The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: Financial Exploitation of the Elderly in a 

Consumer Context

Author(s): Kristy Holtfreter, Ph.D., Michael D. Reisig, Ph.D., 

Daniel P. Mears, Ph.D., Scott E. Wolfe, Ph.D.

Document No.: 245388

Date Received: March 2014

Award Number: 2010-IJ-CX-0008

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant report available electronically. 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
FINAL REPORT: 

Financial Exploitation of the Elderly in a Consumer Context* 

Kristy Holtfreter, Ph.D. 

School of Criminology and Criminal Justice 

Arizona State University 

Phoenix, Arizona 

Michael D. Reisig, Ph.D. 

School of Criminology and Criminal Justice 

Arizona State University 

Phoenix, Arizona 

Daniel P. Mears, Ph.D. 

College of Criminology and Criminal Justice 

Florida State University 

Tallahassee, Florida 

Scott E. Wolfe, Ph.D. 

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice 

University of South Carolina 

Columbia, South Carolina 

*This project was supported by Award No. 2010-IJ-CX-0008, awarded by the National Institute 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, 

conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do 

not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice. The authors thank Jill Turanovic for 

her editorial assistance.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2

ABSTRACT

Research Goals and Objectives 

 Statement of Purpose. The goal of this research was to provide researchers, practitioners, 

and policy makers with an empirically-based understanding of financial exploitation of elderly 

consumers. This study focused on Arizona and Florida, two states with significantly higher 

proportions of older residents. This study sought to identify risk and protective factors for fraud 

victimization and to evaluate the elderly’s awareness and use of state-based programs.

 Research Subjects. This study included telephone interviews of 1000 Arizonians and 

1000 Floridians age 60 and over. The study was approved by the 

Institutional Review Boards (IRB) of two universities. Informed consent was established during 

the interview and first included the completion of a screen for cognitive impairment because 

cognitively impaired individuals cannot give consent. The sample is 37% male with an average 

age of 72, 94% white, 92% with a high-school diploma or more, and 61% married. 

Research Design and Methodology 

 Methods. During the period of June 27, 2011-July 27, 2011, a CATI survey was 

conducted with 1000 Arizona citizens over 60 and 1000 Florida citizens over 60. 

Research Results and Conclusions 

 Data Analyses. Descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate analyses were performed to 

address the study’s goals and objectives.

 Results. The study revealed that nearly 6 of every 10 participants were targeted by a fraud 

attempt in the year prior to the study. Approximately 14% of the full sample was a fraud victim 

within the past year. The prevalence of victimization was greater among targeted adults (25%). 

The most common form of shopping/purchasing fraud targeting was having someone attempt to 

sell a phony subscript to a magazine or something else. The most common type of financial fraud 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
3

targeting in the past year was having someone attempt to trick an individual into providing 

personal financial information (16%). Financial fraud victimization of any type was rare (.8%). 

The most common types of other consumer fraud targeting involved phony prize scams (24% 

past year prevalence) and contributing to phony charities (22%). Past year prevalence of 

financial mistreatment was 5.6%, and the most common type of financial mistreatment was 

having money or belongings stolen (3.4%). Being male, remote purchasing, low self-control, 

education, and telemarketing purchases increased targeting. Remote purchasing, low self-control, 

being older, and minority status increased fraud victimization. Routine activities were associated 

with financial fraud victimization. Most respondents were not familiar with their state’s 

programs. Greater monetary losses were associated with victim reporting. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
4

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 6

BACKGROUND LITERATURE ..................................................................................... 20

SCOPE AND METHODS ................................................................................................ 28

Field Outcomes ............................................................................................................. 35

Measures ....................................................................................................................... 41

Statistical Procedures .................................................................................................... 49

FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................ 51

Sample Characteristics .................................................................................................. 51

The Nature and Prevalence of Consumer Fraud Targeting and Victimization ............. 54

The Nature and Prevalence of Financial Mistreatment................................................. 73

Fraud Targeting and Victimization across Demographic Groups ................................ 78

A Multivariate Assessment of Fraud Targeting ............................................................ 84

A Multivariate Assessment of Fraud Victimization (Full Sample) .............................. 94

A Multivariate Assessment of Fraud Victimization (Targeted Subsample) ............... 101

A Multivariate Assessment of Financial Mistreatment .............................................. 110

Program Familiarity and Contact ................................................................................ 116

Reporting Consumer Fraud Victimization and Financial Mistreatment ..................... 124

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 128

Discussion of Findings ................................................................................................ 128

Implications for Further Research .............................................................................. 129

Implications for Policy and Practice ........................................................................... 131

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 133

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
5

DISSEMINATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS.......................................................... 140

APPENDIX A: The Nature and Prevalence Of Physical Mistreatment ........................ 142

APPENDIX B: Fraud Targeting State Subsample Analyses ......................................... 147

APPENDIX C: Fraud Victimization (Full Sample) State Subsample Analyses ........... 149

APPENDIX D: Fraud Victimization (Targeted Sample) State Subsample Analyses ... 151

APPENDIX E: Financial Mistreatment State Subsample Analyses .............................. 153

APPENDIX F: Survey Instrument ................................................................................. 155

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Problem 

Despite increased concerns about fraudulent activities that target the elderly—evidenced 

in all 50 states having enacted elder abuse statutes in recent decades—little remains known about 

the prevalence of such fraud, the factors that give rise to it, or the effectiveness of efforts aimed 

at reducing it. Without information along each of these dimensions, it is difficult to develop and 

implement evidence-based policies aimed at preventing and reducing elderly fraud victimization. 

This problem assumes greater importance given the “graying” of the American population. 

Purpose 

The study’s goals were to provide policymakers, practitioners, and researchers with a 

greater, empirically-based understanding of the distribution and causes of, as well as solutions to, 

financial exploitation of the elderly in a consumer context. To achieve this goal, the study 

focused on two states, Arizona and Florida, that have significantly higher proportions of citizens 

age 60 and older and that, under the leadership of the two states’ attorneys general, have 

undertaken elderly crime prevention initiatives. The study’s three specific objectives were: (1) 

To determine the nature, incidence, and prevalence of fraud victimization among elderly 

consumers in Arizona and Florida; (2) To identify risk and protective factors associated with 

fraud victimization in this population; and (3) To evaluate the elderly population’s awareness 

and use of state-based programs, including reporting behavior to law enforcement. 

Research Design 

The 2-year study consisted of a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) survey, 

conducted from June 27, 2011 to July 27, 2011, of 1,000 Arizonians and 1,000 Floridians over 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
7

the age of 60. This age cut-off was consistent with that used by governmental agencies such as 

the Administration on Aging (AOA) and the U.S. Census Bureau to define the senior population, 

with the extant literature on elderly victimization, and with the National Institute of Justice’s 

(NIJ) focus in its solicitation on elderly abuse and exploitation. Prior to undertaking the study, 

the researchers submitted the research protocol to institutional review boards at Arizona State 

University (ASU) and Florida State University (FSU), and obtained approval to proceed. 

Survey questions focused broadly on shopping/purchasing fraud, financial fraud, and 

other types of financial fraud. They also focused on awareness of efforts to increase 

understanding about such fraud and steps to prevent it. The survey included a range of other 

questions on the social and demographic characteristics of the participants, as well as factors that 

might contribute to an increased risk of victimization. Not least, for purposes of comparison 

with prior research, the study included a measure of financial mistreatment (e.g., having 

someone spend money that is yours or forged your signature) that previously has been used in 

studies of financial exploitation. 

The sampling and screening procedures resulted in 4,130 total eligible interviewees that 

were contacted during data collection. This value includes the total number of people who selfidentified as 60 years or older who completed the interview (N = 2,000), refused to participate (N

= 1,716), or partially completed the interview (N = 414). Individuals who were classified as 

impaired or who failed the cognitive screener were excluded from this value because they are not 

eligible respondents. The response rate was 48.4%, which is comparable to the response rate in 

similar studies, and the completion rate was 82.9%, which is significantly higher than the 67.2% 

average in other telephone surveys. 

To address the study’s goals and objectives, descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate 

analyses were undertaken. Similar response pattern imputation (SRPI) was used to impute 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
8

missing values in the data. Missing values could not be imputed for 90 individuals so they were 

excluded from the analysis. Analyses indicated that the social and demographic characteristics 

of the sample were largely similar to those of the populations from which they were derived. 

Findings

The study analyses generated a wide range of results that reflected the following general 

areas of investigation: the nature and prevalence of consumer fraud targeting and victimization; 

the nature and prevalence of financial mistreatment; fraud targeting and victimization across 

demographic groups; multivariate analyses of fraud targeting; multivariate analyses of financial 

mistreatment; crime program familiarity and contact; and reporting of consumer fraud 

victimization and financial mistreatment. Select findings from each of these sets of analyses are 

presented below. These serve to illustrate the range of analyses undertaken and the types of 

findings available in the full report. The salience of any given finding, whether those included 

here or in the report, ultimately depends of course on the particular focus or perspective taken for 

a given research study or policy discussion. 

The Nature and Prevalence of Consumer Fraud Targeting and Victimization

 Nearly six out of every 10 respondents were targeted by a fraud attempt during the year 

prior to the study, and two-thirds of respondents were targeted by a fraud attempt during the two 

years prior to the study. Fraud targeting thus is more common in this sample of elderly people 

compared to samples of adults 18 years of age and older where, for example, past-year 

prevalence estimates have been shown to range from 15% to 31%. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
9

 Approximately 14% of the sample was a fraud victim during the past year and 19% was 

a victim during the two years prior to the survey. These estimates are similar to fraud 

victimization prevalence estimates observed in other national samples of adults. 

 Among individuals who were targeted by fraud attempts, the prevalence of fraud 

victimization was greater. For example, among such individuals, the past year prevalence of 

fraud victimization was 25 %. 

 The most common type of shopping/purchasing fraud targeting was having someone 

attempt to sell a phony subscription to a magazine or something else. Approximately 10% of the 

sample reported such targeting in the year prior to the survey. Telephone contact was the 

primary mode through which such targeting occurred, but other modes, such as mail 

advertisements and in-person solicitations, were common. Law enforcement officials are rarely 

made aware of instances of shopping/purchasing fraud targeting. The most common form of 

shopping/purchasing fraud involves paying for a product or service that does not work as 

promised. Such victimization was reported by 3.5% of the sample. The median dollar loss pastyear fraud victimization was $225 for repair fraud, $67 for product/service fraud, and $30 for 

phony subscription fraud. 

 The most common type of financial fraud targeting was having someone attempt to 

trick an individual into providing personal financial information. Over 16% of the sample 

reported being targeted in this way during the year prior to the study. Telephone contact again 

was the primary mode through which targeting occurred. Contact by way of email (30.4%) and 

web sites (17.6%) were also relatively common for attempts to get participants to provide 

personal financial information to unknown individuals. Respondents who were targeted for 

financial fraud typically did not report the offenses to the police. Financial fraud victimization of 

any type was rare. The most frequently reported form of financial fraud victimization was being 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
10

tricked into giving one’s personal financial information to an unknown person (0.8%). The 

median dollar loss was highest for investing in a phony business ($6,248), followed by paying 

someone to improve finances ($580). The lowest median dollar loss was incurred by victims 

who were tricked into providing their financial information ($38). The prevalence of financial 

fraud victimization was greater among those who were targeted for such fraud. 

 The most common types of other consumer fraud targeting were attempts to get 

individuals to pay to claim a phony prize (24% past-year prevalence) and contribute money to a 

phony charity or religious organization (22% past-year prevalence). Contact by telephone, mail, 

and e-mail were the primary modes of targeting. Such instances were, again, rarely reported to 

law enforcement. However, when individuals had someone try to steal their personal 

information, 25% contacted law enforcement. The median dollar loss, for past-year 

victimization, between each type of consumer fraud varied from $20 (contributing to a phony 

charity or religious organization) to $700 (paying to reduce mortgage payments). The median 

dollar loss associated with being a victim of a phony prize scam was $219, and $200 for 

victimization relating to having personal information stolen. As with the other types of fraud, 

targeted individuals were more likely to report actual victimization. 

The Nature and Prevalence of Financial Mistreatment

 The overall prevalence of financial mistreatment in the sample during the year leading 

up to the study was 5.6% and 8.4% during the two years leading up to the study. These findings 

are nearly identical to the prevalence of financial mistreatment estimated in other studies. 

 The most common type of financial mistreatment experienced by the respondents 

during the year preceding the study was having someone steal their money or belongings (3.4%). 

Fewer individuals reported that someone spent their money or sold property without their 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
11

permission (2.2%) or forged their signature (1.3%). These estimates are similar to that of 

reported shopping/purchasing and other fraud victimization found in this study.

 A larger percentage of respondents who had someone spend their money or sell 

something without their permission were victimized by a family member. Respondents’ children 

were the most frequent culprits of these two types of financial mistreatment. A smaller portion 

of participants who had their money stolen or items taken were victimized by a relative. 

 About one-quarter of individuals (27%) who indicated someone spent their money or 

sold their property without permission reported the offense to the police. A higher percentage of 

individuals who had their money or property stolen reported their victimization to law 

enforcement (40%). 

Fraud Targeting and Victimization across Demographic Groups

 Fraud targeting is least common among those who are 80 or more years old. Less than 

half of these individuals (49.6%) indicated that they had been targeted. By contrast, over 60 

percent of other respondents reported being targeted. Males reported being targeted more 

frequently than females (65.4% versus 56.4%, respectively). In general, education was weakly 

associated with fraud targeting. No differences in fraud targeting were observed across racial 

and ethnic minorities. However, racial minorities and retired individuals were slightly more 

likely to report that they had been the victims of consumer fraud during the year leading up to the 

study as compared to their counterparts. No differences in fraud victimization were observed 

across other demographic groups. 

 Among individuals who were targeted for fraud, those who were over age 72 or were 

racial minorities were more likely to experience fraud victimization. Targeted racial minorities 

also were more likely to report victimization (38.6% versus 24.1%, respectively). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
12

 The pattern of results was similar for financial mistreatment. 

A Multivariate Assessment of Fraud Targeting

 In analyses in which fraud targeting was the outcome being predicted, the results 

showed that the following factors were positively associated with targeting: remote purchasing 

(including engaging in a greater variety of such purchasing), having low self-control, being male, 

and having higher levels of education. Making a telemarketing purchase substantially increased

targeting. Respondents who purchased something in response to a telemarketing call from a 

company with whom they had not previously done business during the previous year increased 

their risk of becoming a fraud target by over 200% compared to those who had not made such 

purchases. Some variation in the effect of some of the predictors varied by type of fraud. 

 The effect of telemarketing purchases appear limited to two types of targeting—

shopping fraud and financial fraud. Respondents who placed an order for a product after seeing 

an infomercial also increased their odds of being targeted for shopping fraud. Participants who 

made online purchases had higher odds of targeting for financial fraud, charity scams, and prize 

notification fraud. 

 Some demographic variables were correlated with specific forms of targeting. For 

example, younger participants were more likely to report being targeted for financial fraud and 

prize notification fraud, and males were more often the targets of financial fraud, charity scams, 

and prize notification fraud. 

A Multivariate Assessment of Fraud Victimization 

 In analyses in which fraud victimization was the outcome being predicted, the results 

showed that the following factors were positively associated with victimization: remote 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
13

purchasing (including engaging in a greater variety of such purchasing), having low self-control, 

being older, and being a member of a racial minority. Here, again, some variation in the effect of 

some of the predictors varied by type of fraud. 

 Remote purchasing is significantly associated with each form of fraud victimization, 

including shopping/purchasing fraud, financial fraud, charity scam fraud, and identity theft. 

 The impact of telemarketing purchase is largely restricted to financial fraud 

victimization; individuals who made a telemarketing purchase with a company they had not 

previously done business with during the past year increased their odds of financial fraud 

victimization by over 600 percent. 

 The risk of shopping fraud victimization was elevated among respondents who 

purchased products after viewing infomercials and receiving mail solicitations from companies 

with whom they had not previously done business. The risk of identity theft was elevated when 

respondents made purchases resulting from unsolicited email. 

 In analyses that focused only on those individuals who were targeted for fraud, similar 

analyses showed similar results, with remote purchasing, low self-control, and being older all 

associated with an increased likelihood of victimization. The effects of telemarketing and 

several other factors varied across type of victimization. Similarly, the effect of low self-control 

was only significant in the shopping fraud victimization model. Analyses aimed at addressing 

selection effects associated with belonging to the group who was targeted for victimization 

identified similar effects. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
14

A Multivariate Assessment of Financial Mistreatment

 In analyses in which financial mistreatment was the outcome being predicted, the 

results showed that the following factors were positively associated with victimization: 

adherence to fewer routine activities (e.g., participating in social activities away from home, 

getting together with people who do not live with you, going to the movies), low self-control, 

being male, and belong to a racial minority. Once, again, some variation in the effect of some of 

the predictors varied by type of fraud. 

 Additional analyses showed that the effect of routine activity is isolated to one type of 

financial mistreatment—failing to engage in routine activities increases the likelihood of being 

having money or property stolen. 

 Two specific routine activities contributed to the observed effects: (1) the frequency 

with which respondents got together socially with friends, family, and neighbors, and (2) 

outside-the-home social activity. 

Program Familiarity and Contact

 The study examined respondents’ familiarity with Arizona- and Florida-based programs 

that have been designed to help elderly citizens prevent and cope with criminal victimization. 

Arizona participants were asked how familiar they are (closed-ended responses include “very 

familiar,” “somewhat familiar,” and “not familiar”) with the Agency on Aging and the Senior 

Sleuths project. Floridians who were interviewed were asked about their level of familiarity with 

the Seniors vs. Crime Program and their state’s Senior Sleuths project.

 Most respondents were not familiar with their state’s programs. Nearly 70% of Arizona 

participants were “not familiar” with the Agency on Aging. In Florida, 87% of respondents 

reported they were “not familiar” with the Florida’s Seniors vs. Crime Program.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
15

 The Senior Sleuths projects in both states were not well known by the survey 

respondents. Over 97 percent of respondents in both states reported that they were “not familiar” 

with the Seniors Sleuths project. 

 In analyses that focused on subjects who did express some familiarity with the available 

programs, friends or family members, newspapers, television, and “word of mouth” were the 

most common sources identified as first teaching the subjects about the programs. 

 In Arizona, only a small portion of respondents who were aware of the Agency on 

Aging contacted them in the year leading up to the interview (8.4%). Only one participant from 

Arizona reported contacting the Senior Sleuths project. A similar pattern of results emerged for 

Florida. 

 The study also queried respondents about the sources that have provided information on 

how to protect themselves from consumer fraud victimization. Study participants reported that 

they received prevention information from a variety of sources. Television, however, was the 

most commonly reported source of information in both states (28.3% in Arizona, 31.1% in 

Florida). Internet websites, emails, magazines, radio, and brochures/fliers were also relatively 

common sources of fraud prevention information. 

 Several demographic variables were correlated with program awareness. Specifically, 

older and more educated individuals were more familiar with the Agency on Aging. Male 

respondents were less familiar with the agency than females. In analyses that focused on 

Florida’s Seniors vs. Crime Program, the pattern of results was similar. Older respondents were 

more familiar with the Seniors vs. Crime program. Males in the Florida subsample were less 

familiar with the program than females. Finally, racial minorities reported higher levels of 

awareness with Florida’s Seniors vs. Crime program compared to non-Hispanic whites.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
16

Reporting Consumer Fraud Victimization and Financial Mistreatment

 The final set of analyses focused on what drives victims of consumer fraud and 

financial mistreatment to report their experiences to authorities. Using a statistical methodology 

for addressing potential selection effects associated with focusing on victims only, the analyses 

showed, consistent with prior research, that the seriousness of a victimization event (as gauged 

by monetary loss) increased the likelihood of reporting the victimization to law enforcement. 

The analyses also showed that remote purchasing is also associated with an increased likelihood 

of contacting authorities about victimization. 

 When the focus was on financial mistreatment, the analyses indicated that greater 

monetary loss is also associated with an increased likelihood of reporting victimization to law 

enforcement authorities. In addition, the analyses indicated that such reporting was more likely 

when the assailant was a stranger. The results, too, accord with prior research on reporting other 

forms of criminal victimization. 

Conclusion 

The results of this study are significant for several reasons. In particular, they provide an 

empirical foundation on which to understand the distribution and causes of financial exploitation 

of the elderly and steps that can be taken to reduce it. The main conclusion to be drawn from the 

study is that consumer fraud targeting and fraud victimization of the elderly are common and 

result from activities, such as frequent online and telemarketing purchases, that can be curbed or 

that can be coupled with simple steps to protect individuals from actual victimization. The study 

also highlights that the elderly population is largely unaware of efforts that exist to educate them 

about consumer fraud. Accordingly, a considerable opportunity exists to make substantial strides 

in educating the elderly about fraud victimization by more aggressively distributing information 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
17

through different media. Several specific recommendations are discussed further below after 

discussing implications for further research. 

