-free Identity Theft Hotline; 11 percent were received via the online complaint form located at www.consumer.gov/idtheft; and 2 percent were received by mail. Consumer Demographics Consumers contacted the Clearinghouse from all 50 states, including the District of Columbia, with the largest number of complaints coming from California, New York, Florida, Texas and Illinois (See Figure 1 for a map showing number of complaints by state, Figure 7 for the distribution of theft types for the top 5 states, and Figure 4 for the cities with the highest number of complaints). However, the highest concentration of complaints per 100,000 people came from, in order, the District of Columbia, Nevada, Arizona, California, Maryland, Florida, Oregon, and Washington (See Figure 2 for a map of complaints by state per capita and Figure 3 for the cities with the highest per capita complaint rate). Sixty-three percent of complainants provided their age. The average age of consumers reporting a complaint was 41 years of age. The age distribution of complainants is provided below (See Figure 5 for the age distribution for all complaints):
*Percentage is based upon the total number of complaints where consumers reported his/her age. Type of Identity Theft Complaint The following are the most common types of identity theft complaints reported by consumers. (See Figures 6, 7 and 8 for the theft type distributions for all complaints, by the top 5 states, and by region):
Suspect Information About 60 percent of consumers registering a complaint provided some identifying information about the suspect such as a name, address, or phone number. According to the complainants’ information, the largest number of suspects came from the following cities: Los Angeles, Brooklyn, Chicago, Detroit, and Miami. Approximately 14 percent of all complainants had a personal relationship with the suspect. The distribution by type of complainant-suspect relationship is provided below. (See Figures 9 and 10 for graphical representations of this distribution):
Method of Obtaining Information In addition to providing information about the suspect, one in five complainants also provided information about how the identity thief obtained the complainant’s personal or financial information. For those complainants who were able to provide this information, the most common method by which information was obtained was by the loss of a wallet or purse (47 percent), followed by mail theft or fraudulent address change (23 percent). (See Figure 11 for the graphical representation of this information.) Over 30 percent of complainants noticed the identity theft within one month of its occurrence. However, some complainants were unaware of the theft for as long as five years. The average amount of time between the date the identity theft occurred and the date it was noticed was 15 months. (See Figure 12 for the distribution of the number of months between the date the identity theft occurred and the date it was noticed.) Harm Suffered Over 99 percent of all complainants were able to provide information about the number of accounts opened by the identity thief. The average number of accounts opened was two. However, over 25 percent of complainants had more than two accounts opened fraudulently and almost three percent had at least 11 accounts opened. (See Figure 13 for the distribution of the number of accounts opened.) In most instances, consumers are not ultimately held liable for debts created by identity thieves. Other than direct financial losses, the most common harm reported by complainants as a result of identity theft is long-term damage to their credit report through derogatory or inaccurate information: 52 percent of complainants report that they have been harmed in this manner. Other ways complainants have suffered as a result of identity theft include: significant time spent resolving the problems caused by identity theft (11 percent), harassment by debt collectors or creditors (8 percent), loan denials (6 percent) and credit denials or credit card rejections (4 percent). Steps Taken by Victim in Response to Identity Theft One of the primary purposes of the Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse is to provide consumers with information about identity theft prevention and protection. In addition, if a consumer has already been a victim of identity theft, they are encouraged to contact the fraud departments of each of the three major credit bureaus, to notify the appropriate financial institutions of any accounts that have been fraudulently accessed or opened, and to file a report with their local police department. At the time of their initial filing of a complaint, only 43 percent of complainants had notified all three major credit bureaus, but 93 percent of those who had notified the credit bureaus had fraud alerts placed on their files. Thirty percent of all complainants had not notified any of the three major credit bureaus. Approximately 57 percent of complainants for whom information was available had notified the financial institutions involved in the identity theft, but only 29 percent of those notifying the institutions had sent written notification to these institutions (See Figure 14 for financial institution contact). Also, 59 percent of all complainants had notified their local police department of their identity theft, and over 60 percent of those notifying their police department had obtained a police report (See Figure 15 for law enforcement contact and Figure 16 for a map of law enforcement reporting rates by state). Case Study – New York City The Clearinghouse Database is flexible enough to permit analyses at the local level. Recently, an analysis was produced for the New York City metropolitan area. In the future, we expect to produce reports on other major metropolitan areas to assist local law enforcement and policy makers. Some results from our New York City analysis are provided below. As of September 30, 2000, the Federal Trade Commission has processed 1,033 entries from consumers in New York City. Of these entries, 77% are complaints and 23% are inquiries. The following are the most common types of identity theft reported by New York City complainants: credit card fraud (70 percent), unauthorized phone or utility services (24 percent), bank fraud (13 percent), fraudulent loans (10 percent), and government documents or benefits (10 percent) (See Figure 17 for New York City complaints by theft type). Consumers located in the following areas of in New York City provided the greatest number of complaints: Brooklyn (29 percent), Manhattan (28 percent), Bronx (11 percent), Queens (10 percent), and Staten Island (6 percent) (See Figure 18 for complaints by area of New York City and Figure 19 for complaints by suspect location in New York City). Other than direct financial losses, the most common harm reported by New York City complainants as a result of identity theft is long-term damage to their credit report through derogatory or inaccurate information (57 percent), followed by significant time spent resolving the problems caused by identity theft (11 percent), harassment by debt collectors or creditors (7 percent), and loan denials (4 percent). |
IDENTITY
THEFT