ITRC's 5th Annual Aftermath Study Released: An Analysis of Identity Theft Through...

ITRC's 5th Annual Aftermath Study Released: An Analysis of Identity Theft
Through the Victim's Eyes

SAN DIEGO, June 4 /PRNewswire/ -- The Identity Theft Resource Center(R)
(ITRC) today released an important report discussing the impact of identity
theft victimization. Since 2003, the Identity Theft Resource Center has
conducted annual victimization surveys to study the impact of identity theft
crimes on its victims. Now in its fifth year, the report allows us to analyze
the data, draw some conclusions, map trends and identify areas for further
research. While ITRC reports the data in terms of percentages, it is critical
that we remember those numbers represent people. These are people with lives
that have been interrupted, altered, torn apart and/or changed.
According to several sources, The Aftermath is the only study of its kind.
This study reflects only the experiences of confirmed identity theft victims
who have worked with the ITRC, and is not a census or general population-based
study. The questions asked ranged from the emotional impact this crime has
had on their lives all the way through to their ability to recover their good
name. It includes the financial loss to the business community in goods and
services.
The Aftermath 2007 does not distinguish between those who are still being
affected from those who are not. Thus, certain measures of victimization
represent conservative estimates since the assessment was limited to the
ending date of the study.
The following are highlights of The Aftermath 2007 study. An analysis of
the entire study was done by two business analysts and a psychologist, with
their comments included in the full report, which can be found on the ITRC
website: www.idtheftcenter.org
-- Prevalence of Types of Identity Theft Crimes: Financial identity theft
crimes were reported by 78% of the respondents, 2% reported criminal
cases only, and 2% reported governmental issues only. The rest were
combination cases: financial and criminal (7%), financial and
governmental (9%), and a mixture of all three types (3%). (Tables 1A
and 1B)

-- Uses of victim information: More than one-half (57%) of the 2007
sample reported their personal information had been used to open a new
line of credit in their name. 13% of all respondents noted their
information was used for obtaining new cable and/or utility services.
(Table 2) It should be noted, check fraud and debit card fraud are
increasing. The ITRC continues to predict that criminals will turn to
other types of identity theft when it becomes more difficult to open
new lines of credit. This may indicate changes due to the sampling
taken.

-- Non-financial forms of identity theft: In 2007, 62% of respondents
reported thieves had committed financial crimes that resulted in
warrants being issued in the victim's name -- more than
two-and-one-half times higher than in 2006. All areas of criminal
identity theft combined with other issues increased between 2006 and
2007. It should be noted that identity thieves continued to obtain
government assistance and benefits using the victim's information.
(Table 4)

-- Sources of Stolen Information: With a five-year history to study, it
is clear that, according to the respondents, about one-third of cases
were started by a person known to the victim. The next highest
category of identity theft originated from a lost/stolen wallet or PDA.
Scams have become more of a problem for victims in 2007 than in
previous years. Identity theft due to mail theft and theft of
information from a burglary of a car or home has dropped in the past
few years. (Table 5)

-- Moment of Discovery: In 2007, 82% of victims found out about the
identity theft through an adverse action compared to 76% in 2006. Only
10% of respondents found out about the crime due to proactive measures
taken by businesses and 8% saw something unusual on their credit
report. 42% reported that they found out within the first three months
of the crime. One analyst believes that people found out more quickly
because of the more aggressive nature of collection efforts and the
tightening of the credit market. (Table 8)

-- Costs to Victim: Respondents in 2007 spent an average of $550 in
out-of-pocket expenses for damage done to an existing account. In
reference to new accounts, respondents spent an average of $1,865,
compared to $1,342 in 2006.

-- Cost to Business: In 2007, the average loss in goods and services to
businesses, as reported by survey respondents, was $48,941 compared to
$87,303 in 2006. Six individuals exceeded $100,000, with one in excess
of $700,000. This study only includes respondents who contacted the
ITRC in 2007 and is not necessarily indicative of a national business
loss average.