Implications for Further Research 

Although this study constitutes an advance over prior research, several limitations bear 

mention that point to directions for future research. First, the study examined elderly populations 

in Arizona and Florida. Thus, the extent to which the results generalize to the rest of the country 

is unknown. That said, the prevalence estimates of victimization largely accord with those found 

in prior research, suggesting that the results likely provide a reasonable estimate of what would 

be found with studies in other states or the country as a whole. Clearly, however, the prevalence 

of fraud targeting and victimization, and the specific causes, may vary from place to place. 

Second, there remains a need to undertake studies that employ several sources of 

information, including self-report data from offenders on abuse and victimization of the elderly, 

official records data from law enforcement agencies, and interviews with policymakers, 

practitioners, and advocates involved in efforts to protect the elderly from fraudulent activity. It 

is possible, for example, that fraud targeting and victimization are lower in areas where a critical 

threshold of awareness about consumer fraud of the elderly exists. The use of multiple sources 

of data could aid in the development of measures that gauge such awareness and in turn enable 

empirical tests of that possibility. 

Third, although this study identified key risk factors that increase the likelihood of fraud 

targeting and victimization, the precise causal mechanisms involved warrant further 

investigation. For example, individuals who engage in routine activities, such as socializing with 

their friends in the community, are less likely to experience financial mistreatment. What 

exactly produces this effect bears closer scrutiny. It could be that such activities reduce 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
18

opportunities for fraud targeting and victimization to occur, but they also could expose 

individuals to a broader network of individuals who provide informal social support that protects 

them against fraudulent activities that family members of relatives might seek to undertake. 

Fourth, this study included questions about several state-level efforts in Arizona and 

Florida to prevent and combat elderly fraud victimization. A wide range of similar and different 

efforts exist in other states and their implementation, the extent to which they target the risk 

factors associated with elderly victimization, and their effectiveness remain to be examined. 

Implications for Policy and Practice 

The diversity of methods through which fraud targeting occurs is considerable, including 

telephone, mail, email, web sites, phony prize offers, requests for contributions to phone 

charitable causes, and more. The plethora of such methods in turn indicates that any efforts to 

reduce victimization likely must be multifaceted and, for example, should target these different 

methods as well as educate elderly consumers about the ways in which consumer fraud 

victimization can occur. 

The fact that few fraud attempts or actual fraud victimization events are reported to law 

enforcement suggests the need for education about the importance of reporting such events and, 

at the same time, for efforts to ensure that law enforcement respond to such reports in a proactive 

and well-publicized manner. Such steps can increase the chances that the elderly will learn about 

consumer fraud victimization, that they will report it, and that a potential general deterrent effect 

can be created or increased. For example, would-be offenders, such as family members and 

solicitors, may be less likely to engage in fraud if they read or hear about law enforcement 

aggressively responding to claims of fraudulent activity. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
19

Given the greater targeting and victimization of them, males and individuals ages 60-72 

should be educated about the importance of taking steps to prevent fraud and of reporting 

attempted or actual fraud. Similarly, individuals who engage in greater amounts of remote 

purchasing or who are low in self-control should be targeted for similar educational efforts since 

these two factors emerged as the most robust predictors of various types of fraud targeting and 

victimization. Not least, since financial mistreatment was associated with failing to engage in 

routine activities, such as social events, outside the home, elderly individuals should be 

encouraged to participate in social activities in their community. Doing so may create a social 

support network that provides a protective effect against fraud targeting and especially 

victimization. 

Few respondents in the study were familiar with state-level efforts to educate and help the 

elderly in matters related to consumer fraud. Accordingly, there likely is substantial room to 

reduce consumer fraud victimization by greater attention to implementing these efforts in ways 

that better reach their intended target populations. Such efforts could include flyers, radio and 

television advertisements during shows or times when the elderly are more likely to be listening 

or watching, and other related activities. These are the primary avenues through which 

respondents reported learning about these programs, but, ultimately, the effectiveness of such 

efforts depends heavily on whether informational material reaches the intended audience. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
20

BACKGROUND LITERATURE 

Financial exploitation, defined as “the illegal or improper use of an incapacitated or 

vulnerable adult or his resources for another’s profit or advantage” (Arizona Elder Abuse 

Coalition 2007: 4), is a common form of elder abuse (American Association of Retired Persons 

[AARP] 2003; Hall et al. 2005; Muscat et al. 2002). Unlike other forms of elder abuse, financial 

exploitation (e.g., consumer fraud) is more likely to take place with the implied consent of the 

elder victim (Bonnie and Wallace 2002; Hafemeister 2002), and the majority of victims do not 

have a personal relationship with the perpetrator (Laumann, Leitsch, and Waite 2008). Scholars 

have suggested that fraud has become the “characteristic crime of the 21st century” (Albanese 

2005:8). Before describing the current study, we review prior work on consumer fraud and 

elderly victimization. 

First, we examine available statistics and legal provisions pertaining to consumer fraud, 

followed by an overview of the findings from previous studies on the nature, incidence, and 

prevalence of fraud victimization. Next, we discuss research on elderly victim reporting and 

studies of consumers’ routine activities, lifestyles, and demographic characteristics that may 

serve as risk and protective factors. The bulk of national-level studies have been conducted by 

consumer protection or elderly advocacy groups (e.g., the AARP) and these typically have 

involved a delimited focus on developing national prevalence estimates of elderly consumer 

fraud victimization, while academic researchers addressing this topic have typically used small, 

local samples. The lack of state-level research has made it difficult for statewide service 

providers, victim assistance programs, and policy makers to reach those members of the elderly 

population most at-risk for victimization. Put simply, there is a critical need to conduct statelevel research and to incorporate measures that enable researchers to pin-point more precisely the 

correlates of fraud victimization and what can be done to prevent and reduce it. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
21

Defining Consumer Fraud

Consumer fraud is a form of financial exploitation that involves some form of 

communication between victim and offender, and includes the “deliberate deception of the 

victim with the promise of goods, services, or other benefits that are non-existent, unnecessary, 

were never intended to be provided, or were grossly misrepresented” (Rosoff et al. 2004:48). 

Based on such a definition, and as we discuss below, this crime appears to be a growing problem 

in the United States, as evidenced by recent estimates provided by the Federal Trade 

Commission’s (FTC) Bureau of Economics and Consumer Protection indicating that nearly onethird of American adults have been targeted by fraudsters (Anderson 2004). Other sources have 

identified the elderly as probable targets of fraudsters, and statistics confirm when the elderly are 

victimized it often involves property crime and is financial in nature (Hafemeister, 2002; 

Johnson 2003; Klaus 2005). 

What is Known About the Nature, Incidence, and Prevalence of Victimization?

Knowledge about the nature, incidence, and prevalence of elderly fraud victimization has 

been the product of two distinct sources: (1) research conducted or sponsored by consumerprotection or elderly-advocacy agencies, and (2) social scientists. Three national-level surveys 

were conducted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 2003, 2005, and 2011-2012. The 

FTC’s first survey of 2,500 households revealed that one-third of Americans have ever been 

targeted by some form of consumer fraud, with 16 percent reporting targeting over the past year 

and 11 percent reporting actual victimization in the past year. The most common types of fraud 

identified by respondents pertained to advance fee loans, buyer’s club memberships, credit 

repair, prize promotions, Internet service provider fraud, and pyramid schemes (Anderson 2004). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
22

In descriptive analyses, targeting appeared to be relatively evenly distributed across consumer 

demographics, suggesting that the elderly may not necessarily be targeted at a higher rate than 

their younger counterparts. In 2003, the most common form of targeting occurred through print 

media (e.g., mail, newspapers, magazine ads, catalogs, and posters). In the second FTC survey of 

3,888 adults, 13.5% of respondents reported victimization. The majority of victims were targeted 

through print media (Anderson 2007). Similar to the 2003 FTC survey, the 2005 study revealed 

that seniors were not at greater risk of fraud victimization relative to other age groups. The third 

FTC survey of 3,638 adults found that nearly 11% of respondents were the victims of consumer 

fraud in 2011 (Anderson 2013). The types of frauds varied slightly from previous years, with the 

most commonly reported being fraudulent weight-loss products, fraudulent prize promotions, 

being billed for buyers’ club memberships that they had not agreed to purchase, being billed for 

Internet services they had not agreed to purchase, and fraudulent work-at-home programs. In a 

notable change from previous surveys, the Internet was the most frequent way in which victims 

were targeted. In this survey, Hispanic and African-American consumers were more likely to be 

victimized. Finally, those between the ages of 55-74 had the greatest risk of being victimized by 

fraudulent prize promotions. 

While the FTC surveys provided important insights into the methods used by fraudsters, 

none of these studies included measures derived from victimization theories. However, in the 

second and third surveys, level of debt, a characteristic some argue is indicative of low selfcontrol (see e.g., Romal and Kaplan 1995) increased the likelihood of victimization. Similarly, 

the third survey found that engaging in risky purchasing behaviors---a measure consistent with 

routine activity/lifestyles perspectives---also increased the likelihood of fraud victimization 

(Anderson 2013). These findings underscore the need for additional research informed by 

theories of victimization (i.e., routine activity theory).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
23

Like the FTC, efforts to address consumer fraud by the AARP have focused on the 

national level (AARP 1996, 2003). One difference between the two groups is that the AARP’s 

studies have been more narrowly focused on specific types of fraud believed to 

disproportionately target seniors (e.g., telemarketing fraud), making it more difficult to generate 

accurate estimates of consumer fraud prevalence and incidence. In comparison, most social 

scientific studies to date have used small, convenience samples, often comprised of the willing 

victims of a single fraudulent incident or type of fraud (see e.g., Alves and Wilson, 2008; Jesilow 

et al. 1992; Mason and Benson 1996; McGuire and Edelhertz 1980; Van Wyk and Benson 1997; 

Van Wyk and Mason 2001). Scholars have argued that such research may be limited in its 

generalizability and its implications for public policy (Friedman 1998; Lee and Soberon-Ferrer 

1997). One consistency across the national and local studies is that the elderly are less likely to 

report fraud victimization, although reasons for underreporting remain largely unexplored in the 

literature (Choi and Mayer 2000; Hall et al. 2005; Laumann et al. 2008). Anecdotal evidence 

suggests that seniors do not report fraud due to embarrassment or fear of repercussions (Ravenna 

2004:9). 

Given that the authority for enforcing most consumer protection legislation rests with 

State Attorney General’s Offices, the importance of state-level studies bears emphasis. To 

illustrate, results from a modified version of the FTC survey administered in 2004-2005 to a 

sample of Florida adults revealed several key differences between the nation and Florida 

residents. For example, the incidence of consumer fraud attempts in the United States was 

estimated at one-third, compared to 16% in Florida (Holtfreter, Reisig, and Pratt 2008). Such 

differences underscore the need for more refined state-level studies using samples of resident 

populations—and guidance in conducting these types of studies—that can help states develop 

more empirically-grounded, context-relevant policies to reduce victimization. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
24

Risk and Protective Factors

Attempts to develop sociodemographic profiles of elderly fraud victims have been 

advanced, but these results have been largely inconclusive, and often involved simple descriptive 

analyses relying on a relatively narrow range of potential correlates of victimization. There is 

consensus, however, that demographic characteristics reflect consumers’ vulnerability. Overall, 

prior studies have found that age is negatively associated with fraud victimization (see generally, 

Anderson 2004, 2007; Holtfreter et al., 2008; Titus et al. 1995). Notably, while one study 

confirmed a lower rate of victimization among the elderly, it also revealed that older consumer 

victims suffered greater monetary losses (Princeton Survey Research Associates 1999). 

Unfortunately, these studies have not systematically introduced controls that would allow for 

more robust estimation of age effects. 

To date, only a few studies have addressed consumer fraud within a broader theoretical 

context. Holtfreter et al. (2008) found that remote purchasing behaviors (i.e., mail, telephone, 

Internet, television) increased consumers' likelihood of being targeted by fraudsters. In the 

language of routine activity theory, these behaviors reflect greater access to unguarded exposure. 

Once targeted, consumers who engaged in risky financial practices were significantly more 

likely to be victimized than their high self-control counterparts. A follow-up study examined 

online consumers' perceived risks of credit card theft victimization and found that socially 

vulnerable and financially impulsive respondents perceived higher levels of risk when using their 

credit cards on line (Reisig et al., 2009). However, although consumers with higher risk scores 

altered their behaviors to reduce victimization risk, financially impulsive individuals failed to 

make such behavioral changes. 

Building on these two studies, Pratt, Holtfreter, and Reisig (2010) examined the 

influence of routine online activities on Internet fraud targeting. Before controlling for time spent 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
25

online and online purchasing behavior, younger consumers and more educated consumers were 

significantly more likely to experience Internet fraud targeting. However, these effects 

disappeared after controlling for time spent online and online purchasing, and both of these 

consumer behaviors significantly increased the odds of Internet fraud targeting, a finding that 

lends support to routine activity theory. Similarly, Reyns (2013) found that online banking, 

shopping, and instant messaging increased the risk of identity theft victimization. In a recent 

study of Dutch consumers, van Wilsem (2013) partially replicated the work of Holtfreter et al. 

(2008), finding that low self-control and online shopping elevated the risk of consumer fraud 

victimization. Applied to an elderly fraud context, these theory-informed studies suggest that 

attention to seniors' daily routines as well as personal traits and attitudes is warranted. 

Carcach et al. (2001) have offered important and intriguing insights into the relationship 

between victimization and age. They suggest that aging alters the ways individuals distribute 

their time across social roles and activities. Put differently, because victimization risk varies 

across situations, it is reasonable to expect that elderly consumers’ day-to-day activities and 

other lifestyle factors may make them more or less vulnerable to fraud victimization (Akers et al. 

1987). This expectation is consistent with routine activity theory explanations of violent and 

property crime victimization (Cohen and Felson 1979; Schreck 1999; Stewart et al. 2004). 

Coupled with the work of Carcach et al. (2001), the studies conducted by Holtfreter and 

colleagues (Holtfreter et al., 2008; Pratt et al. 2010; Reisig and Holtfreter, 2007, 2013; Reisig et 

al., 2009) supply a point of departure for exploring factors associated with elderly consumer 

fraud victimization. Applying this theoretical perspective to elderly fraud victimization would, 

however, require moving beyond analysis of simple demographics to identify other sources of 

vulnerability related to consumers’ routine activities (e.g., purchasing, investing, Internet use, 

responding to phone solicitations, charitable contributions) and lifestyle factors (e.g., living 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
26

situation, prior victimization). Such an approach would lend itself equally well to systematic 

exploration of factors that may influence seniors’ reporting of attempted and actual fraud 

victimization, including the extent of financial loss. Given the absence of attention to these 

critical risk and protective factors, the current research attempted to fill these gaps in ways that 

will lead to important policy changes. 

Awareness and Prevention Efforts in Arizona and Florida 

Although all 50 states have enacted laws protecting the elderly, virtually no research on 

the effectiveness of these laws exists. Against this backdrop, the percentage of persons age 65 

and older increased by a factor of 11 during the 20th century; by 2030, this population is 

expected to constitute 20 percent of the U.S. population (American Geriatrics Society 2006). 

In Arizona, it is projected that residents aged 60 and older will comprise over 25% of the 

state's population by 2020 (Arizona Attorney General's Office, 2009). Considerable resources 

have been devoted to the needs of this growing population, and the abuse and exploitation of 

elderly consumers through fraud remains at the forefront of these efforts. In sum, it is clear that 

the needs of elderly Arizonans, particularly those pertaining to financial exploitation and abuse, 

are of the utmost concern to state and local officials. In Florida, seniors comprised, as of 2012, 

just over 18 percent of the State’s population, a rate considerably above the national average 

(United States Census Bureau 2012). Not surprisingly, Florida policymakers, like their 

counterparts elsewhere, have expressed concern about victimization of this population and thus 

commissioned reports on the issue. Most recently, a legislative Task Force Report on Crimes 

Against the Elderly found that seniors had an unrealistic fear of crime and were not being 

informed about the most likely fraud scams targeting them (Ravenna 2004). In response to this 

report, the Florida Office of the Attorney General established Seniors vs. Crime, a special project 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
27

designed to provide services to Florida’s elderly to help prevent and reduce victimization, and to 

assist the Attorney General in consumer-related investigations. 

The state-level demographics in Arizona and Florida, coupled with the aggressive 

strategies of both state governments, made these two sites a natural venue for systematic 

empirical research on elderly consumer fraud victimization. Lessons from Arizona and Florida 

should be of interest to other states for several reasons, including: the emphasis on identifying 

what likely are a core set of risk and protective factors associated with victimization; the 

opportunity to identify lessons that other states can draw in pursuing strategies similar to Seniors 

vs. Crime, and, more generally, from an understanding of the risk and protective factors 

associated with elderly consumer fraud victimization; and the development of a research protocol 

that can assist states in their efforts to develop, monitor, evaluate, and improve efforts to reduce 

victimization of the elderly. 

Research Gaps and Needs

In short, a paucity of evidence exists that goes beyond establishing nationwide estimates 

of elderly consumer fraud victimization. Few studies establish the risks for such victimization or 

the protective factors that buffer the elderly from being targeted by offenders. And we know of 

no efforts to systematically and empirically evaluate state-level efforts aimed at preventing and 

reducing elderly victimization. Juxtaposed against these research gaps is the increasing number 

of elderly in the U.S., many of whom live on the margins of poverty and who can ill-afford to 

bear additional financial burdens. Despite the aggressive outreach efforts launched by Arizona 

and Florida, the extent to which seniors in both states are aware of programs and services was 

unknown prior to the current research effort. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
28

SCOPE AND METHODS 

 The current study is comprised of data from telephone surveys of 2,000 adults aged 60 

years and older in Arizona (N = 1,000) and Florida (N = 1,000). The survey was obtained via 

Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) administered by Precision Research which is 

a reputable private research firm in Glendale, Arizona with more than 27 years of marketing and 

social science research experience. The surveys collected information relating to consumer fraud 

targeting and victimization, risk and protective factors related to fraud targeting and 

victimization, and respondent awareness and use of state-based fraud programs. Consistent with 

prior research, the survey collected information relating to respondents’ experience with being 

targeted and victimized by the following types of consumer fraud (Anderson, 2004; Holtfreter, 

Reisig, & Blomberg, 2006):

 Shopping/purchasing fraud 

o Paid for unnecessary repairs to home, appliance, or automobile 

o Bought a product that did not work as claimed 

o Paid for phony subscriptions to magazines or something else 

 Financial fraud 

o Paid money to improve financial situation 

o Invested in phony business opportunity 

o Tricked into giving financial information (e.g., credit card number) 

 Other types of consumer fraud 

o Contributed to phony charity or religious organization 

o Paid a fee to claim a phony prize 

o Paid money in advance to reduce mortgage payment 

o Identity was stolen

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Target Population 

 The target population for the current study was all people age 60 years and older living in 

Arizona and Florida. These states were selected because they have two of the highest proportions 

of elderly people (i.e., 60 years or older) in the U.S. About 18% of the U.S. population is 60 or 

older. Arizona seniors comprise 19.29% of the total state population and 23.38% of Florida’s 

population is 60 or older. Sixty was chosen as the age cut-point to define the elderly target 

population for several reasons. First, it is similar to the age used by governmental agencies such 

as the Administration on Aging (AOA) and the U.S. Census Bureau to define the senior 

population. Second, it is consistent with the extant literature on elderly victimization (Acierno,

Hernandez-Tejada, Muzzy, & Steve 2009; Alves & Wilson, 2008; Conrad et al., 2010; Dietz & 

Wright, 2005; Feldmeyer & Steffensmeier, 2007; Laumann, Leitsch, & Waite, 2008; Lewis, 

Fields, & Rainey, 2006). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, 60 years and older was the 

target population stipulated in the NIJ solicitation for this project. 

Sample Construction 

The sample was generated using a list-assisted sampling method. Specifically, telephone 

numbers come from a White Pages database of directory-listed households in Arizona and 

Florida. One concern with this approach to generate the sample is that people who only use cell 

phones will be excluded from the sample. While this would certainly affect a sample consisting 

of all ages, it is of less concern for the current sample. Cell phone usage has increased among the 

elderly population in recent years. According to a recent survey, about 87% of people 57-65 

years, 68% of people 66-75 years, and 48% of people 75 or older own a cell phone (Zickuhr, 

2011). However, older people are significantly more likely to also use landline telephones 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
30

compared to younger individuals. One survey revealed that only 2% of U.S. respondents age 65 

or over uses only a cell phone (Blumberg & Luke, 2007). Accordingly, use of the White Pages is 

a reasonable method to generate a sample of elderly people for a telephone survey. 

