Identity theft data reveal variation in victims’ crime reporting behavior

In his article published this month in the journal, Victims & Offenders, author Dylan Reynolds noted that the true scope and nature of identity theft isn’t known, as it often is not reported to police. He further noted that identity theft is a unique crime, since the effects of victimization vary significantly, “with many individual victims recuperating losses with relative ease while others pay out of pocket for losses even after attempting to recuperate funds.” He wanted “to explore comparisons between those victims who recuperate losses and those who pay out of pocket by testing for moderating relationships between suffering out-of-pocket loss and other measures of seriousness” on victims’ decisions to report identity theft to police, financial institutions, or credit bureaus. Reynolds used data from the 2016 National Crime Victimization Survey–Identity Theft Supplement (NCVS-ITS), which he retrieved from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD). The NCVS-ITS was first administered in 2008, then every two years after that, to persons aged 16 or older who completed an in-person NCVS interview. Its primary purpose was to measure the prevalence of identity theft in the US from a nationally representative sample of American households. It also measured the characteristics of identity theft victims, and patterns of reporting to the police, credit bureaus, and other authorities. In addition, the survey was designed to collect important characteristics of identity theft, such as how the victim’s personal information was obtained; the physical, emotional and financial impact on victims; offender information; and the measures people take to avoid or minimize their risk of becoming an identity theft victim.

Reynolds analyzed data from the 2016 NCVS-ITS respondents who had been victims of identity theft in the prior 12 months, and who had some value of money, goods, or services taken, and had spent time resolving the incident’s impact. He found that many victims reported identity theft to financial institutions, while few reported to law enforcement or credit bureaus. But increased incident seriousness did relate to higher rates of reporting to law enforcement and credit bureaus. When testing for interaction effects between out-of-pocket loss and measures of seriousness, Reynolds’ findings suggested that “victims are first concerned with recuperating losses, then with resolving the incidents promptly and without distress.” His findings also suggested that those who suffer out-of-pocket losses should be treated as a distinct group of identity theft victims with different motivations for reporting to law enforcement and credit bureaus than those who recover losses.” This is especially important, since Reynolds found that “suffering out-of-pocket loss was related to a decreased likelihood of reporting to financial institutions,” lessening the likelihood of recuperating losses. He also noted that “Americans with lower incomes and educational attainments are more likely to suffer out-of-pocket loss as a consequence of identity theft,” suggesting that the support system in place for identity theft victims “best serves the wealthy and highly educated.”