-- Victim Hours Repairing Damage: In The Aftermath 2007, victims reported
spending an average of 116 hours repairing the damage done by identity
theft to an existing account used or taken over by the thief. Answers
also included 6,000 hours, 8,640 hours, and 5 years of time (outliers).
In cases where a new account was created, respondents reported an
average of 158 hours to clean up the mess with outliers of "endless"
and "too many to count."

-- Extended involvement: In 2007, 70% of victims indicated that it took
up to 12 months to clear issues of all misinformation, compared to 50%
in 2006. A moderate amount of victims (12%) took one to two years.
Unfortunately, some 19% indicated that it took two or more years to
resolve their case. (Table 9)

-- Response by Creditors, Utilities and Collection Agencies: As in
previous years, credit issuers, utility companies and collection
agencies continue to rate poorly in their handling of identity theft
victims.

-- Inability to Clear Negative Records: Credit agencies, either by
putting negative information back in records (31%) or not removing it
in the first place (32%), topped the list of reasons for victims'
inability to clear their records. Other prominent responses include a
Social Security Number tied to another person's file (22%) and victims'
fraud alerts being ignored (19%). An increase was also seen in the
sale of credit accounts even though the fraudulent account was cleared
by the creditor and the inability to get proof even with a police
report. (Table 11)

-- Unexpected secondary effects: Victims reported a number of additional
problems including: increases in insurance rates, current credit card
interest rates and criminal records not being cleared. The inability to
get credit resonated with the majority of respondents (64%). In
addition, 53% have collection agencies still calling; 27% had credit
cards cancelled (even though the accounts were being properly
maintained); 18% said it affected their ability to get a job; and 14%
reported tenancy issues. (Table 10)

-- Relationship of Imposter to Victim: It is important to note that a
large percentage of respondents seem to have been victimized by those
who may have had easy access to personal identifying information
including friends, family members, ex-spouses/significant other, or
those in close contact with the victim, such as co-workers. (Table 7)

-- Child Identity Theft: In 2007, 47% of this special case group reported
that one, both or a step-parent was the thief. Another 12% reported
that it was another family member. 18% said that the person had access
to information but is not related and 24% did not know how the case
first began. The age of the victim when the crime FIRST began varied
-- with 18% it was under five years old. It should be noted that the
crime may have been discovered years later.

-- Victim Response to Family or Child Identity Theft: Throughout the
five-year range, we have seen spikes in categories such as "family
supports victim in trying to force responsibility on the thief."
Family support does appear to be increasing, yet some families are torn
or still in denial or want the victim to drop the case. (Table 16)

-- Emotional Impact: Few significant positive changes have occurred in
the feelings of victims and in terms of reported victim symptomology.
More than 49% of the respondents reported a stressed family life; 22%
felt betrayed by unsupportive family members and friends; and 23% said
their family didn't understand. (Table 17) The strongest feelings
expressed were rage or anger; betrayal; unprotected by police; personal
financial fears; sense of powerlessness; sense they were grieving,
annoyed, frustrated or exhausted; sleep disturbances; an inability to
trust people; and the desire to give up and stop fighting the system.
Long-term emotional responses included suicidal; feeling captive; ready
to give up; and felt that they have lost everything. (Table 18)

About the ITRC: Established in 1999, the ITRC is a nonprofit, grant and
donation funded organization. The Identity Theft Resource Center has
conducted a similar Aftermath study every year since 2003, noting changes in
trends and patterns. In 2004, it was presented with the National Crime
Victim's Service Provider Award by the U.S. Department of Justice and Attorney
General. It is a well respected voice of identity theft victims and works
collaboratively with other entities to battle this crime. In 2007, the ITRC
was a national grant recipient from the Department of Justice's Office of
Justice Programs. The grant was awarded to four non-profit programs in the
United States that provide direct assistance to victims of identity theft and
financial fraud. This award comes as a direct result of the President's Task
Force on Identity Theft, established in May of 2006.
This project was supported by Grant No. 2007-VF-GX-K038 awarded by the
Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of
Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the ITRC and do not
necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department
of Justice
SOURCE Identity Theft Resource Center

Linda Foley, +1-858-693-7935 x 101, lfoley@idtheftcenter.org