The first stage of the sampling process consisted of Precision Research subjecting the 

directory-list to an extensive validation process to ensure that all telephone numbers were 

currently valid, assigned to the correct area code, and within an appropriate ZIP code. Working 

blocks were used to generate a sample of telephone numbers. A “block” (also known as a 

hundreds-block or bank) is a set of 100 contiguous telephone numbers identified by the first two 

digits of the last four digits of a telephone number. For the purposes of this study a block was 

considered working if one or more listed numbers were found in the block. Precision Research 

used an Equal Probability of Selection Method (EPSEM) to produce an equal probability sample 

of all possible 10-digit telephone numbers in the working blocks. Specifically, random digit 

dialing (RDD) was used to randomly call numbers from the working blocks. All numbers within 

the blocks had an equal probability of selection regardless of whether they were listed, unlisted, 

residential, business, or fax machine. 

Household Screening 

The sample construction process yielded a RDD sample of all working telephone 

numbers in Arizona and Florida. Inevitably, however, non-working and non-residential numbers 

were called during RDD. During the second stage of sample generation Precision Research 

interviewers determined whether the randomly dialed number was a working residential 

household phone number. Non-working numbers (e.g., disconnected numbers), non-residential 

numbers (e.g., businesses and fax machines), and ineligible households (e.g., no adult 60 years or 

older in household and language barriers other than Spanish) were replaced by the RDD process. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
31

Only residential households with at least one adult age 60 years or older were included in the 

sample. Precision Research interviewers read the following introductory script to a potential 

respondent to identify the purpose of survey and determine whether the household had an 

eligible participant: 

“Hello, my name is________, and I’m calling on behalf of Arizona State 

University for Arizona calls or Florida State University for Florida calls). We are 

interviewing (Arizonans/Floridians) about different kinds of crimes on behalf of 

the National Institute of Justice. We are interested in the experiences of people 

over 60.”

The interviewer then asked the individual how many adults age 60 or older lived in the 

household. If no person meeting this requirement lived in the household the interview ended and 

a new RDD number was contacted. If at least one individual 60 years or older was present in the 

household the interview continued.

Respondent Selection 

 The third stage of sample construction consisted of selecting a respondent to take part in 

the survey. If only one individual 60 years or older was present in the household he or she was 

designated as the respondent. If the individual speaking with the interviewer indicated that the 

person 60 years or older was impaired, unavailable, or refused to contact the person the interview 

ended and a new number was contacted through RDD. In many cases there was more than one 

individual in a household that was 60 years or older. In these situations the person with the “next 

birthday” was designated as the respondent. The incidence rate (i.e., the percentage of calls that 

resulted in an eligible respondent) was 69%. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
32

Cognitive Screener 

The possibility of contacting a respondent with a cognitive impairment (e.g., Alzheimer’s 

disease or some form of dementia) was greater in the present study compared to studies of the 

general population because the target population was much older. Accordingly, the final stage in 

the sample construction process consisted of the interviewer administering a cognitive screener 

to all eligible and willing participants. The survey instrument used Callahan et al.’s (2002) SixItem Screener (SIS). The SIS was used because it is unobtrusive and takes less than one minute 

to administer. Additionally, the screener has a high predictive accuracy in community-based 

samples for cognitive impairment and dementia. The SIS is comprised of three sections. First, 

respondents were read a list of objects (i.e., apple, table, and penny) and asked to remember 

them. Second, three orientation questions requested respondents to identify the day, month, and 

year. Third, the respondents were asked to repeat the three words they heard at the beginning of 

the screener. Each screener item scored one point for a correct response (range = 0 to 6). After a 

review of previous literature that has used the SIS and feedback provided by hired expert 

consultants, a cut-off of less than 3 was used in the present study. That is, potential respondents 

who scored less than 3 on the SIS were excluded from participation in the study. This cognitive 

screening strategy is consistent with previous research (Callahan et al., 2002; Woodford & 

George, 2007). 

Phoning Procedures 

Following the creation of the CATI program and interviewer training, interviewing 

commenced on June 27, 2011. The sample was completed on July 27, 2011. Data were collected 

seven days a week during specific times of the day that had the greatest probability of contacting 

a respondent. Specifically, potential respondents were called between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
33

Monday through Friday and between 12:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. All 

telephone interviews were conducted by the research firm based in Arizona which is in Mountain 

Standard Time (MST). There was a three-hour time-zone difference during data collection 

between Arizona and Florida. Accordingly, interviews were conducted during MST to 

correspond with the appropriate Eastern Standard Time (EST) target timeframe. For example, 

Precision Research began the weekday Florida interviews around 3:00 p.m. (MST) and ended 

them around 6:00 p.m. (MST), which translated into 6:00 p.m. (EST) and 9:00 p.m. (EST). 

Contact Attempts 

A ten-callback rule was used to contact a respondent. That is, calls that were met with no 

answer, an answering machine, or a busy signal were loaded back into the CATI computer 

system to be called again later. After a maximum of 10 callbacks with no eligible respondent 

talking to an interviewer the telephone number was replaced by the CATI system. 

In some instances the respondent agreed to participate in the survey but did not have time 

to complete the interview at the time of initial contact. Additionally, on several occasions a 

respondent had to stop an interview short due to a time conflict. In both of these situations the 

interviewers were trained to schedule a time with the respondent that was most convenient for 

him or her to finish the interview. 

Spanish Language Interviews 

The interviews were primarily conducted in English but a Spanish survey instrument was 

constructed and used when necessary. It was vital to have the ability to conduct interviews in 

Spanish given the large proportion of residents in Arizona and Florida from Hispanic/Latino 

origin. Precision Research staff members are uniquely trained and equipped to interview 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
34

Hispanic/Latino respondents. Trained interviewers were able to administer the surveys in 

Spanish but were also capable of ensuring that the text and concepts of the survey were 

understandable to a range of potential Hispanic subcultures (e.g., Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, 

Dominican, Central American, and South American). The interviewers’ unique expertise in this 

regard helped eliminate language and cultural barriers. 

Minimizing Survey Administration Error 

A number of steps were taken to minimize the risk of survey administration error. Several 

supervisors monitored interviewers by walking the call center floor and listening to in-progress 

interviews on private phone lines. As an additional precaution, a member of the research team 

called a private phone line at the research firm to randomly monitor active interviews. 

Interviewers were aware that they could be monitored by supervisors and research team 

members but were unaware of the exact interviews that were being observed. Respondents were 

unaware that anyone other than the interviewer was listening to the questionnaire. The research 

team member monitored interviews several times per week throughout the entire data collection 

period. Interviews were monitored during various days, times, and interviewer shifts. Eleven 

complete and 10 partial interviews were monitored by the research team member during this 

quality control process. Interview monitoring allowed the research team to assess whether the 

interviewers were consistently and accurately administering the survey and if particular areas of 

the questionnaire were problematic. No problems were detected during interview monitoring. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
35

Field Outcomes 

The above sampling methods resulted in complete interviews with 2,000 Arizona (N = 

1,000) and Florida (N = 1,000) residents age 60 years or older. The interviews required an 

average of 21 minutes to complete. 

Phone Dispositions

 A total of 4,247 telephone numbers resulted in contact with a household containing at 

least one potential respondent age 60 years or older. Table 1 presents a breakdown of the phone 

dispositions. The values reported in Table 1 include each possible disposition after the 

interviewer determined that at least one person in the household was 60 years or older. 

Table 1

Phone dispositions

Dispositions N

Impaireda 71

Failed cognitive screener 46

Refusals 1716

Partial interviews 414

Completed interviews 2000

Total eligible intervieweesb 4130

aParticipant was impaired and unable to be interviewed.

bTotal number eligible potential participants 60 years of age or older who were not 

impaired and passed the cognitive screener.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
36

Seventy-one people were declared impaired and unable to complete the interview by the 

household informant that answered the call. Forty-six individuals failed the cognitive screener 

and were not interviewed. There were a total of 1,716 people who refused to participate in the 

interview. This value includes all people who refused to answer any survey questions after 

eligibility was established. There are 414 people classified as “partial interviews” in Table 1. 

This includes eligible respondents that agreed to take part in the survey but ended the survey 

short of completion. Interviewers attempted to schedule times to complete the interview with 

these individuals. In the event that the respondent refused to complete the remainder of the 

interview they were classified as a partial interview. The sampling and screening procedures 

described above resulted in 4,130 total eligible interviewees that were contacted during data 

collection. This value represents the total number of people who self-identified as 60 years or 

older who completed the interview (N = 2,000), refused to participate (N = 1,716), or partially 

completed the interview (N = 414). Individuals who were classified as impaired or who failed the 

cognitive screener were excluded from this value because they are not eligible respondents. 

Response Rate 

 The response rate is important to the current study because it influences how 

representative the sample is of the population from which it was drawn. Low response rates can 

result in biased data and misleading results (American Association for Public Opinion Research 

[AAPOR], 2011). For example, study results cannot be used to generalize to a larger population 

if a low percentage of the sample frame actually participated in the study. Although a systemic 

process was used to produce the most random sample as possible, the final sample is determined 

by the number of eligible people agreeing to participate in the survey. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
37

Formulas used to calculate response rates vary in the type of information that is used (see 

AAPOR, 2011, p. 44). Some formulas include cases of unknown eligibility in the response rate 

calculation. For example, busy signals and answering machines might be included in the 

denominator. The present study views this approach as an overly restrictive formula. Cases of 

unknown eligibility (e.g., no answer, busy signals, and answering machines), known ineligibility 

(e.g., no person in household 60 years of age or older, disconnected numbers, businesses, and fax 

machines), impaired respondents, and respondents who failed the cognitive screener were 

excluded from the response rate calculation. 

The response rate formula for the present study includes the number of completed 

interviews (CI), partial interviews (PI), and refusals by eligible participants (REF) (AAPOR, 

2011, p. 46). CIs consist of all interviews that were completed by eligible participants. PIs 

include interviews that eligible respondents began but failed to finish (e.g., they hung up during 

the interview). REF is the number of participants who self-reported to be 60 years or older but 

refused to be interviewed. Frequencies for each disposition used in the calculation of the 

response rate can be found by referring back to Table 1. The response rate formula used in the 

present study is as follows: 

Response rate = CI/(CI + PI + REF) 

Response rate = 2,000CI/(2,000CI + 414PI + 1,716REF) = 2,000/4,130 = 0.4843 

The response rate for the present study was 48.43%, which is comparable to other recent 

telephone survey research (Curtin, Presser, & Singer, 2005). Additionally, the completion rate 

for this study was 82.90%, which is significantly higher than the 67.20% average for telephone 

surveys (Hox & De Leeuw, 1994). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
38

Missing Data 

As is the case in most survey research, not every respondent answered every question on 

the survey. Similar response pattern imputation (SRPI) (also known as “hot-deck imputation”) 

was used to impute missing values in the data. SRPI has been shown to be a superior imputation 

strategy compared to listwise deletion which reduces statistical power (Allison, 2001) and mean 

replacement which can distort variances and correlations (Roth, 1994; Schafer & Graham, 2002; 

see also, Gmel, 2001). SRPI replaces missing values for particular survey items for specific 

respondents based on the values from other respondents that display highly similar response 

patterns on other questionnaire items. Specifically, a set of matching variables (e.g., gender, race, 

age, education, employment status, and marital status) is used to match a missing case to a donor 

case. SRPI is also advantageous because it is able to impute continuous, ordinal, and binary 

variables and it produces imputations that are within the range of possible values for the specific 

item (Myrtveit, Stensrud, & Olsson, 2001). 

This study used PRELIS version 2.30 to complete missing value imputation using SRPI. 

Missing values were relatively rare in these data. In fact, less than one percent of cells within the 

data file had missing information. After imputation of missing values, complete data for 1,910 

respondents were available for analysis. Missing values could not be imputed for 90 individuals 

so they were excluded from the analysis. 

Sample Characteristic Comparison to U.S. Census Estimates

 Table 2 presents split-sample characteristics for Arizona and Florida and the 2010 census 

estimates for each of the states. The mean age of the Arizona and Florida samples is 72 and 73, 

respectively. For the 60 years and older population in Arizona and Florida, the mean age is 70 

and 71, respectively. Accordingly, the Arizona and Florida samples are slightly older than the 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
39

senior populations of the two states. Thirty-seven percent of the Arizona sample is male, whereas 

46% of the elderly Arizona population is male. Likewise, males comprise 35% of the Florida 

sample but 45% of the population according to the 2010 census. Accordingly, males are 

underrepresented in the Arizona and Florida samples. 

There are slight differences with respect to racial/ethnic composition of the samples 

compared to census estimates. Ninety-four percent of the Arizona sample and 90% of the Florida 

sample self-identified as white. This is compared to whites representing 90% of the Arizona 

population and 88% of the Florida population. While the percentages are not drastic, both 

samples slightly over represent white respondents. With regards to ethnicity, the sample 

underrepresents the elderly population of Hispanics in both states. About 85% of Arizonians and 

82% of Floridians have a high school degree or higher. Ninety-two percent of the Arizona 

sample and 86% of the Florida sample have a high school degree or higher. Therefore, the 

sample is slightly more educated. 

With respect to marital status, the Arizona and Florida samples approximate the 

decennial census estimates. Sixty-one percent of the Arizona sample was married at the time of 

the interview whereas 62% of the 60 and older population was married in 2010. About 55% of 

the Florida sample self-identified as married compared to 58% of the population. The marital 

status percentages vary only slightly between the samples and census estimates. Finally, the 

sample is also representative of the Arizona and Florida populations in terms of employment 

status. Twenty-one percent of the Arizona sample and 24% of the Florida sample indicated that 

they were employed during the interview. Of the 60 years and older population in Arizona and 

Florida, 23% and 22% are employed, respectively. In sum, the overall sample includes 

respondents that are slightly older, female, white, and educated. These differences are not drastic. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
40

What is more, the sample is highly representative of the Arizona and Florida populations with 

respect to marital and employment status. 

Table 2

Sample Characteristics Compared to U.S. Census Estimates

State of Arizona State of Florida

2011 Sample 2010 Census 2011 Sample 2010 Census

Age (mean) 72 70 73 71

Gender

 Male 37% 46% 35% 45%

Race/Ethnicity

 White 94% 90% 90% 88%

 Hispanic 4% 12% 3% 14%

Education

 High school + 92% 85% 86% 82%

Marital status

 Married 61% 62% 55% 58%

Employment Status

 Employed 21% 23% 24% 22%

Note. Gender and race/ethnicity census estimates are derived from the 2010 Decennial Census. 

Age, education, marital status, and employment status census percentages are derived from the 

2010 American Community Survey one-year estimates.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
41

Measures 

 The study includes a variety of measures. The financial exploitation of the elderly in a 

consumer context is captured by using various measures that reflect fraud victimization. For 

purposes of comparison, a previously used measure of financial exploitation, financial 

mistreatment, is also included. Risk factors found to be associated with different forms of 

victimization are featured in the analyses. These variables include: daily routine activities, 

remote shopping, self-control, trust, health, social support, employment status, among others. A 

complete list of measures and their operational definitions are provided below. 

Fraud Victimization

The section of the survey that featured the consumer fraud items began with the 

following introduction: 

Sometimes consumers are misled into giving people money who grossly 

misrepresent or never provide goods and services they were promised. The people 

who do these things may or may not work for legitimate businesses and may 

contact consumers through email, Internet sites, telemarketing, infomercials, and 

other ways. 

Fraud victimization was captured using a three-step method. First, following the introductory 

statement, survey respondents were asked whether anyone had ever tried to defraud them. This 

was accomplished by presenting ten different consumer fraud scams to study participants. Each 

item representing a specific fraudulent scheme and the appropriate follow-up questions were 

administered prior to moving on to the next scam. Previous studies have also used the listing of 

specific fraud schemes approach (see, e.g., Titus, Heinzelmann, & Boyle, 1995). This strategy is 

helpful in that the exact definition of what constitutes “consumer fraud” is not well understood 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
42

among the general public. The list using in this study was compiled by referencing the web pages 

for the Office of the Attorney General in both Arizona and Florida (both released “Top 10” 

scams targeting consumers in 2010), and an extensive review of the literature. For organization 

purposes, these targeting items in the current project are grouped under six commonly used 

headings. 

Shopping/Purchasing Fraud. Consumers can be exposed to fraud during the course of 

shopping for products and services. For example, a service provider may charge for work that 

was promised but not performed. A salesperson may sell a product that does not work as he/she 

claimed. Or, someone claiming to represent a legitimate organization may sell a product that is 

never delivered. All of these criminal acts fall under the shopping/purchasing fraud heading. The 

current study includes three items to determine whether respondents had ever been targeted for 

shopping/purchasing fraud: 

1. “Has anyone ever tried to get you to pay for repairs to your home, an appliance or 

automobile for work that was never performed or was unnecessary?”

2. “Has anyone ever tried to sell you a health, beauty care, weight-loss or other product or 

service that did not work as claimed?”

3. “Has anyone ever tried to sell you a phony subscription to magazines or something else?”

Financial Fraud. Fraud perpetrators may target consumers using scams related to credit 

repair or business opportunities. Additionally, fraudsters may attempt to trick their potential 

victims into providing their credit card and bank account information. The present study includes 

three items to determine whether study participants had ever been targeted for financial fraud: 

4. “Has anyone tried to trick you into giving them money to improve your financial 

situation, like repair credit or get equity out of your home?”

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
43

5. “Has anyone ever tried to get you to invest in a phony business opportunity such as workat-home scams?”

6. “Has anyone ever tried to trick you into giving them your financial information, like your 

credit card number or bank account information?”

Charity Scam. Another common form of consumer fraud entails the false claim by a 

perpetrator that she or he represents a legitimate nonprofit organization and is soliciting 

donations on its behalf. One charity scam item was included in the survey to determine whether 

respondents were ever targeted for this type of fraud: 

7. “Has anyone ever tried to get you to contribute money to a phony charity or religious 

organization?”

Prize Notification Fraud. This type of fraud entails informing the target that he or she is 

the lucky winner of some type of contest or promotion. The scheme unfolds with the target being 

told that he or she needs to pay some type of fee to claim the prize. One prize notification item 

was used in the present study to determine whether respondents had been targeted for this type of 

fraud: 

8. “Has anyone ever tried to get you to pay a fee to claim a phony prize, like a sweepstakes 

or vacation?”

Mortgage Rescue Fraud. This type of fraud often targets people who are facing 

foreclosure. It comes in a variety of forms, such as charging homeowners high fees for assistance 

(which often does not occur) with basic tasks (e.g., making phone calls and filling out 

paperwork) that homeowners could easily do themselves. In 2010, the Mortgage Assistance 

Relief Services Rule made it illegal to collect fees before homeowners receive and accept a relief 

offer from their lenders. To determine whether study participants were targets of mortgage 

rescue fraud, the following item was included in the survey: 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
44

9. “Has anyone tried to get you to pay money in advance to reduce your mortgage 

payment?”

Identity Theft. Another form of consumer fraud involves the illegally obtaining a target’s 

information (e.g., records and identification) and using it to purchase goods and services. One 

identity theft survey item was included to determine whether respondents had been targeted in 

this way: 

10. “Has anyone ever tried to steal your personal information so they could use it to get a 

credit card or loan?”

If the respondent answered “yes” to any of these items, a variety of follow-up questions were 

asked. Interviewers determined whether the fraud attempt (or most recent attempt if multiple 

attempts were reported) took place within the year leading up to the interview, one or two years 

prior to the interview, or more than two years before the study. Because of memory decay, data 

from two time periods are assessed separately – (1) up to one year prior to the survey; and, (2) up 

to two years prior to the survey. If respondents reported that their targeting took place during 

these time periods, they are considered a “target” (1 = yes, 0 = no). Finally, if the respondent 

indicated that she/he had been targeted during either the one or two year time period, the 

interviewer administered questions that were used to determine whether the fraud attempt was 

successful (e.g., “How much money did you pay for the repairs?”). Fraud victims are coded 1 (0 

= no). Prevalence estimates are provided for all ten types of consumer fraud targeting and 

victimization. In the multivariate analysis, however, the fraud targeting and victimization 

outcomes reflect whether a respondent responded in the affirmative to any one of the ten items. 

Both the targeting and victimization measures are binary coded in the multivariate analysis. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
45

Financial Mistreatment

The section of the survey that featured the financial mistreatment items began with the 

following introduction: 

People sometimes illegally use other people’s money or property for their own 

benefit. The individuals doing these things could be close to you, like a family 

member or friend, or someone you don’t know very well.

Three items that reflect financial mistreatment were included in the survey. Prior research has 

employed similar items (see, e.g., Acierno, Hernandez, Amstadter, Resnick, Steve, Muzzy, & 

Kilpatrick, 2010; Laumann, Leitsch, & Waite, 2008). Much like the consumer fraud items, 

follow-up questions were asked to respondents who answered in the affirmative to any of the 

three financial exploitation items. 

1. “Has anyone ever spent your money or sold something of yours without your 

permission?” (spent money or sold something) 

2. “Has anyone ever forged your signature without your permission in order to sell your 

things or to get money from your accounts?” (forged signature) 

3. Has anyone ever stolen your money or taken things for themselves, for their friends, or to 

sell?” (stolen money or property) 

Self-reports of financial mistreatment are assessed for two different observation periods: (1) the 

year prior to the study; and, (2) two years prior to the study. All three of the financial 

exploitation items feature a dichotomous response set (1 = yes, 0 = no). The multivariate analysis 

will employ an outcome measure where every respondent who answered “yes” one or more of 

the three survey items is considered a victim of financial exploitation (coded as 1).1

 

1 One of the reviewers of the proposal recommended that we include both financial mistreatment 

and physical mistreatment measures in the survey. Items similar to Acierno et al. (2010) were 

included in the survey. Results for the physical mistreatment items are presented in Appendix A. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Reporting Victimization and Mistreatment

 The section of the survey that asked about consumer fraud victimization and financial 

mistreatment contained two items that asked whether self-reported victims had reported this 

experience to authorities. The first item read, “Was the incident reported to the police?” Victims 

of consumer fraud and financial mistreatment were also asked whether the incident was 

“reported to other authorities.” In the section dealing with consumer fraud, two examples (the 

Better Business Bureau and a government agency) of “other authorities” were included in the 

wording of the survey item. For financial mistreatment, the provided example of an “other” 

authority was “social services.” These individual items featured a binary coded response set (1 = 

yes, 0 = no). For the multivariate analyses, the two reporting items (“police” and “other”) are 

combined into a single variable that reflects whether victims reported their experience to either 

the police, other authorities, or both (1 = yes, 0 = no). 

 Two additional variables are introduced in the reporting section of the multivariate 

analysis. One variable, monetary loss, reflects the approximate amount of money (in dollars) the 

victim lost. The original distribution of scores was widely dispersed. As such, scores were 

adjusted using the square root transformation. The second variable, stranger assailant, reflects 

instances where the perpetrator of financial mistreatment was an unfamiliar person to the victim 

(1 = yes, 0 = no). 

Program Familiarity 

 All survey respondents were queried on their familiarity with existing programs that are 

designed to help prevent senior citizens from becoming victims of consumer fraud. Floridian 

respondents were asked, “How familiar are you with Florida’s Seniors vs. Crime program?” 

Floridians were also asked about their state’s Senior Sleuths program. The survey for Arizona 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
47

residents asked about the Agency on Aging and the Senior Sleuths program. The same closedended response set, which ranged from “not familiar” (coded as 1) to “somewhat familiar”

(coded as 2), to “very familiar” (coded as 3), was used for these survey items. 

Remote Purchasing 

Respondents were queried about the different modes of remote purchasing in the year 

leading up to the study. Following the lead of prior researchers (see Holtfreter, Reisig, & Pratt, 

2008), participants were asked whether they had done any of the following: (1) purchased 

something in response to a telemarketing call from a company with whom they have NOT 

previously done business (telemarketing purchase); (2) purchased something from an Internet 

web site (online purchase); (3) placed an order for a product by phone, Internet or mail after 

seeing a television advertisement or infomercial (infomercial purchase); (4) placed an order for a 

product by phone, Internet or mail after receiving an offer in the mail from a company with 

whom they have NOT previously done business (mail-order purchase); and (5) placed an order 

for a phone, Internet or mail after receiving an email offer from a company with whom they have 

NOT previously done business (email-order purchase). Affirmative responses were coded as 1 

(0 = otherwise). Next, scores for the five items were summed to create the remote purchasing 

routines scale. The scale is coded so that higher scores reflect a greater variety of remote 

purchasing activity during the year leading up to the study. The analyses presented below also 

assess the impact of individual forms of remote purchasing. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
48

Routine Activities 

 This summated scale was constructed using social activity items from the Second 

Longitudinal Study on Aging wave 3 survivor survey (Center for Disease Control & Prevention, 

2002, p. 18). The items reflect how involved respondents self-reported to be in a number of 

activities during the past year. 

1. “Participated in social activities away from home?” (outside-home activities) 

2. “Got together socially with people who DO NOT live with you, such as friends, 

neighbors, and relatives?” (social get-togethers) 

3. “Went shopping at grocery, drug, hardware, department or convenience stores?” (streetside shopping) 

4. “Went to a movie, restaurant, club meeting, or other group event?” (entertainment) 

5. “Exercised and/or participated in leisure sports?” (leisure sports) 

Each item featured a four-point, closed-ended response set that ranged from “never” (coded 1) to 

“frequently” (coded 4). This scaled exhibits an adequate level of internal consistency 

(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.632; mean inter-item correlation = 0.262). When entered into a principal 

components analysis, the five items load on a single latent component (Eigenvalue = 2.103; % of 

variance = 42.056; loadings > 0.400). 

Low Self-Control

 Self-control reflects the ability to regulate one’s behavior. For example, people with selfcontrol are effectively able to exercise impulse control and delay gratification (Gottfredson & 

Hirschi, 1990). Respondents were administered attitudinal self-control items (Tangney, 

Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
49

1. “I do certain things that are bad for me, if they are fun.”

2. “I often act without thinking through all the alternatives.”

The closed-ended response sets were anchored from strongly disagree (coded 1) and strongly 

agree (coded 4). The correlation coefficient for the two self-control survey items is 0.229 (p < 

0.001). 

Demographic Variables

Several different demographic variables are included in the current study. Age is the 

respondent’s age in years. Five dummy variables are included: Married (1 = yes, 0 = otherwise); 

male (1 = yes, 0 = no); racial minority (1 = yes; includes African-Americans, American Indians 

and Native Alaskan, Asians, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander and “other” racial 

minorities) and Hispanic (1 = yes) (non-Hispanic whites are coded as 0 and serve as the 

reference group); and retired (1 = yes, 0 = otherwise). Finally, education is an ordered 

categorical variable: less than high school (coded 1), high school graduate (coded 2), some 

college/technical or vocational school (coded 3), college graduate (coded 4), and 

graduate/professional school (coded 5).

Statistical Procedures 

 A variety of univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analyses that reflect the research goals 

and objectives will be conducted. The descriptive analyses will focus primarily on nature and 

extent of consumer fraud victimization and related outcomes among seniors in Arizona and 

Florida. Here, univariate statistics, such as frequencies, will be used to express the prevalence of 

different forms of consumer fraud targeting, fraud victimization, financial mistreatment, and 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
50

provide information relating to state programs designed to prevent consumer fraud and assist 

victims (e.g., familiarity and contact). 

The distribution of consumer fraud-related outcomes will also be assessed across social 

groups. These bivariate analyses will provide evidence as to whether socio-demographic 

characteristics, such as age, gender, and education, are linked to consumer fraud outcomes. At 

this stage in the analysis, cross-tabulations (or contingency tables) will be calculated. The chisquare test will be used to determine whether any observed differences in the outcomes of 

interest between groups are statistically significant. Different measures of association (e.g., phi 

and Cramer’s V) will be used to describe the magnitudes of observed relationships (see Miller & 

Whitehead, 1996, pp. 355-373). Cross-tabulations will also be used in situations when the 

research objective is to understand the relationship between two variables but features of the data 

do not allow the reliable estimation of multivariate statistical models. 

 Multivariate statistical models will be used to evaluate high-order relationships. Put 

differently, multiple regression procedures will be used to estimate the relationship between two 

key variables while taking into account the effects of other variables, thus helping to control for 

spuriousness. Because fraud targeting, fraud victimization, and financial exploitation are binary 

response variables (coded 0, 1), logistic regression is used (see Menard, 2002). These analyses 

will provide reliable estimates on the factors that amplify or diminish the odds of fraud targeting, 

fraud victimization, and financial mistreatment. 

Multivariate modeling techniques will also be used to understand the factors associated 

with Arizona respondents’ familiarity with the Agency on Aging and Floridian participants’ 

familiarity with the Seniors vs. Crime program. These analyses will identify which demographic 

characteristics are associated with program familiarity. The nature of the program familiarity 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
51

variables (i.e., ordered-categorical and positive skew) necessitates the use of the ordinal 

regression model (see Long, 1997). 

 Finally, in various analyses we estimate multivariate models that make use of nonrandom 

subsamples (e.g., victims). This can prove problematic when membership in the subsample is not 

independent from the dependent variable. When this is the case, selection bias becomes a 

possibility. This statistical problem is commonly dealt with by using two-step modeling 

techniques (see, e.g., Berk, 1983). Because the outcome measures (e.g., fraud victimization and 

calling the police) are binary response variables (coded 0, 1), the probit regression model with 

selection (or “heckprob”) is used. This feature is available in STATA 9.0 (College Station, TX) 

(see Miranda & Rabe-Hasketh, 2006). 

FINDINGS 

Sample Characteristics 

Table 3 presents the characteristics for the merged sample (i.e., Arizona and Florida 

combined). A majority of the sample is comprised of women (63.7%, n = 1273) and 

approximately one-third are men (36.3%, n = 726). The ages of those included in the sample 

ranges from 60 to 99 years (average = 72.5 years). Most respondents are married (58.0%, n = 

1148), 22.6% (n = 448) are widowed, 14.8% (n = 294) divorced, 1.1% (n = 22) separated, and 

3.5% (n = 69) have never been married. With respect to racial composition, a majority of the 

sample is White (91.9%, n = 1792). However, the sample contains members from several racial 

minority groups: Black/African American (3.5%, n = 69), American Indian or Alaska Native 

(1.4%, n = 28), Asian (0.5%, n = 9), Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (0.2%, n = 3), and 1.0% 

(n = 20) self-identified as “Other.” While interviewers were trained to not list any ethnic groups 

as an option when asking respondents about their race, 1.4% (n = 28) of participants selfThis document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
52

identified their racial category as Hispanic or Latino. Participants were also asked a separate 

question about ethnic background. Information from these two survey items show that 3.2% (n = 

62) of the sample is of Hispanic or Latino ethnic origin. 

As would be expected, most participants are retired (73.3%, n = 1453) but 12.4% (n = 

245) are working full-time, 9.6% (n = 191) working part-time, and 3.4% (n = 68) unemployed. 

Some respondents self-identified as being “homemakers” when asked about their employment 

status (1.2%, n = 24).On the whole, the sample is relatively well educated: 27.2% are college 

graduates (n = 536), 28.6% have some college education (n = 565), and 17.7% have graduated 

high school (or received an equivalent degree) (n = 350). Additionally, 13.1% of respondents 

have a graduate or professional degree (n = 258), and 2.4% attended a technical or vocational 

school (n = 48). A small portion of the sample only completed a portion of high school (9.5%, n 

= 188) or received some grade school education (1.4%, n = 28). With respect to living 

conditions, a majority of respondents self-identify as living in a house (77.2%, n = 1526). Some 

respondents live in condominiums (8.2%, n = 162), mobile homes (7.3%, n = 144), apartments 

(3.0%, n = 60), and duplexes (1.4%, n =27). A small portion of the sample report residing in 

some type of supervised living facility, such as a retirement home (1.2%, n = 24), an assisted 

living facility (0.3%, n = 6), a nursing or rest home (0.1%, n = 2), and supervised apartment 

(0.1%, n = 1).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
53

Table 3

Sample Characteristics

Variable Categories or Range N % or Mean

State Arizona 1000 50.0

Florida 1000 50.0

Gender Female 1273 63.7

Male 726 36.3

Age (mean) Min = 60 1891 72.5

Max = 99

Marital Status Married 1148 58.0

Widowed 448 22.6

Divorced 294 14.8

Separated 22 1.1

Never married 69 3.5

Race White 1792 91.9

Black/African American 69 3.5

American Indian/Alaska Native 28 1.4

Asian 9 0.5

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 3 0.2

Other 20 1.0

Hispanic/Latino 28 1.4

Ethnicity (Hispanic/Latino) No 1933 96.8

Yes 63 3.2

Employment Status Working full-time 245 12.4

Working part-time 191 9.6

Retired 1453 73.3

Unemployed 68 3.4

Homemaker 24 1.2

Education Some grade school 28 1.4

Some high school 188 9.5

High school graduate/equivalent 350 17.7

Technical/vocational school 48 2.4

Some college 565 28.6

College graduate 536 27.2

Graduate/professional school 258 13.1

Living conditions House 1526 77.2

Condominium 162 8.2

Apartment 60 3.0

Duplex 27 1.4

Mobile home 144 7.3

Retirement home 24 1.2

Supervised apartment 1 0.1

Assisted living facility 6 0.3

Nursing/rest home 2 0.1

Other 24 1.2

Number of people in household 

(mean)

Min = 1

Max = 10

1944 1.86

Children living at home No 1791 90.0

Yes 199 10.0

Respondent lives alone No 1302 67.0

Yes 642 33.0

Note. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The Nature and Prevalence of Consumer Fraud Targeting and Victimization 

Fraud Targeting and Victimization

 We begin with an examination of fraud targeting and victimization prevalence estimates 

(see Table 4). The discussion focuses primarily on the one-year observation period. Table 4 

reveals that nearly six out of every 10 respondents were targeted by a fraud attempt during the 

year prior to the study (59.8%; or 1066 of the 1784 respondents for whom data are available). 

Therefore, fraud targeting is more common in this sample of elderly people compared to samples 

of adults 18 years of age and older where prevalence estimates have been shown to range from 

15% to 31% (Anderson, 2004; Holtfreter et al., 2008; Titus et al., 1995). The results also 

demonstrate that 13.6% of the sample was a fraud victim during the past year (or 211 of the 1553 

respondents for whom data are available). This result is similar to fraud victimization prevalence 

estimates observed in national samples of adults (Anderson, 2004; Titus et al., 1995). Another 

way to examine the data is to consider the prevalence of fraud victimization among only those 

individuals that were targeted by fraud attempts (not reported in Table 4). The data indicate that 

the prevalence of fraud victimization among the targeted subsample is 25.3%. While the same 

pattern of results is observed during the two-year observation period, not surprisingly the 

prevalence of fraud targeting and victimization is higher during this period. With the prevalence 

of fraud targeting and victimization among this sample established, the following sections 

explore the specific types of fraud. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
55

Table 4

Prevalence of Fraud Targeting and Victimization

Past year Past 2 years

N % N %

Fraud targeting Yes 1066 59.8 1225 67.4

No 718 40.2 593 32.6

Fraud victimization Yes 211 13.6 301 19.1

No 1342 86.4 1273 80.9

Shopping/Purchasing Fraud 

 The prevalence of shopping/purchasing fraud targeting is provided for two time periods 

(i.e., 1 and 2 years) in Table 5. The discussion will focus primarily on the results for the one-year 

observation period. Of the three specific types of shopping/purchasing fraud targeting, the most 

common is having someone attempt to sell a phony subscription to a magazine or something 

else. Approximately 10% of the sample (or 189 of the 1875 respondents for whom data are 

available) report this fraud-related experience in the year leading up to the study. Less common 

are instances where someone tried to sell participants something that did not work as claimed 

(8.7%) and someone trying to get respondents to pay for unnecessary repairs (5.3%). Finally, it is 

worth noting that this general pattern of targeting frequency is also observed at the two-year time 

period. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
56

Table 5

Prevalence of Shopping/Purchasing Fraud Targeting

Past year Past 2 years

N % N %

Unnecessary or never performed repairs Yes 104 5.3 156 8.0

No 1857 94.7 1805 92.0

Product or service did not work Yes 168 8.7 216 11.2

No 1764 91.3 1716 88.8

Phony subscription Yes 189 10.1 251 13.4

No 1686 89.9 1624 86.6

 

The distributions for the initial modes of contact for the three types of 

shopping/purchasing fraud targeting are presented in Table 6. Note that the same mode of 

contact—the telephone—was most prevalent for all three types (33% for unnecessary repairs, 

30% for product that did not work, and 27.7% for phony subscription). Regarding unnecessary 

repairs, a sizable portion of participants report that they were also targeted after having someone 

come to their home (presumably a repair technician of some type) (17.7%). Mail advertisements 

were most frequently a mode of targeting for attempting to sell products or services that did not 

work as reported (17.5%). Not surprisingly, respondents also reported that having someone come 

to their home was a common way of trying to cajole them to pay for a phony subscription 

(24.5%). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
57

Table 6

Mode of Contact for Shopping/Purchasing Fraud Targeting

Past year Past 2 years

N % N %

Unnecessary or never performed repairs

 Web site 2 2.1 2 1.4

 Email 1 1.0 1 0.7

 TV ad or infomercial 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Mail advertisement 6 6.3 9 6.3

 Telephone 33 34.4 46 31.9

 Store visited 10 10.4 22 15.3

 Someone came to home 17 17.7 28 19.4

 Radio advertisement 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Poster or flier 0 0.0 3 2.1

 Magazine/newspaper ad 0 0.0 0 0.0

 A bill received 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Other 27 28.1 33 22.9

Product or service did not work

 Web site 19 11.9 22 10.6

 Email 14 8.8 16 7.7

 TV ad or infomercial 16 10.0 23 11.1

 Mail advertisement 28 17.5 36 17.4

 Telephone 48 30.0 66 31.9

 Store visited 5 3.1 5 2.4

 Someone came to home 6 3.8 6 2.9

 Radio advertisement 2 1.3 2 1.4

 Poster or flier 1 0.6 2 1.0

 Magazine/newspaper ad 5 3.1 7 3.4

 A bill received 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Other 16 10.0 21 10.1

Phony subscription

 Web site 6 3.3 7 2.9

 Email 14 7.6 16 6.6

 TV ad or infomercial 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Mail advertisement 42 22.8 50 20.5

 Telephone 51 27.7 65 26.6

 Store visited 1 0.5 2 0.8

 Someone came to home 45 24.5 73 29.9

 Radio advertisement 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Poster or flier 0 0.0 1 0.4

 Magazine/newspaper ad 2 1.1 2 0.8

 A bill received 2 1.1 2 0.8

 Other 21 11.4 26 10.7

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
58

Two interesting patterns emerge in the results regarding reporting fraud targeting to 

authorities featured in Table 7. First, law enforcement officials are rarely made aware of 

instances of shopping/purchasing fraud targeting. Participants most frequently called the police 

when they were targeted for phony subscription fraud (7.5%; or 14 of 187 targeted respondents 

for whom data are available), followed by repair fraud (4.9%; or 5 of 103 targeted respondents), 

and product/service that did not work (3.0%; or 5 of 168 targeted respondents). The second 

interesting feature is that survey respondents appear to be more willing to contact other 

authorities, such as the Better Business Bureau or a government agency. 

Table 7

Reporting of Shopping/Purchasing Fraud Targeting to Authorities

Past year Past 2 years

N % N %

Unnecessary or never performed repairs

 Reported to police Yes 5 4.9 10 6.5

No 98 95.1 145 93.5

 Reported to other authorities Yes 9 8.8 17 11.2

No 93 91.2 135 88.8

Product or service did not work

 Reported to police Yes 5 3.0 7 3.2

No 163 97.0 209 96.8

 Reported to other authorities Yes 11 6.6 18 8.4

No 156 93.4 197 91.6

Phony subscription

 Reported to police Yes 14 7.5 19 7.6

No 173 92.5 230 92.4

 Reported to other authorities Yes 14 7.6 20 8.1

No 171 92.4 227 91.9

 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
59

The prevalence of shopping/purchasing fraud victimization is provided in Table 8. Two findings 

require discussion. First, the most common form of shopping/purchasing fraud involves paying 

for a product or service that does not work as promised. This form of victimization was reported 

by 3.5% of the sample (or 68 of the 1932 respondents for whom data are available). A smaller 

percentage of the sample reported repair fraud victimization (1.2%; or 23 of 1960 respondents) 

and phony subscription fraud (1.1%; or 21 of 1875 respondents). Second, the relative frequencies 

of consumer fraud victimization are consistent across the two observation periods. The median 

dollar loss for each type of fraud victimization (1 year time period) is as follows: $225 for repair 

fraud, $67 for product/service fraud, and $30 for phony subscription fraud. 

Table 8

Prevalence of Shopping/Purchasing Fraud Victimization

Past year Past 2 years

N % N %

Unnecessary or never performed repairs Yes 23 1.2 40 2.0

No 1937 98.8 1920 98.0

Product or service did not work Yes 68 3.5 92 4.8

No 1864 96.5 1840 95.2

Phony subscription Yes 21 1.1 33 1.8

No 1854 98.9 1842 98.2

Another way to use the victimization data is to consider the percentage of those targeted 

for the different forms of shopping/purchasing fraud that ultimately became victims. Those who 

were exposed to opportunities to purchase products/services that did not perform as advertised 

were most likely to be victimized (40.5%; or 68 of 168 targeted respondents for whom data are 

available), followed by unnecessary or never performed repairs (22.1%; or 23 of 104 targeted 

respondents), and phony subscription (11.1%; or 21 of 189 targeted respondents).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
60

 In Table 9, the reporting data for shopping/purchasing fraud victimization are presented. 

Once again, it is clear that reporting incidents involving fraud-related matters to authorities is not 

the norm. However, differences between the types of shopping/purchasing fraud are observed. 

Respondents who reported being the victims of phony subscription fraud were most likely to 

report their victimization to the police (15%; or 3 of 20 victims for whom data are available). 

Individuals on the receiving end of unnecessary repairs or those who paid for repairs that were 

never performed most frequently reported their incidence to other authorities, such as the Better 

Business Bureau (19%; or 4 of 21 victims). With but one exception (i.e., phony subscription 

fraud at the one year time period), the results show that survey respondents more frequently 

contacted authorities other than the police to report their victimization. 

Table 9

Reporting of Shopping/Purchasing Fraud Victimization to Authorities

Past year Past 2 years

N % N %

Unnecessary or never performed repairs

 Reported to police Yes 2 9.5 4 10.0

No 19 90.5 36 90.0

 Reported to other authorities Yes 4 19.0 9 22.5

No 17 81.0 31 77.5

Product or service did not work

 Reported to police Yes 1 1.5 3 3.3

No 67 98.5 89 96.7

 Reported to other authorities Yes 3 4.5 8 8.8

No 64 95.5 83 91.2

Phony subscription

 Reported to police Yes 3 15.0 3 9.4

No 17 85.0 29 90.6

 Reported to other authorities Yes 3 14.3 4 12.1

No 18 85.7 29 87.9

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Financial Fraud 

 Table 10 features the prevalence of financial fraud targeting for one and two year periods. 

Having someone attempt to trick an individual into providing personal financial information was 

the most common type of financial fraud targeting. More than 16% of the sample (or 319 of the 

1944 respondents for whom data are available) reported being targeted in this way during the 

year prior to the study. Fewer participants have experienced someone trying to trick them into 

giving money to improve their financial situation (10.8%; or 212 of 1970 respondents) or trying 

to get them to invest in a phony business opportunity such as a work-at-home scam (8.8%; or 

173 of 1969 respondents). Importantly, this pattern of results is mirrored during the two-year 

observation period. 

Table 10

Prevalence of Financial Fraud Targeting

Past year Past 2 years

N % N %

Pay to improve finances Yes 212 10.8 255 12.9

No 1758 89.2 1715 87.1

Phony business opportunity Yes 173 8.8 217 11.0

No 1796 91.2 1752 89.0

Trick to get financial information Yes 319 16.4 413 21.2

No 1625 83.6 1531 78.8

 

Table 11 features the distributions of each mode of contact used to target the respondents for the 

three types of financial fraud. Telephone was the mode of contact used most often to attempt to 

get participants to pay money to improve their financial situations (44.2%) and trick them into 

providing financial information (42.8%). With respect to improving finances, approximately 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
62

one-quarter of the targeted sample was contacted via email, 15% by mail advertisements, and 

10% by web sites. Contact by way of email (30.4%) and web sites (17.6%) were also relatively 

common for attempts to get participants to provide personal financial information to unknown 

individuals. Regarding phony business opportunities, email (32.7%), telephone (29.8), and web 

sites (23.4%) were the most prevalent modes of targeting. Overall, respondents were targeted by 

would-be financial fraudsters most often through telephone, email, and web sites. It is worth 

noting that this general pattern of mode of contact was also observed for the two-year time 

period. 

Information on how frequently instances of financial fraud targeting were reported to 

authorities is provided in Table 12. Similar to the pattern of results observed for 

shopping/purchasing fraud (see Table 7), an overwhelming majority of respondents who were 

targeted for financial fraud did not report the offenses to the police. Notably, individuals who 

had someone try to trick them into providing financial information were the most likely to report 

the fraud attempt to law enforcement (13.5%; or 43 of 318 targeted respondents for whom data 

are available). Of the participants who had someone attempt to get them to pay money to 

improve their finances, approximately 9% informed the police about the fraud attempt (or 20 of 

212 targeted respondents). Reporting to law enforcement was least common in instances where 

someone attempted to get respondents to invest in a phony business venture (7.6%; or 13 of the 

172 targeted respondents). Other authorities, such as the Better Business Bureau or a government 

agency, were more likely to be made aware of all three types of financial fraud targeting. In fact, 

more than 22% of the sample (or 70 of the 314 targeted respondents) who had someone attempt 

to obtain their financial information reported that they contacted other authorities. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
63

Table 11

Mode of Contact for Financial Fraud Targeting

Past year Past 2 years

N % N %

Pay to improve finances

 Web site 20 9.6 22 8.8

 Email 51 24.5 55 22.0

 TV ad or infomercial 2 1.0 5 2.0

 Mail advertisement 32 15.4 36 14.4

 Telephone 92 44.2 114 45.6

 Store visited 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Someone came to home 1 0.5 3 1.2

 Radio advertisement 1 0.5 1 0.4

 Poster or flier 1 0.5 2 0.8

 Magazine/newspaper ad 0 0.0 1 0.4

 A bill received 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Other 8 3.8 11 4.4

Phony business opportunity

 Web site 40 23.4 48 22.5

 Email 56 32.7 65 30.5

 TV ad or infomercial 1 0.6 1 0.5

 Mail advertisement 6 3.5 14 6.6

 Telephone 51 29.8 60 28.2

 Store visited 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Someone came to home 3 1.8 5 2.3

 Radio advertisement 2 1.2 2 0.9

 Poster or flier 2 1.2 2 0.9

 Magazine/newspaper ad 1 0.6 2 0.9

 A bill received 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Other 9 5.3 14 6.6

Trick to get financial information

 Web site 55 17.6 65 16.3

 Email 95 30.4 114 28.5

 TV ad or infomercial 3 1.0 3 0.8

 Mail advertisement 10 3.2 13 3.3

 Telephone 134 42.8 183 45.8

 Store visited 2 0.6 3 0.8

 Someone came to home 1 0.3 3 0.8

 Radio advertisement 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Poster or flier 1 0.3 1 0.3

 Magazine/newspaper ad 1 0.3 1 0.3

 A bill received 3 1.0 3 0.8

 Other 8 2.6 11 2.8

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
64

Table 12

Reporting of Financial Fraud Targeting to Authorities

Past year Past 2 years

N % N %

Pay to improve finances

 Reported to police Yes 20 9.4 28 11.0

No 192 90.6 226 89.0

 Reported to other authorities Yes 25 12.0 35 14.1

No 183 88.0 214 85.9

Phony business opportunity

 Reported to police Yes 13 7.6 15 7.0

No 159 92.4 200 93.0

 Reported to other authorities Yes 20 11.7 25 11.6

No 151 88.3 190 88.4

Trick to get financial information

 Reported to police Yes 43 13.5 55 13.4

No 275 86.5 354 86.6

 Reported to other authorities Yes 70 22.3 93 22.9

No 244 77.7 314 77.1

 Findings on the prevalence of financial fraud victimization among study participants are 

presented in Table 13. Several observations require discussion. First, all three types of financial 

fraud victimization are rare. Second, the most frequently reported form of financial fraud 

victimization was being tricked into giving one’s personal financial information to an unknown 

person (0.8%; or 15 of the 1943 respondents for whom data are available). A smaller percentage 

of participates reported that they invested in a phony business opportunity (0.5%; or 9 of the 

1968 respondents) or were tricked into paying money to improve their finances (0.4%; or 8 of 

the 1970 respondents). Finally, the median dollar loss was highest for investing in a phony 

business ($6,248), followed by paying someone to improve finances ($580). The lowest median 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
65

dollar loss was incurred by victims who were tricked into providing their financial information 

($38). 

 What percentage of respondents targeted for financial fraud were actually victimized? 

The data show that financial fraud targets were rarely victims. During the one-year observation 

period, people who were presented with the opportunity to invest in a phony business were most 

likely to be victimized (5.2%; or 9 of 173 targeted respondents for whom data are available), 

followed closely by being tricked into providing financial information (4.7%; or 15 of 319 

targeted respondents), and paying to improve one’s financial situation (3.8%; or 8 of 212 

targeted respondents). 

Table 13

Prevalence of Financial Fraud Victimization

Past year Past 2 years

N % N %

Pay to improve finances Yes 8 0.4 11 0.6

No 1962 99.6 1958 99.4

Phony business opportunity Yes 9 0.5 10 0.5

No 1959 99.5 1958 99.5

Trick to get financial information Yes 15 0.8 22 1.1

No 1928 99.2 1920 98.9

 Reporting frequencies among victims of financial fraud are presented in Table 14. As was 

the case with financial fraud targeting, victims rarely notify the authorities about their 

experiences. At the same time, several observations emerge that require discussion. Of the three 

financial fraud offenses, the police were notified most frequently when participants were tricked 

into providing their financial information to someone (37.5%; or 3 of 8 victims for whom data 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
66

are available). With respect to investing in phony business opportunities, about 22% (or 2 of 9

victims) contacted law enforcement. Respondents who were tricked into providing their financial 

information to someone were least likely to contact the police (13.3%; or 2 of 15 victims). 

Interestingly, however, victims of this type of financial fraud were most likely to contact other 

authorities, such as the Better Business Bureau (42.9%; or 6 of 14 victims). Along these lines, 

the results show that survey respondents who paid to improve their finances or invested in sham 

businesses contacted the police and other authorities at relatively similar frequencies. However, 

respondents that were tricked into providing their financial information were more likely to 

contact authorities other than law enforcement. 

Table 14

Reporting of Financial Fraud Victimization to Authorities

Past year Past 2 years

N % N %

Pay to improve finances

 Reported to police Yes 3 37.5 3 27.3

No 5 62.5 8 72.7

 Reported to other authorities Yes 2 25.0 3 27.3

No 6 75.0 8 72.7

Phony business opportunity

 Reported to police Yes 2 22.2 2 20.0

No 7 77.8 8 80.0

 Reported to other authorities Yes 2 22.2 2 20.0

No 7 77.8 8 80.0

Trick to get financial information

 Reported to police Yes 2 13.3 5 22.7

No 13 86.7 17 77.3

 Reported to other authorities Yes 6 42.9 8 38.1

No 8 57.1 13 61.9

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
67

Other Types of Consumer Fraud

 Table 15 presents the prevalence of four additional types of consumer fraud targeting. 

The discussion of the findings will focus on the one-year observation period. Having someone 

attempt to get them to pay to claim a phony prize and contribute money to a phony charity or 

religious organization were the two most common types of consumer fraud targeting in Table 15. 

Approximately 24% (or 461 of the 1951 respondents for whom data are available) of the sample 

had an individual try to get them to pay money in order to claim a phony prize such as a 

vacation. Additionally, about 22% (or 386 of the 1781 respondents) of participants reported that 

someone tried to get them to contribute money to a phony charity or religious organization. 

Fewer respondents experienced an attempt to steal their personal information (7.3%; or 137 of 

1881 respondents) or to pay money in advance to reduce mortgage payments (5.8%; or 115 of 

1972 respondents). The same general pattern of results was observed for the two-year 

observation period. 

Table 15

Prevalence of Other Types of Consumer Fraud Targeting

Past year Past 2 years

N % N %

Phony charity or religious organization Yes 386 21.7 458 25.7

No 1395 78.3 1323 74.3

Pay to claim phony prize Yes 461 23.6 556 28.5

No 1490 76.4 1395 71.5

Reduce mortgage payments Yes 115 5.8 130 6.6

No 1857 94.2 1842 93.4

Steal personal information Yes 137 7.3 201 10.7

No 1744 92.4 1680 89.3

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
68

 Table 16 features frequencies for the modes of contact used for each of the four types of 

consumer fraud. Survey respondents were contacted by would-be fraudsters most frequently by 

telephone during the year leading up to the study (59.2% for phony charity or religious 

organization, 36.3% for phony prize, 54.4% for reduce mortgage payments, and 35.2% for steal 

personal information). Mail advertisements were also used to target a large portion of the sample 

for fraud schemes involving a phony charity or religious organization (17.5%), paying to claim a 

phony prize (25.1%), and paying money in advance to reduce mortgage payments (20.2%). 

Given increased computer usage among the elderly in recent years, it is not surprising that 

approximately 24% of the sample were contacted via email by someone attempting to persuade 

them to pay money to claim a phony prize. With respect to having someone try to steal personal 

information to get a credit card or a loan, about 30% of the sample reported that they were 

contacted through some “other” method. The general pattern of results was consistent across the 

two observation periods. 

Table 17 presents distributions for reporting each of the consumer fraud targeting types to 

authorities. Several observations are worth noting. First, consistent with the other forms of 

consumer fraud discussed previously, the authorities were rarely notified about these four types 

of fraud. Law enforcement was contacted most frequently by individuals who had a person 

attempt to steal their personal information (24.8%; or 30 of 121 targeted respondents for whom 

data are available). It appears that this type of consumer fraud attempt was viewed as more 

serious by respondents because they contacted the police at a much greater frequency than the 

other types of consumer fraud. In fact, only 6.6% of respondents who had someone try to 

persuade them to contribute money to a phony charity or religious organization, 5.9% of 

participants who experienced someone try to entice them into paying to claim a phony prize, and 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
69

3.5% of people who had an individual attempt to swindle them into paying money in advance to 

reduce their mortgage payments reported their experiences to the police. Survey respondents 

were more likely to contact other authorities, such as the Better Business Bureau, when someone 

tried to get them to pay money to claim a prize (9%) or reduce mortgage payments (9.6%). 

Additionally, even with people contacting law enforcement officials with relative frequency 

when someone attempts to steal their personal information, respondents were still more likely to 

contact other authorities (29.6%). However, elderly people are almost equally likely to notify the 

police and other authorities when someone tries to coax them into contributing to a phony charity 

(6.6% and 6.9%, respectively). 

Table 18 provides the prevalence of the other types of consumer fraud victimization. The 

most common form of consumer fraud victimization involves having personal information stolen 

(2.7%; or 50 of the 1872 respondents for whom data are available). Fraud victimization resulting 

from contributing money to phony charities followed closely behind (2.6%; or 47 of the 1777 

respondents). A relatively small percentage of survey respondents reported being a victim of 

paying money to claim a phony prize (0.5%; or 9 of the 1951 respondents) or reduce mortgage 

payments in advance (0.2%; or 3 of the 1972 respondents). This pattern of results is consistent 

across the two observation periods. The median dollar loss between each type of consumer fraud 

varies from $20 (contributing to a phony charity or religious organization) to $700 (paying to 

reduce mortgage payments). The median dollar loss associated with being a victim of a phony 

prize scam was $219, and $200 for victimization relating to having personal information stolen. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 16

Mode of Contact for Other Types of Consumer Fraud Targeting

Past year Past 2 years

N % N %

Phony charity or religious organization

 Web site 17 4.5 19 4.3

 Email 27 7.2 29 6.5

 TV ad or infomercial 6 1.6 7 1.6

 Mail advertisement 66 17.5 81 18.2

 Telephone 223 59.2 262 58.7

 Store visited 3 0.8 4 0.9

 Someone came to home 19 5.0 25 5.6

 Radio advertisement 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Poster or flier 2 0.5 2 0.4

 Magazine/newspaper ad 0 0.0 0 0.0

 A bill received 1 0.3 1 0.2

 Other 13 3.4 16 3.6

Pay to claim phony prize

 Web site 52 11.4 56 10.2

 Email 108 23.7 125 22.8

 TV ad or infomercial 4 0.9 4 0.7

 Mail advertisement 114 25.1 146 26.6

 Telephone 165 36.3 204 37.2

 Store visited 0 0.0 1 0.2

 Someone came to home 3 0.7 3 0.5

 Radio advertisement 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Poster or flier 1 0.2 1 0.2

 Magazine/newspaper ad 1 0.2 1 0.2

 A bill received 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Other 7 1.5 8 1.5

Reduce mortgage payments

 Web site 10 8.8 13 10.2

 Email 9 7.9 11 8.6

 TV ad or infomercial 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Mail advertisement 23 20.2 25 19.5

 Telephone 62 54.4 68 53.1

 Store visited 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Someone came to home 2 1.8 2 1.6

 Radio advertisement 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Poster or flier 1 0.9 1 0.8

 Magazine/newspaper ad 0 0.0 0 0.0

 A bill received 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Other 7 6.1 8 6.3

Steal personal information

 Web site 8 7.6 15 9.3

 Email 7 6.7 11 6.8

 TV ad or infomercial 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Mail advertisement 7 6.7 9 5.6

 Telephone 37 35.2 51 31.7

 Store visited 2 1.9 4 2.5

 Someone came to home 3 2.9 5 3.1

 Radio advertisement 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Poster or flier 1 1.0 1 0.6

 Magazine/newspaper ad 2 1.9 2 1.2

 A bill received 7 6.7 14 8.7

 Other 31 29.5 49 30.4

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
71

Table 17

Reporting of Other Types of Consumer Fraud Targeting to Authorities

Past year Past 2 years

N % N %

Phony charity or religious organization

 Reported to police Yes 25 6.6 27 6.0

No 353 93.4 421 94.0

 Reported to other authorities Yes 26 6.9 33 7.4

No 350 93.1 413 92.6

Pay to claim a phony prize

 Reported to police Yes 27 5.9 41 7.4

No 431 94.1 512 92.6

 Reported to other authorities Yes 41 9.0 55 10.0

No 417 91.0 496 90.0

Reduce mortgage payments

 Reported to police Yes 4 3.5 5 3.8

No 111 96.5 125 96.2

 Reported to other authorities Yes 11 9.6 11 8.5

No 104 90.4 119 91.5

Steal personal information

 Reported to police Yes 30 24.8 55 30.7

No 91 75.2 124 69.3

 Reported to other authorities Yes 34 29.6 57 33.3

No 81 70.4 114 66.7

Table 18

Prevalence of Other Types of Consumer Fraud Victimization

Past year Past 2 years

N % N %

Phony charity or religious organization Yes 47 2.6 59 3.3

No 1730 97.4 1717 96.7

Pay to claim phony prize Yes 9 0.5 11 0.6

No 1942 99.5 1940 99.4

Reduce mortgage payments Yes 3 0.2 3 0.2

No 1969 99.8 1972 99.8

Steal personal information Yes 50 2.7 78 4.2

No 1822 97.3 1791 95.8

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
72

 As for the percentage of targeted respondents who actually became consumer fraud 

victims, the highest percentage involved stolen personal information (36.5%; or 50 of 137 

targeted respondents for data are available). Clearly, this offense is difficult to protect oneself 

against. The second most frequent type of victimization was contributing money to a phony 

charity or religious organization (12.2%; or 47 of 386 targeted respondents), followed by paying 

money in advance to reduce mortgage payments (2.6%; or 3 of 115 targeted respondents), and 

paying to claim a phony prize (0.9%; or 9 of 461 targeted respondents).

 The distributions of reporting for the different type of consumer fraud victimization 

experiences are provided in Table 19. Four findings emerge. First, respondents who reported 

having their personal information stolen were most likely to report their victimization to the 

police (29.8%; or 14 of the 47 victims for whom data are available) and other authorities (35.4%; 

or 17 of the 48 victims). Second, a majority of the sample who was tricked into paying to claim a 

fake prize reported their victimization to other authorities (55.6%; or 5 of the 9 victims). Onethird of victims of this type of consumer fraud notified the police. This same pattern of results is 

observed for survey respondents who reported paying money in advance to reduce their 

mortgages, with 33.3% informing the police (or 1 of the 3 victims) and 66.7% contacting other 

authorities (or 2 of the 3 victims). Finally, participants who were deceived into contributing 

money to a bogus charity or religious organization infrequently reported their victimization to 

the police (4.5%; or 2 of the 44 victims) or other authorities (6.7%; or 3 of the 45 victims). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
73

Table 19

Reporting of Other Types of Consumer Fraud Victimization to Authorities

Past year Past 2 years

N % N %

Phony charity or religious organization

 Reported to police Yes 2 4.5 3 5.4

No 42 95.5 53 94.6

 Reported to other authorities Yes 3 6.7 5 8.8

No 42 93.3 52 91.2

Pay to claim a phony prize

 Reported to police Yes 3 33.3 3 27.3

No 6 66.7 8 72.7

 Reported to other authorities Yes 5 55.6 5 45.5

No 4 44.4 6 54.5

Reduce mortgage payments

 Reported to police Yes 1 33.3 1 33.3

No 2 66.7 2 66.7

 Reported to other authorities Yes 2 66.7 2 66.7

No 1 33.3 1 33.3

Steal personal information

 Reported to police Yes 14 29.8 30 41.1

No 33 70.2 43 58.9

 Reported to other authorities Yes 17 35.4 32 43.2

No 31 64.6 42 56.8

The Nature and Prevalence of Financial Mistreatment 

Financial Mistreatment 

The overall prevalence of financial mistreatment in the sample during the year leading up 

to the study was 5.6% (or 108 of the 1943 respondents for whom data are available). This finding 

is nearly identical to the prevalence of financial mistreatment observed by Acierno and 

colleagues’ (2009) nationally representative sample of elderly people (5.2%). Not surprisingly, 

the prevalence of financial mistreatment for the two-year observation period was higher. During 

this period 8.4% of the sample reported being a victim of financial mistreatment (see Table 20).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 20

Prevalence of Financial Mistreatment

Past year Past 2 years

N % N %

Financial mistreatment Yes 108 5.6 164 8.4

No 1835 94.4 1781 91.6

Specific Forms of Financial Mistreatment 

The prevalence of the specific forms of financial mistreatment is presented in Table 21. 

The most common type of financial mistreatment experienced by the respondents during the year 

preceding the study was having someone steal their money or belongings (3.4%; or 68 of the 

1978 respondents for whom data are available). The prevalence of this form of financial 

mistreatment also mirrors national estimates observed by Acierno et al. (2009). Fewer 

individuals reported that someone spent their money or sold property without their permission 

(2.2%; or 44 of 1976 respondents) or forged their signature (1.3%; or 26 of 1978 respondents).

The prevalence of financial mistreatment in this sample is similar to that of shopping/purchasing 

fraud victimization (see, e.g., Table 8) and other forms of fraud victimization, such as having 

personal information stolen and contributing money to phony charities (see, e.g., Table 18). In 

terms of dollar loss, people who were victims of forged signatures had a median dollar loss of 

$1,000. This was followed by a $700 median dollar loss incurred by people who had someone 

spend their money or sell their property without permission, and a $413 median dollar loss for 

individuals who had money or property stolen. When considering all three forms of financial 

mistreatment together, the median dollar loss was $500 for the one-year time period ($600 for 

the two-year period). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
75

Table 21

Prevalence of Specific Forms of Financial Mistreatment

Past year Past 2 years

N % N %

Spent money or sold something Yes 44 2.2 59 3.0

No 1932 97.8 1917 97.0

Forged signature Yes 26 1.3 39 2.0

No 1952 98.7 1939 98.0

Stole money or property Yes 68 3.4 109 5.5

No 1910 96.6 1869 94.5

 Table 22 presents information on the victim-offender relationships for financial 

mistreatment. Several findings emerge. A larger percentage of respondents who had someone 

spend their money or sell something without their permission (42.9%; or 15 of the 35 victims) or 

forge their signature (50.0%; or 10 of the 20 victims) were victimized by a family member. 

Respondents’ children were the most frequent culprits of these two types of financial 

mistreatment (20.0% for spent money or sold something, 30.0% for forged signature). A smaller 

portion of participants who had their money stolen or items taken were victimized by a relative 

(29.4%; or 15 of the 51 victims). Still, sons/daughters comprised the largest group under the 

family member heading for this type of financial mistreatment (17.6%; or 9 of the 51 victims). 

About one-quarter of respondents who experienced someone spend their money or sell 

something without their permission (25.7%; or 9 of the 35 victims), 30% (or 6 of the 20 victims) 

who had their signature forged, and 39.2% (or 20 of the 51 victims) who had their money stolen 

or things taken were victimized by a stranger. This same pattern of results was observed for the 

two-year observation period. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
76

Table 22

Victim-Offender Relationship for Financial Mistreatment

Past year Past 2 years

N % N %

Spent money or sold something

 Spouse or partner 4 11.4 5 10.2

 Ex-spouse or partner 1 2.9 1 2.0

 Son or daughter 7 20.0 10 20.4

 Brother or sister 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Niece/nephew 1 2.9 3 6.1

 Cousin 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Grandchild 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Other relative 2 5.7 2 4.1

 Friend 6 17.1 10 20.4

 Neighbor 2 5.7 2 4.1

 Stranger (no relation) 9 25.7 12 24.5

 Employee 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Other non-relative 3 8.6 4 8.2

Forged signature

 Spouse or partner 2 10.0 3 10.3

 Ex-spouse or partner 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Son or daughter 6 30.0 7 24.1

 Brother or sister 1 5.0 1 3.4

 Niece/nephew 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Cousin 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Grandchild 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Other relative 1 5.0 2 6.9

 Friend 2 10.0 2 6.9

 Neighbor 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Stranger (no relation) 6 30.0 9 31.0

 Employee 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Other non-relative 2 10.0 5 17.2

Stolen money or property

 Spouse or partner 1 2.0 2 2.4

 Ex-spouse or partner 0 0.0 2 2.4

 Son or daughter 9 17.6 12 14.5

 Brother or sister 1 2.0 2 2.4

 Niece/nephew 1 2.0 3 3.6

 Cousin 1 2.0 2 2.4

 Grandchild 1 2.0 1 1.2

 Other relative 1 2.0 1 1.2

 Friend 6 11.8 9 10.8

 Neighbor 3 5.9 6 7.2

 Stranger (no relation) 20 39.2 31 37.3

 Employee 3 5.9 3 3.6

 Other non-relative 4 7.8 9 10.8

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
77

 Information on financial mistreatment reporting practices is provided in Table 23. About 

one-quarter of individuals (27%; or 10 of 37 victims) who indicated someone spent their money 

or sold their property without permission reported the offense to the police. A higher percentage 

of individuals who had their money or property stolen reported their victimization to law 

enforcement (40.4%; or 21 of the 52 victims). A similar percentage of respondents who had their 

signature forged notified the police (42.1%; or 8 of the 19 victims). The data show that victims 

of financial mistreatment are more likely to contact law enforcement agencies regarding their 

experience than other authorities such as social services. 

Table 23

Reporting of Financial Mistreatment to Authorities

Past year Past 2 years

N % N %

Spent money or sold something

 Reported to police Yes 10 27.0 14 28.0

No 27 73.0 36 72.0

 Reported to other authorities Yes 3 8.6 4 8.3

No 32 91.4 44 91.7

Forged signature

 Reported to police Yes 8 42.1 12 41.4

No 11 57.9 17 58.6

 Reported to other authorities Yes 2 11.1 4 14.3

No 16 88.9 24 85.7

Stolen money or property

 Reported to police Yes 21 40.4 38 44.7

No 31 59.6 47 55.3

 Reported to other authorities Yes 8 15.4 11 13.1

No 44 84.6 73 86.9

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
78

Fraud Targeting and Victimization across Demographic Groups 

Fraud Targeting across Demographic Groups

Table 24 features a series of cross-tabulations showing the distribution of fraud targeting 

across demographic characteristics. The analyses use data from the one-year observation period. 

Chi-square tests (χ2) were estimated to determine whether fraud targeting varies significantly 

across groups. With respect to age, the results demonstrate that fraud targeting is least common 

among the oldest-old (i.e., 80 years and older).2 Less than half of the oldest-old respondents 

(49.6%) indicated that they had been targeted. However, 63% of the young-old and 62.2% of the 

old-old reported being targeted. Although significant, the strength of the relationship between 

age and fraud targeting is weak (Cramer’s V = 0.11).

With regards to gender, males reported being targeted more frequently than females 

(65.4% versus 56.4%, respectively). However, the strength of this relationship is very modest 

(phi = 0.09). Retired individuals report being targeted less frequently than their counterparts 

(57.4% versus 66.7%, respectively). The association between fraud targeting and being retired is 

weak (phi = -0.08). About 69% of survey respondents with graduate-level education report being 

fraud targets during the year leading up to the study, making them the most targeted group with 

respect to educational attainment. In general, education is weakly associated with fraud targeting 

(Cramer’s V = 0.11). No differences in fraud targeting were observed across racial and ethnic 

minorities. 

 

2 For this analysis the age variable was collapsed into a three-category variable, ranging from 

young-old, to old-old, to oldest-old. This classification scheme is consistent with prior 

gerontology research (Suzman, Willis, & Manton, 1992).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
79

Table 24

Fraud Targeting by Demographics 

Fraud targeting

% Yes (N) % No (N) Chi-square

Age

 Young-old (60 to 72) 63.0 (585) 37.0 (343) 20.37**

 Old-old (73 to 79) 62.2 (258) 37.8 (157)

 Oldest-old (80 and older) 49.6 (175) 50.4 (178)

Gender

 Female 56.4 (633) 43.6 (489) 13.99**

 Male 65.4 (433) 34.6 (229)

Racial minority

 No 59.4 (971) 40.6 (663) 1.28

 Yes 64.9 (72) 35.1 (39)

Hispanic

 No 59.8 (1024) 40.2 (687) 0.16

 Yes 62.5 (35) 37.5 (21)

Retired

 No 66.7 (311) 33.3 (155) 12.36**

 Yes 57.4 (749) 42.6 (555)

Married

 No 57.5 (424) 42.5 (313) 2.54

 Yes 61.3 (632) 38.7 (399)

Education 

 Less than high school 58.2 (110) 41.8 (79) 21.90**

 High school graduate/equivalency 50.8 (159) 49.2 (154)

 Some college/vocational school 58.9 (327) 41.1 (228)

 College graduate 63.9 (311) 36.1 (176)

 Graduate school 68.9 (151) 31.1 (68)

Note. Sample sizes are in parentheses. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
80

Fraud Victimization across Demographic Groups (Full Sample) 

A number of cross-tabulations depicting the distribution of fraud victimization across 

various demographic groups using the full sample are presented in Table 25. Statistically 

significant differences were observed across two demographic groups. First, racial minorities 

were more likely to report that they had been the victims of consumer fraud during the year 

leading up to the study. About 23% of racial minorities were fraud victims. However, the 

relationship between race and fraud victimization is weak (phi = 0.07). Second, retired 

individuals were less likely to report fraud victimization. Twelve-percent of retired participants 

reported being a fraud victim compared to 16.6% of their counterparts. The strength of the 

association between fraud victimization and being retired is weak (phi = -0.05). No differences in 

fraud victimization were observed across the other demographic characteristics (e.g., Hispanic 

and education) featured in Table 25. 

Fraud Victimization across Demographic Groups (Targeted Subsample) 

 The distribution of fraud victimization can also be evaluated by looking at the subsample 

of study participants who reported being targeted. Table 26 features a series of cross-tabulations 

for the targeted subsample. The results reveal that age (Cramer’s V = 0.10) and racial minority 

(phi = 0.09) are significantly associated with fraud victimization. With respect to age, the 

targeted individuals in young-old (i.e., 60 to 72 years) age group report less frequent 

victimization (21%) when compared to the older age groups (29% and 29.7%, respectively). 

Additionally, targeted racial minorities more frequently report victimization (38.6% versus 

24.1%, respectively). No other significant differences in fraud victimization were observed. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
81

Table 25

Fraud Victimization across Demographic Groups (Full Sample)

Fraud victimization

% Yes (N) % No (N) Chi-square

Age

 Young-old (60 to 72) 12.0 (97) 88.0 (708) 3.34

 Old-old (73 to 79) 16.0 (56) 84.0 (294)

 Oldest-old (80 and older) 13.0 (41) 87.0 (275)

Gender

 Female 13.6 (135) 86.4 (860) 0.00

 Male 13.6 (76) 86.4 (482)

Racial minority

 No 12.9 (183) 87.1 (1240) 7.79**

 Yes 22.9 (22) 77.1 (74)

Hispanic

 No 13.5 (201) 86.5 (1287) 0.32

 Yes 16.3 (8) 83.7 (41)

Retired

 No 16.6 (69) 83.4 (347) 4.45*

 Yes 12.4 (140) 87.6 (985)

Married

 No 12.5 (80) 87.5 (558) 0.79

 Yes 14.1 (127) 85.9 (773)

Education 

 Less than high school 16.6 (29) 83.4 (146) 2.97

 High school graduate/equivalency 11.3 (31) 88.7 (244)

 Some college/vocational school 13.1 (63) 86.9 (419)

 College graduate 14.5 (61) 85.5 (361)

 Graduate school 13.4 (24) 86.6 (155)

Note. Sample sizes are in parentheses. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 26

Fraud Victimization across Demographic Groups (Targeted Subsample)

Fraud victimization

% Yes (N) % No (N) Chi-square

Age

 Young-old (60 to 72) 21.0 (97) 79.0 (365) 7.26*

 Old-old (73 to 79) 29.0 (56) 71.0 (137)

 Oldest-old (80 and older) 29.7 (41) 70.3 (97)

Gender

 Female 26.7 (135) 73.3 (371) 1.35

 Male 23.1 (76) 76.9 (253)

Racial minority

 No 24.1 (183) 75.9 (577) 5.95*

 Yes 38.6 (22) 61.4 (35)

Hispanic

 No 25.1 (201) 74.9 (600) 0.17

 Yes 28.6 (8) 71.4 (20)

Retired

 No 26.4 (69) 73.6 (192) 0.33

 Yes 24.6 (140) 75.4 (430)

Married

 No 24.6 (80) 75.4 (245) 0.06

 Yes 25.3 (127) 74.7 (374)

Education 

 Less than high school 30.2 (29) 69.8 (67) 2.09

 High school graduate/equivalency 25.6 (31) 74.4 (90)

 Some college/vocational school 24.8 (63) 75.2 (191)

 College graduate 24.8 (61) 75.2 (185)

 Graduate school 21.6 (24) 78.4 (87)

Note. Sample sizes are in parentheses. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Financial Mistreatment across Demographic Groups

Table 27 presents a series of cross-tabulations for the distribution of financial 

mistreatment across various demographic groups. This assessment focuses on the two-year 

observation period which provides more incidents of financial mistreatment to assess. The results 

demonstrate that significant differences exist for two demographic groups. Males were more 

likely than females to report being the victims of financial mistreatment during the past two 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
83

years (11.2% versus 6.9%, respectively). Consistent with pattern of findings observed for fraud 

victimization, racial minorities more frequently reported being the victims of financial 

mistreatment (14% versus 8%, respectively). It is important to note that the strength of the 

associations are weak (phi = 0.07 for gender, phi = 0.05 for racial minority).

Table 27

Financial Mistreatment by Demographics 

Financial mistreatment

% Yes (N) % No (N) Chi-square

Age

 Young-old (60 to 72) 9.8 (98) 90.2 (903) 4.76

 Old-old (73 to 79) 7.5 (34) 92.5 (421)

 Oldest-old (80 and older) 6.5 (25) 93.5 (360)

Gender

 Female 6.9 (86) 93.1 (1159) 10.47**

 Male 11.2 (78) 88.8 (621)

Racial minority

 No 8.0 (143) 92.0 (1635) 5.30*

 Yes 14.0 (17) 86.0 (104)

Hispanic

 No 8.4 (156) 91.6 (1711) 1.85

 Yes 13.3 (8) 86.7 (52)

Retired

 No 10.1 (52) 89.9 (463) 2.42

 Yes 7.9 (111) 92.1 (1300)

Married

 No 9.4 (76) 90.6 (730) 1.49

 Yes 7.9 (88) 92.1 (1032)

Education 

 Less than high school 11.3 (24) 88.7 (188) 4.97

 High school graduate/equivalency 7.9 (27) 92.1 (314)

 Some college/vocational school 7.2 (43) 92.8 (554)

 College graduate 8.2 (43) 91.8 (480)

 Graduate school 10.5 (26) 89.5 (221)

Note. Sample sizes are in parentheses. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
84

A Multivariate Assessment of Fraud Targeting 

 Table 28 features two logistic regression models that examine the predictors of fraud 

targeting (one-year observation period). In Model 1, fraud targeting is regressed on the remote 

purchasing, low self-control, and seven demographic variables. The Wald χ2 is statistically 

significant at the 0.01 level, which indicates that the model accounts for more variation in fraud 

targeting than would be expected by chance alone. Consistent with expectations, the results 

reveal that remote purchasing is positively associated with fraud targeting as indicated by the 

statistically significant z-test. The odds ratio indicates that each additional form of remote 

purchasing used by respondents elevates their odds of being targeted by 44.4%. While 

participating in a greater variety of remote purchasing is associated with increased fraud 

targeting risk, the combined scale may obscure the effects that different forms of remote 

purchasing have on fraud targeting. In Model 2, the effects of specific forms of remote 

purchasing are examined. The results show that all five forms of remote purchasing increase the 

odds of being targeted. However, when evaluating the odds ratios, telemarketing purchase 

appears to stand apart from the rest. Respondents who purchased something in response to a 

telemarketing call from a company with whom they had not previously done business during the 

previous year increased their risk of becoming a fraud target by over 200% compared to those 

who had not made such purchases. In comparison, the odds of fraud targeting increased by 

35.7% after making an online purchase and by 54.7% after buying items in response to email 

solicitations. 

 The regression models in Table 28 also assess whether low self-control is associated with 

fraud targeting. The findings from model 1 demonstrate that low self-control is positively 

associated with fraud targeting after controlling for remote purchasing and demographic 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
85

characteristics. Specifically, a one-unit increase in low self-control translates into a 16% increase 

in the odds of being a fraud target. The results suggest people with poor self-control engage in 

behaviors or activities beyond remote purchasing that increase the odds of fraud targeting. Future 

research should focus on identifying which behaviors are related to low self-control and increase 

fraud-targeting risk.

Two important findings also emerged with respect to the effect of demographic 

characteristics on fraud targeting. Both regression models show that males are more likely to be 

targets for fraud than females and higher levels of education increase fraud targeting risk. In 

Model 1, for example, the odds of fraud targeting are 31.2% higher for males. As for education, a 

one-unit increase in education corresponds with a 13.2% increase in the odds of fraud targeting. 

In Tables 29 through 34, the different forms of fraud targeting are regressed on remote 

purchasing, low self-control, and the demographic variables. The results show that remote 

purchasing increases the odds of all forms of targeting (see Model 1 in each table). Participants 

who engage in a greater variety of remote purchasing increase their odds of being the targets of 

shopping fraud (odds ratio = 1.358), financial fraud (odds ratio = 1.420), charity scams (odds 

ratio = 1.169), prize notification fraud (odds ratio = 1.305), mortgage rescue fraud (odds ratio = 

1.244), and identity theft (odds ratio = 1.261). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
86

Table 28

Fraud Targeting Logistic Regression Models

Fraud targeting

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.368 1.444 6.14** --- --- ---

(0.060)

Telemarketing purchase --- --- --- 1.110 3.034 2.56**

(0.433)

Online purchase --- --- --- 0.306 1.357 2.86**

(0.107)

Infomercial purchase --- --- --- 0.313 1.368 2.43*

(0.129)

Mail-order purchase --- --- --- 0.405 1.500 2.40*

(0.169)

Email-order purchase --- --- --- 0.436 1.547 2.18*

(0.200)

Low self-control 0.150 1.162 3.59** 0.147 1.159 3.51**

(0.042) (0.042)

Age -0.008 0.992 -1.30 -0.010 0.990 -1.45

(0.007) (0.007)

Male 0.271 1.312 2.67** 0.276 1.318 2.71**

(0.102) (0.102)

Racial minority 0.294 1.342 1.49 0.270 1.309 1.35

(0.198) (0.200)

Hispanic 0.405 1.500 1.42 0.389 1.476 1.37

(0.285) (0.283)

Education 0.124 1.132 3.03** 0.129 1.138 3.09**

(0.041) (0.042)

Retired -0.214 0.807 -1.86 -0.209 0.811 -1.81

(0.115) (0.116)

Married -0.019 0.981 -0.19 -0.011 0.989 -0.11

(0.099) (0.010)

Wald χ2 = 95.42** 95.61**

N = 1958 1958

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
87

Consistent with previous analyses (see Table 28), the effect of specific forms of remote 

purchasing are also assessed (see Model 2 in each table). Several findings emerge. The effect of 

telemarketing purchase appears limited to two types of targeting—shopping fraud and financial 

fraud. Respondents who placed an order for a product after seeing an infomercial also increased 

their odds of being targeted for shopping fraud. Participants who made online purchases had 

higher odds of targeting for financial fraud, charity scams, and prize notification fraud. The 

effect of placing an order after receiving an unsolicited email only increased the odds shopping 

fraud targeting. Finally, placing an order after receiving solicited mail increased the odds of 

various forms of targeting, including shopping fraud, financial fraud, charity scams, and prize 

notification fraud. Interestingly, none of the individual forms of remote purchasing increased the 

odds of being targeted for mortgage rescue fraud targeting and identity theft. 

 The models in Tables 29 through 34 show that the effect of low self-control varies. Poor 

self-control increases the odds of being targeted for shopping fraud, charity scams, and identity 

theft. 

 Several demographic variables are correlated with specific forms of targeting. Younger 

participants are more likely to report being targeted for financial fraud and prize notification 

fraud. Males were more often the targets of financial fraud, charity scams, and prize notification 

fraud. No consistent effects for racial minority were observed. Hispanic respondents were more 

likely to be targeted for shopping fraud. Higher levels of formal education were linked to 

financial fraud targeting and prize notification fraud targeting. Retired participants were less 

likely to be targeted for shopping fraud. Finally, married respondents were more likely to be the 

targets of mortgage rescue fraud. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
88

Table 29

Shopping Fraud Targeting Logistic Regression Models

Shopping fraud targeting

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.326 1.385 5.10** --- --- ---

(0.064)

Telemarketing purchase --- --- --- 0.754 2.126 2.27*

(0.332)

Online purchase --- --- --- 0.199 1.220 1.53

(0.130)

Infomercial purchase --- --- --- 0.321 1.378 2.30*

(0.140)

Mail-order purchase --- --- --- 0.346 1.414 1.99*

(0.174)

Email-order purchase --- --- --- 0.420 1.522 2.11*

(0.199)

Low self-control 0.222 1.249 4.24** 0.218 1.243 4.15**

(0.052) (0.053)

Age 0.007 1.007 0.91 0.005 1.005 0.59

(0.008) (0.008)

Male 0.065 1.068 0.55 0.074 1.077 0.62

(0.119) (0.120)

Racial minority 0.409 1.505 1.89 0.361 1.434 1.63

(0.216) (0.221)

Hispanic 0.605 1.831 2.14* 0.584 1.793 2.08*

(0.283) (0.280)

Education 0.097 1.102 1.89 0.107 1.113 2.07**

(0.051) (0.052)

Retired -0.294 0.745 -2.25* -0.292 0.747 -2.21*

(0.131) (0.132)

Married -0.076 0.927 -0.63 -0.063 0.939 -0.52

(0.120) (0.121)

Wald χ2 = 64.59** 68.18**

N = 1954 1954

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
89

Table 30

Financial Fraud Targeting Logistic Regression Models

Financial fraud targeting

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.350 1.420 5.88** --- --- ---

(0.060)

Telemarketing purchase --- --- --- 0.692 1.997 2.02*

(0.343)

Online purchase --- --- --- 0.418 1.519 3.55**

(0.118)

Infomercial purchase --- --- --- 0.244 1.277 1.83

(0.134)

Mail-order purchase --- --- --- 0.337 1.400 2.00*

(0.168)

Email-order purchase --- --- --- 0.323 1.381 1.72

(0.188)

Low self-control 0.034 1.035 0.70 0.034 1.035 0.71

(0.048) (0.048)

Age -0.019 0.981 -2.45* -0.018 0.982 -2.26*

(0.008) (0.008)

Male 0.428 1.534 3.92** 0.426 1.532 3.89**

(0.109) (0.110)

Racial minority 0.244 1.276 1.15 0.248 1.282 1.15

(0.212) (0.216)

Hispanic 0.252 1.287 0.87 0.260 1.297 0.91

(0.289) (0.287)

Education 0.118 1.126 2.47* 0.113 1.119 2.31*

(0.048) (0.049)

Retired -0.214 0.807 -1.75 -0.202 0.817 -1.64

(0.123) (0.123)

Married 0.102 1.107 0.90 0.095 1.099 0.84

(0.112) (0.113)

Wald χ2 = 89.95** 91.99**

N = 1955 1955

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
90

Table 31

Charity Scam Targeting Logistic Regression Models

Charity scam targeting

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.157 1.169 2.47* --- --- ---

(0.063)

Telemarketing purchase --- --- --- 0.198 1.219 0.53

(0.377)

Online purchase --- --- --- 0.253 1.288 2.05*

(0.123)

Infomercial purchase --- --- --- -0.056 0.945 -0.39

(0.146)

Mail-order purchase --- --- --- 0.502 1.652 2.96**

(0.170)

Email-order purchase --- --- --- -0.115 0.891 -0.54

(0.214)

Low self-control 0.100 1.106 1.98* 0.101 1.107 1.99*

(0.051) (0.051)

Age 0.005 1.005 0.65 0.005 1.005 0.64

(0.007) (0.008)

Male 0.256 1.292 2.22* 0.254 1.289 2.19*

(0.116) (0.116)

Racial minority 0.386 1.471 1.80 0.422 1.525 1.95

(0.214) (0.216)

Hispanic -0.517 0.596 -1.43 -0.496 0.609 -1.38

(0.362) (0.359)

Education 0.054 1.055 1.10 0.040 1.041 0.80

(0.049) (0.050)

Retired -0.089 0.915 -0.59 -0.076 0.927 -0.58

(0.130) (0.130)

Married -0.078 0.925 -0.67 -0.085 0.918 -0.72

(0.117) (0.118)

Wald χ2 = 27.29** 35.10**

N = 1954 1954

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
91

Table 32

Prize Notification Fraud Targeting Logistic Regression Models

Prize notification fraud targeting

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.266 1.305 4.35** --- --- ---

(0.061)

Telemarketing purchase --- --- --- 0.408 1.504 1.19

(0.344)

Online purchase --- --- --- 0.278 1.320 2.30*

(0.121)

Infomercial purchase --- --- --- 0.208 1.232 1.50

(0.139)

Mail-order purchase --- --- --- 0.452 1.571 2.67**

(0.169)

Email-order purchase --- --- --- 0.083 1.086 0.41

(0.200)

Low self-control 0.094 1.099 1.95 0.094 1.098 1.93

(0.048) (0.048)

Age -0.021 0.979 -2.73** -0.022 0.978 -2.75**

(0.008) (0.008)

Male 0.343 1.409 3.05** 0.344 1.410 3.05**

(0.112) (0.113)

Racial minority 0.131 1.141 0.61 0.133 1.142 0.62

(0.214) (0.215)

Hispanic -0.081 0.922 -0.25 -0.080 0.924 -0.25

(0.318) (0.318)

Education 0.118 1.126 2.43* 0.115 1.122 2.33*

(0.049) (0.049)

Retired -0.127 0.881 -1.01 -0.123 0.885 -0.97

(0.126) (0.127)

Married -0.127 0.880 -1.11 -0.127 0.880 -1.10

(0.115) (0.115)

Wald χ2 = 60.73** 62.92**

N = 1960 1960

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
92

Table 33

Mortgage Rescue Fraud Targeting Logistic Regression Models

Mortgage rescue fraud targeting

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.218 1.244 2.08* --- --- ---

(0.105)

Telemarketing purchase --- --- --- 0.355 1.427 0.65

(0.543)

Online purchase --- --- --- 0.254 1.289 1.17

(0.218)

Infomercial purchase --- --- --- 0.151 1.163 0.62

(0.242)

Mail-order purchase --- --- --- 0.440 1.553 1.59

(0.277)

Email-order purchase --- --- --- -0.053 0.984 -0.15

(0.356)

Low self-control 0.062 1.064 0.72 0.063 1.066 0.74

(0.085) (0.085)

Age -0.016 0.984 -1.13 -0.016 0.984 -1.14

(0.014) (0.014)

Male 0.314 1.370 1.56 0.314 1.368 1.55

(0.202) (0.202)

Racial minority 0.548 1.730 1.63 0.561 1.753 1.66

(0.337) (0.337)

Hispanic 0.437 1.548 0.90 0.443 1.557 0.90

(0.486) (0.490)

Education 0.015 1.015 0.18 0.010 1.010 0.12

(0.087) (0.088)

Retired -0.278 0.757 -1.33 -0.272 0.761 -1.29

(0.209) (0.211)

Married 0.483 1.621 2.21* 0.482 1.620 2.20*

(0.219) (0.219)

Wald χ2 = 24.37** 24.74*

N = 1961 1961

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
93

Table 34

Identity Theft Targeting Logistic Regression Models

Identity theft targeting

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.232 1.261 2.35* --- --- ---

(0.099)

Telemarketing purchase --- --- --- -0.760 0.468 -1.09

(0.696)

Online purchase --- --- --- 0.352 1.422 1.82

(0.193)

Infomercial purchase --- --- --- 0.248 1.282 1.23

(0.202)

Mail-order purchase --- --- --- -0.019 0.981 -0.07

(0.282)

Email-order purchase --- --- --- 0.474 1.607 1.66

(0.285)

Low self-control 0.225 1.253 3.10** 0.231 1.260 3.15**

(0.073) (0.073)

Age -0.011 0.990 -0.89 -0.007 0.993 -0.59

(0.012) (0.012)

Male 0.231 1.259 1.28 0.214 1.238 1.18

(0.180) (0.181)

Racial minority 0.529 1.698 1.74 0.606 1.834 1.97*

(0.304) (0.308)

Hispanic 0.490 1.632 1.18 0.521 1.684 1.24

(0.417) (0.419)

Education 0.051 1.052 0.63 0.046 1.047 0.56

(0.081) (0.082)

Retired 0.302 1.352 1.39 0.290 1.337 1.33

(0.217) (0.218)

Married 0.047 1.048 0.26 0.035 1.035 0.19

(0.182) (0.184)

Wald χ2 = 26.78** 30.98**

N = 1956 1956

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
94

A Multivariate Assessment of Fraud Victimization (Full Sample) 

 Table 35 presents the fraud victimization regression models estimated using the full 

sample. The results in Model 1 show that remote purchasing is positively associated with fraud 

victimization. The odds ratio indicates each additional form of remote purchasing used by 

respondents increases the odds of fraud victimization by 64.6%. To determine whether the five 

individual modes of remote shopping influence consumer fraud victimization differently, Model 

2 includes the different types of remote purchasing as independent variables. The results indicate 

that four forms of remote purchasing—telemarketing purchase (odds ratio = 2.921), infomercial 

purchase (odds ratio = 1.983), mail order purchase (odds ratio = 1.500), and email-order 

purchase (odds ratio = 1.742)—significantly increase the odds of victimization. The impact of

telemarketing purchase is noteworthy. Making a purchase after receiving a telephone solicitation 

from a company with whom they have not previously done business during the past year 

increased the odds of fraud victimization by 192%. 

 The effect of low self-control on fraud victimization is also assessed in Table 35. The 

results show that low self-control is positively associated with consumer fraud victimization. In 

Model 1, for example, a one-unit increase in the low self-control scale is associated with a 26.3% 

increase in the odds of fraud victimization. 

The findings also reveal that two demographic characteristics—age and racial minority—

are positively associated with fraud victimization. Both regression models show older people and 

racial minorities are at greater risk for consumer fraud victimization. In Model 1, for example, a 

one-year increase in age corresponds with a 2.3% increase in the odds of fraud victimization.

Racial minorities are 83.5% more likely to become victims of fraud compared to non-Hispanic 

whites.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
95

Table 35

Fraud Victimization Logistic Regression Models (Full Sample)

Fraud victimization

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.498 1.646 6.69** --- --- ---

(0.074)

Telemarketing purchase --- --- --- 1.072 2.921 2.95**

(0.363)

Online purchase --- --- --- 0.228 1.256 1.43

(0.159)

Infomercial purchase --- --- --- 0.685 1.983 4.36**

(0.157)

Mail-order purchase --- --- --- 0.405 1.500 2.02*

(0.201)

Email-order purchase --- --- --- 0.555 1.742 2.45*

(0.226)

Low self-control 0.234 1.263 3.71** 0.229 1.257 3.63**

(0.063) (0.063)

Age 0.022 1.023 2.46* 0.018 1.019 1.98*

(0.009) (0.009)

Male -0.040 0.961 -0.28 -0.023 0.977 -0.16

(0.146) (0.147)

Racial minority 0.607 1.835 2.53* 0.505 1.657 2.00*

(0.240) (0.252)

Hispanic 0.453 1.574 1.22 0.401 1.494 1.10

(0.373) (0.364)

Education -0.042 0.959 -0.67 -0.016 0.984 -0.26

(0.062) (0.062)

Retired -0.245 0.783 -1.54 -0.256 0.775 -1.58

(0.159) (0.161)

Married 0.208 1.232 1.43 0.239 1.270 1.62

(0.146) (0.147)

Wald χ2 = 70.32** 78.09**

N = 1952 1952

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 The analyses in Tables 36 through 39 assess the effects of remote purchasing, low selfcontrol, and the demographics variables on four different forms of fraud victimization using the 

full sample. Sufficient data were not available to estimate regression models for mortgage rescue 

fraud and prize notification fraud victimization. To begin, remote purchasing is significantly 

associated with each form of fraud victimization. Specifically, each form of remote purchasing 

participants engage in increases the odds of shopping fraud victimization by 66.5%, financial 

fraud victimization by 139.7%, charity scams by 45.4%, and identity theft by 75.4%. 

The regression models featuring the specific modes of remote purchasing scale show that 

the impact of telemarketing purchase is largely restricted to financial fraud victimization; 

however, the increased risk of this type of victimization is substantial. Individuals who made a 

telemarketing purchase with a company they had not previously done business with during the 

past year increased their odds of financial fraud victimization by 613.7%. The risk of shopping 

fraud victimization was elevated among respondents who purchased products after viewing 

infomercials (odds ratio = 2.111) and receiving mail solicitations from companies they have not 

previously done business with (odds ratio = 2.189). Finally, risk of identity theft was elevated 

when respondents made purchases resulting from unsolicited email (odds ratio = 3.512). 

 Low self-control is related to two specific types of fraud victimization. Each unit increase 

in the low self-control scale corresponds to 36% increase in the odds of shopping fraud 

victimization. Those with poor self-control are also at greater risk for identity theft. 

With respect to the demographic characteristics, older individuals in the sample are at 

increased risk of becoming victims of shopping fraud and charity scams. Males are less likely 

than females to become victims of shopping fraud, but males are more likely to be identity theft 

victims. Respondents who reported that they are retired had lower odds of being victims of 

shopping fraud. Finally, the odds of charity scam victimization were 246.9% higher among racial 

minorities relative to non-Hispanic whites (see Model 1 in Table 38). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
97

Table 36

Shopping Fraud Victimization Logistic Regression Models (Full Sample)

Shopping fraud victimization

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.510 1.665 4.98** --- --- ---

(0.102)

Telemarketing purchase --- --- --- 0.833 2.301 1.77

(0.470)

Online purchase --- --- --- 0.253 1.288 1.03

(0.246)

Infomercial purchase --- --- --- 0.747 2.111 3.38**

(0.221)

Mail-order purchase --- --- --- 0.783 2.189 2.98**

(0.263)

Email-order purchase --- --- --- 0.029 1.029 0.08

(0.351)

Low self-control 0.309 1.362 3.46** 0.313 1.368 3.49**

(0.089) (0.090)

Age 0.031 1.031 2.34* 0.025 1.025 1.84

(0.013) (0.014)

Male -0.449 0.638 -2.01* -0.433 0.649 -1.92

(0.223) (0.225)

Racial minority 0.467 1.595 1.28 0.392 1.480 1.01

(0.365) (0.388)

Hispanic 0.518 1.679 0.98 0.471 1.602 0.92

(0.529) (0.510)

Education -0.021 0.979 -0.25 0.000 1.000 0.00

(0.085) (0.082)

Retired -0.629 0.533 -2.87** -0.653 0.521 -2.95**

(0.219) (0.222)

Married 0.413 1.512 1.86 0.444 1.558 1.98*

(0.222) (0.224)

Wald χ2 = 66.54** 73.51**

N = 1956 1956

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
98

Table 37

Financial Fraud Victimization Logistic Regression Models (Full Sample)

Financial fraud victimization

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.874 2.397 5.08** --- --- ---

(0.172)

Telemarketing purchase --- --- --- 1.965 7.137 3.03**

(0.648)

Online purchase --- --- --- 0.714 2.042 1.64

(0.436)

Infomercial purchase --- --- --- 0.705 2.024 1.62

(0.435)

Mail-order purchase --- --- --- 0.795 2.214 1.51

(0.526)

Email-order purchase --- --- --- 0.861 2.365 1.55

(0.554)

Low self-control 0.266 1.305 1.25 0.269 1.309 1.23

(0.213) (0.219)

Age 0.028 1.028 1.00 0.026 1.026 0.90

(0.025) (0.028)

Male -0.396 0.673 -0.95 -0.394 0.674 -0.94

(0.415) (0.418)

Racial minority 0.658 1.931 1.07 0.420 1.521 0.60

(0.613) (0.700)

Hispanic 0.266 1.305 0.23 0.246 1.280 0.24

(1.134) (1.045)

Education -0.118 0.889 -0.63 -0.105 0.900 -0.57

(0.186) (0.184)

Retired -0.163 0.850 -0.36 -0.088 0.915 -0.18

(0.453) (0.485)

Married 0.185 1.203 0.43 0.216 1.242 0.51

(0.426) (0.427)

Wald χ2 = 38.35** 39.64**

N = 1960 1960

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
99

Table 38

Charity Scam Victimization Logistic Regression Models (Full Sample)

Charity scam victimization

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.375 1.454 2.61* --- --- ---

(0.143)

Telemarketing purchase --- --- --- 0.836 2.307 1.30

(0.641)

Online purchase --- --- --- -0.280 0.756 -0.82

(0.341)

Infomercial purchase --- --- --- 0.622 1.863 1.85

(0.336)

Mail-order purchase --- --- --- 0.548 1.729 1.38

(0.396)

Email-order purchase --- --- --- 0.481 1.618 0.98

(0.489)

Low self-control 0.220 1.246 1.70 0.206 1.229 1.61

(0.129) (0.128)

Age 0.045 1.046 2.69** 0.036 1.037 2.18*

(0.017) (0.017)

Male -0.085 0.919 -0.25 -0.039 0.961 -0.12

(0.338) (0.341)

Racial minority 1.244 3.469 3.28** 1.098 2.999 2.85**

(0.379) (0.385)

Hispanic -0.517 0.596 -0.48 -0.553 0.575 -0.53

(1.087) (1.043)

Education -0.224 0.800 -1.55 -0.180 0.835 -1.28

(0.145) (0.141)

Retired -0.114 0.892 -0.30 -0.129 0.879 -0.33

(0.375) (0.385)

Married -0.459 0.632 -1.55 -0.398 0.672 -1.35

(0.297) (0.296)

Wald χ2 = 46.04** 48.90**

N = 1957 1957

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
100

Table 39

Identity Theft Victimization Logistic Regression Models (Full Sample)

Identity theft victimization

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.562 1.754 4.06** --- --- ---

(0.138)

Telemarketing purchase --- --- --- 0.009 1.009 0.01

(0.726)

Online purchase --- --- --- 0.242 1.273 0.74

(0.328)

Infomercial purchase --- --- --- 0.475 1.608 1.57

(0.302)

Mail-order purchase --- --- --- 0.437 1.549 1.19

(0.366)

Email-order purchase --- --- --- 1.256 3.512 3.40**

(0.370)

Low self-control 0.266 1.304 2.22* 0.247 1.280 2.03*

(0.120) (0.122)

Age 0.005 1.005 0.30 0.002 1.002 0.12

(0.016) (0.017)

Male 0.642 1.901 2.21* 0.653 1.920 2.25*

(0.290) (0.289)

Racial minority 0.322 1.380 0.65 0.334 1.396 0.66

(0.495) (0.506)

Hispanic 0.181 1.198 0.25 0.169 1.184 0.23

(0.738) (0.722)

Education -0.038 0.962 -0.29 -0.021 0.979 -0.16

(0.131) (0.131)

Retired 0.063 1.065 0.20 0.029 1.030 0.09

(0.323) (0.321)

Married -0.008 0.992 -0.03 0.027 1.028 0.09

(0.285) (0.288)

Wald χ2 = 37.60** 46.61**

N = 1958 1958

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
A Multivariate Assessment of Fraud Victimization (Targeted Subsample) 

 The victimization models are also estimated using data from a subsample of respondents 

who reported being targeted by fraudsters during the year before the interview. Results from the 

logistics regression analysis shows that remote purchasing is significantly associated with fraud 

victimization. According to the odds ratio, each form of remote purchasing that targeted 

respondents practices amplifies the odds of fraud victimization by 48.7% (see Model 1 in Table 

40). Model 2 shows that two specific types of remote purchasing influence whether targeted 

respondents are victimized—telemarketing purchase (odds ratio = 2.146) and infomercial 

purchase (odds ratio = 1.293). These two associations were also observed in the model using the 

full sample (see Model 2 in Table 35). However, in Table 40 the effects of mail-order and emailorder purchases on fraud victimization fail to achieve statistical significance. 

 The models in Table 40 also show that low self-control is associated with fraud 

victimization among targeted respondents. The odds ratio indicates that a one-unit increase in the 

low self-control scale corresponds with a 19% increase in odds of consumer fraud victimization 

(see Model 1). Once targeted, participants with poor self-control are less likely to resist 

temptation and consider the long-term consequences of their actions. 

 Only one demographic variable is related to fraud victimization across models in the 

targeted subsample. Specifically, older participants are at greater risk for fraud victimization 

(odds ratio = 1.033). The age effect was also observed in the analysis using the full sample. The 

lack of consistency in the effect of the other demographic variable (i.e., racial minority) across

model specifications suggests it is not terribly robust. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
102

Table 40

Fraud Victimization Logistic Regression Models (Targeted Subsample)

Fraud victimization

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

Ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.397 1.487 5.01** --- --- ---

(0.079)

Telemarketing purchase --- --- --- 0.763 2.146 2.02*

(0.378)

Online purchase --- --- --- 0.144 1.154 0.84

(0.171)

Infomercial purchase --- --- --- 0.626 1.870 3.75**

(0.167)

Mail-order purchase --- --- --- 0.257 1.293 1.23

(0.208)

Email-order purchase --- --- --- 0.448 1.566 1.89

(0.237)

Low self-control 0.177 1.193 2.82** 0.173 1.189 2.74**

(0.063) (0.063)

Age 0.033 1.033 3.36** 0.029 1.029 2.85*

(0.010) (0.010)

Male -0.167 0.846 -1.09 -0.153 0.858 -0.99

(0.153) (0.154)

Racial minority 0.558 1.746 2.22* 0.463 1.588 1.77

(0.252) (0.262)

Hispanic 0.358 1.430 0.93 0.291 1.338 0.77

(0.383) (0.378)

Education -0.125 0.882 -1.96 -0.097 0.907 -1.51

(0.064) (0.064)

Retired -0.198 0.820 -1.18 -0.204 0.816 -1.21

(0.167) (0.168)

Married 0.221 1.248 1.45 0.247 1.281 1.60

(0.153) (0.155)

Wald χ2 = 47.22** 52.29**

N = 1141 1141

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
103

 The four specific types of consumer fraud victimization—shopping, financial, charity 

scam, and identity theft—are regressed on remote purchasing, low self-control, and the 

demographic variables using the targeted subsample in Tables 41 through 44. The results show 

that remote purchasing is positively linked with shopping fraud, financial fraud, and identity 

theft victimization. Put differently, each additional form of remote purchasing that targeted 

respondents engaged in resulted in a 45% increase in the odds of shopping fraud victimization, 

199% increase in the odds of financial fraud victimization, and a 60.1% increase in the odds of 

identity theft. The findings from the targeted sample differ from the model using the full sample 

(see Table 38) in that remote purchasing does not increase the odds of charity scam victimization 

among the former. 

When the different modes of remote purchasing are assessed separately, we find that the 

effect of telemarketing purchase on financial victimization is quite pronounced. Targeted 

participants who have purchased good after an unsolicited telephone call from a company they 

had not previously done business with increased their odds of financial fraud victimization by 

443%. Buying products from companies that one has not previously done business with after 

viewing infomercials or receiving mail solicitations increases the odds of shopping fraud 

victimization (odds ratios = 1.944 and 1.916, respectively). Finally, email-order purchase is 

associated with identity theft victimization (odds ratio = 3.309). 

 The effect of low self-control is only significant in the shopping fraud victimization 

model. Among the targeted subsample, a one-unit increase in the low self-control scale is 

associated with a 29% increase in the odds of being victimized by shopping fraud. 

In terms of demographic correlates, age increases the odds of shopping fraud and charity 

scam victimization. Males are less likely than females to be victims of shopping fraud. Finally, 

racial minorities are significantly more likely to be victims of charity scams than non-Hispanic 

whites.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
104

Table 41

Shopping Fraud Victimization Logistic Regression Models (Targeted Subsample)

Shopping fraud victimization

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.403 1.450 3.84** --- --- ---

(0.105)

Telemarketing purchase --- --- --- 0.523 1.678 1.14

(0.460)

Online purchase --- --- --- 0.196 1.216 0.77

(0.255)

Infomercial purchase --- --- --- 0.665 1.944 2.94**

(0.226)

Mail-order purchase --- --- --- 0.650 1.916 2.94**

(0.266)

Email-order purchase --- --- --- -0.111 0.895 -0.31

(0.353)

Low self-control 0.257 1.293 2.95** 0.270 1.310 3.05**

(0.087) (0.088)

Age 0.039 1.039 2.86** 0.033 1.033 2.31*

(0.014) (0.014)

Male -0.557 0.573 -2.47* -0.549 0.577 -2.40*

(0.225) (0.228)

Racial minority 0.385 1.470 1.03 0.336 1.400 0.85

(0.374) (0.394)

Hispanic 0.509 1.663 0.96 0.447 1.563 0.87

(0.529) (0.513)

Education -0.091 0.913 -1.07 -0.066 0.936 -0.81

(0.084) (0.081)

Retired -0.605 0.546 -2.66** -0.633 0.531 -2.79**

(0.227) (0.227)

Married 0.409 1.505 1.82 0.402 1.495 1.77

(0.225) (0.227)

Wald χ2 = 49.12** 54.73**

N = 1143 1143

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
105

Table 42

Financial Fraud Victimization Logistic Regression Models (Targeted Subsample)

Financial fraud victimization

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.785 2.191 4.37** --- --- ---

(0.180)

Telemarketing purchase --- --- --- 1.692 5.432 2.63**

(0.643)

Online purchase --- --- --- 0.680 1.974 1.51

(0.449)

Infomercial purchase --- --- --- 0.607 1.834 1.40

(0.433)

Mail-order purchase --- --- --- 0.705 2.025 1.39

(0.509)

Email-order purchase --- --- --- 0.776 2.173 1.41

(0.550)

Low self-control 0.210 1.233 1.03 0.211 1.235 1.00

(0.204) (0.212)

Age 0.037 1.038 1.38 0.035 1.035 1.23

(0.027) (0.028)

Male -0.456 0.634 -1.09 -0.453 0.636 -1.08

(0.417) (0.419)

Racial minority 0.588 1.801 0.96 0.383 1.467 0.55

(0.614) (0.693)

Hispanic 0.221 1.247 0.20 0.132 1.141 0.13

(1.119) (1.008)

Education -0.194 0.824 -1.07 -0.174 0.840 -0.98

(0.181) (0.178)

Retired -0.117 0.890 -0.26 -0.051 0.950 -0.11

(0.443) (0.470)

Married 0.162 1.176 0.39 0.189 1.208 0.44

(0.412) (0.425)

Wald χ2 = 28.51** 32.23**

N = 1146 1146

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
106

Table 43

Charity Scam Victimization Logistic Regression Models (Targeted Subsample)

Charity scam victimization

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.277 1.320 1.85 --- --- ---

(0.150)

Telemarketing purchase --- --- --- 0.518 1.678 0.82

(0.633)

Online purchase --- --- --- -0.348 0.706 -1.00

(0.349)

Infomercial purchase --- --- --- 0.544 1.723 1.60

(0.341)

Mail-order purchase --- --- --- 0.487 1.627 1.25

(0.389)

Email-order purchase --- --- --- 0.334 1.396 0.68

(0.491)

Low self-control 0.159 1.172 1.32 0.148 1.160 1.25

(0.121) (0.119)

Age 0.055 1.057 3.29** 0.045 1.046 2.65**

(0.017) (0.017)

Male -0.179 0.836 -0.53 -0.139 0.870 -0.41

(0.341) (0.344)

Racial minority 1.181 3.257 2.99** 1.053 2.867 2.62**

(0.394) (0.401)

Hispanic -0.680 0.507 -0.64 -0.800 0.450 -0.77

(1.062) (1.033)

Education -0.309 0.734 -2.20* -0.258 0.772 -1.87

(0.141) (0.138)

Retired -0.024 0.977 -0.06 -0.054 0.947 -0.14

(0.382) (0.390)

Married -0.522 0.593 -1.78 -0.485 0.615 -1.63

(0.294) (0.298)

Wald χ2 = 40.18** 42.98**

N = 1144 1144

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
107

Table 44

Identity Theft Victimization Logistic Regression Models (Targeted Subsample)

Identity theft victimization

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.471 1.601 3.30** --- --- ---

(0.143)

Telemarketing purchase --- --- --- -0.190 0.827 -0.27

(0.701)

Online purchase --- --- --- 0.130 1.139 0.38

(0.343)

Infomercial purchase --- --- --- 0.389 1.476 1.28

(0.304)

Mail-order purchase --- --- --- 0.368 1.445 1.03

(0.359)

Email-order purchase --- --- --- 1.197 3.309 3.27**

(0.366)

Low self-control 0.202 1.224 1.72 0.178 1.195 1.47

(0.118) (0.121)

Age 0.013 1.013 0.79 0.010 1.010 0.55

(0.017) (0.018)

Male 0.520 1.681 1.76 0.533 1.705 1.82

(0.295) (0.293)

Racial minority 0.298 1.347 0.61 0.337 1.400 0.68

(0.487) (0.494)

Hispanic 0.071 1.073 0.09 0.004 1.004 0.01

(0.747) (0.723)

Education -0.096 0.909 -0.73 -0.080 0.923 -0.60

(0.131) (0.132)

Retired 0.174 1.191 0.53 0.157 1.171 0.48

(0.331) (0.328)

Married -0.037 0.963 -0.13 0.037 1.037 0.13

(0.291) (0.291)

Wald χ2 = 21.86** 29.90**

N = 1143 1143

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
108

Assessing Possible Selection Bias 

 Before proceeding further, it is necessary to assess the robustness of the estimates that 

were observed using the targeted subsample (see, e.g., Table 40). As noted previously, statistical 

problems can arise when inclusion in a subsample (e.g., being targeted for consumer fraud) is not 

independent from the dependent variable (e.g., fraud victimization). When this happens, the 

possibility that the observed regression estimates are misleading (termed selection bias) is 

possible. The two-stage probit regression presented in Table 45 was designed to deal with such a 

situation. 

 The selection equation is featured on the left-hand side of the table. Here, fraud targeting 

is regressed onto the same set of variables that were used in prior fraud targeting models (see 

Table 28) and three additional variables (i.e., military service, law violation, and prior fraud 

targeting). The latter three variables (termed “exclusionary restrictions”) are included because 

each is correlated with fraud targeting at the 0.05 level. These same three variables, however, are 

not related to the fraud victimization. This satisfies a statistical requirement of this particular 

regression technique. 

 Importantly, the likelihood ratio test fails to achieve statistical significance, meaning that 

the regression estimates are not adversely influenced by selection bias. Put another way, the 

estimates for fraud victimization reported in Table 45 should closely mirror the effects of Model 

1 in Table 40 in terms of sign (i.e., positive or negative) and significance. A quick inspection 

indicates that this is indeed the case. More specifically, both models indicate that the effects of 

remote purchasing, low self-control, and age on fraud victimization are positive and statistically 

significant. In sum, the results presented in Table 45 increase our confidence that the analyses 

using the targeted subsample do not suffer from selection bias. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
109

Table 45

Fraud Victimization Probit Regression with Sample Selection

Fraud targeting Fraud victimization

b z-test b z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.104 2.39* 0.251 5.20**

(0.043) (0.048)

Low self-control 0.057 1.86 0.102 2.78**

(0.031) (0.037)

Age 0.001 0.16 0.020 3.33**

(0.005) (0.006)

Male -0.269 -2.67** -0.103 -1.13

(0.101) (0.091)

Racial minority 0.216 1.50 0.343 2.12*

(0.144) (0.162)

Hispanic 0.191 1.02 0.248 1.13

(0.189) (0.219)

Education 0.032 1.08 -0.060 -1.61

(0.029) (0.037)

Retired -0.135 -1.65 -0.124 -1.25

(0.082) (0.099)

Married 0.058 0.81 0.129 1.42

(0.072) (0.091)

Military service 0.226 2.07* --- ---

(0.109)

Law violation 0.068 2.75** --- ---

(0.025)

Prior fraud targeting 0.340 19.98** --- ---

(0.017)

N = 1929 1129

Wald χ2 = 51.77**

Likelihood Ratio χ2 = 0.47

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
110

A Multivariate Assessment of Financial Mistreatment 

 Table 46 features two logistic regression models where financial mistreatment (two-year 

observation period) as the outcome measure. In Model 1, financial mistreatment is regressed on 

the routine activity scale, low self-control scale, and seven demographic variables. The model 

has more explanatory power than would be expected by chance alone (Wald χ2 = 47.41, p < 

0.01). The results show that the routine activity scale is inversely related to financial 

mistreatment. According to the odds ratio, each unit increase in the routine activity scale 

corresponds to a 7.3% decrease in the odds of experiencing financial mistreatment for the 

participants in the study. In short, an active life characterized by high levels of routine activities 

appears to act as a protective factor against financial mistreatment. In Model 2 the 5-item routine 

activity scale is disaggregated into its component parts. Doing so allows us to determine whether 

any of the specific routines influence financial mistreatment. The results reveal that none of the 

individual routine activities are significantly associated with financial mistreatment. 

 The regression models in Table 46 also show that low self-control is significantly 

associated with financial mistreatment. The odds of being a financial mistreatment victim 

increase by 30% for each unit increase in the low self-control scale. These findings suggest that 

individuals with poor self-control place themselves in situations and behave in ways that increase 

the risk for financial mistreatment. Future research should focus on identifying these particular 

situations and behaviors related to variations in self-control that amplify the odds of financial 

mistreatment.

 Finally, two demographic effects are observed. Males and racial minorities are more 

likely to be victimized by financial mistreatment. The odds of financial mistreatment are 57.5% 

higher for males relative to females. For racial minorities, the odds are 71.3% higher when 

compared to non-Hispanic whites (see Model 1 in Table 46). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
111

Table 46

Financial Mistreatment Logistic Regression Models

Financial mistreatment

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Routine activity -0.076 0.927 -2.42* --- --- ---

(0.031)

Outside-home activities --- --- --- -0.166 0.847 -1.62

(0.102)

Social get-togethers --- --- --- -0.129 0.879 -1.01

(0.128)

Street-side shopping --- --- --- -0.072 0.930 -0.57

(0.128)

Entertainment --- --- --- 0.087 1.090 0.85

(0.102)

Leisure sports --- --- --- -0.096 0.908 -1.26

(0.076)

Low self-control 0.265 1.304 3.49** 0.264 1.303 3.44**

(0.076) (0.077)

Age -0.021 0.979 -1.89 -0.021 0.979 -1.84

(0.011) (0.011)

Male 0.455 1.575 2.53** 0.463 1.589 2.57**

(0.180) (0.180)

Racial minority 0.538 1.713 1.97* 0.548 1.729 2.01*

(0.274) (0.273)

Hispanic 0.705 2.024 1.85 0.719 2.053 1.90

(0.380) (0.379)

Education 0.060 1.062 0.74 0.063 1.065 0.77

(0.081) (0.082)

Retired -0.151 0.860 -0.79 -0.142 0.867 -0.74

(0.191) (0.192)

Married -0.329 0.720 -1.89 -0.324 0.723 -1.85

(0.174) (0.175)

Wald χ2 = 47.41** 48.59**

N = 1942 1942

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
112

The analysis now turns to the question of whether general routine activity protects against 

the different forms of financial mistreatment. The results of the regression analyses are presented 

in Tables 47 through 49. Results show that the inverse effect of routine activity is isolated to one 

type of financial mistreatment—stolen money or property (see Model 1 in Table 49). The odds 

ratio indicates that each unit increase in the routine activity scale corresponds to an 8.2% 

decrease in the odds of having participants’ money stolen or belongings taken. Two specific 

routine activities are correlated with the outcome measures. First, the frequency with which 

respondents got together socially with friends, family, neighbors, and the like was inversely 

associated with having someone forge a signature without permission (see Model 2 in Table 48). 

Second, outside-home activity is associated with having money or property stolen (see Model 2 

in Table 49). 

The results show that the correlation between low self-control and each type of financial 

mistreatment is statistically significant at the 0.01 level. Again, as levels of self-control decrease 

among study participants, their risk of financial mistreatment increases significantly. As noted 

previously, the nature of this relationship is not well understood. Additional research in this area 

is certainly warranted. 

 With regards to the effects of demographic characteristics on specific forms of financial 

mistreatment, the results show that males are more likely to have their money spent or things 

sold without their permission and have their money and property stolen when compared to 

women. Racial minorities are more likely than their counterparts to have money and property 

stolen. Finally, Hispanic respondents are more likely to have their signature forged without 

permission.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
113

Table 47

Spent Money or Sold Something Logistic Regression Models

Spent money or sold something

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Routine activity -0.049 0.952 -0.92 --- --- ---

(0.053)

Outside-home activities --- --- --- -0.059 0.943 -0.39

(0.151)

Social get-togethers --- --- --- -0.012 0.988 -0.05

(0.217)

Street-side shopping --- --- --- -0.106 0.900 -0.55

(0.193)

Entertainment --- --- --- 0.041 1.042 0.26

(0.161)

Leisure sports --- --- --- -0.127 0.881 -0.97

(0.130)

Low self-control 0.356 1.428 2.59** 0.353 1.424 2.53**

(0.138) (0.140)

Age -0.027 0.974 -1.57 -0.027 0.973 -1.60

(0.017) (0.017)

Male 1.019 2.770 3.48** 1.041 2.831 3.58**

(0.292) (0.291)

Racial minority 0.742 2.101 1.94 0.755 2.128 1.96*

(0.383) (0.385)

Hispanic 0.355 1.427 0.56 0.360 1.434 0.57

(0.629) (0.630)

Education -0.140 0.869 -1.11 -0.131 0.877 -1.01

(0.126) (0.130)

Retired -0.171 0.843 -0.56 -0.159 0.853 -0.52

(0.305) (0.307)

Married -0.317 0.729 -1.12 -0.312 0.732 -1.09

(0.282) (0.286)

Wald χ2 = 28.38** 29.43**

N = 1950 1950

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
114

Table 48

Forged Signature without Permission Logistic Regression Models

Forged signature without permission

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Routine activity -0.010 0.990 -0.14 --- --- ---

(0.070)

Outside-home activities --- --- --- 0.043 1.044 0.21

(0.201)

Social get-togethers --- --- --- -0.513 0.599 -2.35*

(0.218)

Street-side shopping --- --- --- 0.185 1.203 0.82

(0.225)

Entertainment --- --- --- 0.287 1.333 1.48

(0.194)

Leisure sports --- --- --- 0.017 1.017 0.12

(0.136)

Low self-control 0.412 1.509 2.61** 0.421 1.524 2.57**

(0.158) (0.164)

Age -0.014 0.986 -0.62 -0.009 0.991 -0.39

(0.022) (0.022)

Male 0.312 1.366 0.94 0.320 1.377 0.96

(0.331) (0.332)

Racial minority 0.408 1.504 0.78 0.436 1.547 0.83

(0.521) (0.526)

Hispanic 1.136 3.113 2.04* 1.128 3.090 2.14*

(0.558) (0.526)

Education 0.048 1.049 0.30 0.030 1.030 0.19

(0.161) (0.158)

Retired 0.456 1.577 1.09 0.470 1.601 1.12

(0.420) (0.418)

Married -0.309 0.734 -0.93 -0.289 0.749 -0.86

(0.330) (0.336)

Wald χ2 = 19.75* 26.05*

N = 1949 1949

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
115

Table 49

Stolen Money or Property Logistic Regression Models

Stolen money or property

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Routine activity -0.086 0.918 -2.30* --- --- ---

(0.037)

Outside-home activities --- --- --- -0.268 0.765 -2.28*

(0.117)

Social get-togethers --- --- --- 0.036 1.037 0.25

(0.148)

Street-side shopping --- --- --- -0.210 0.811 -1.51

(0.139)

Entertainment --- --- --- 0.088 1.093 0.75

(0.118)

Leisure sports --- --- --- -0.104 0.901 -1.15

(0.090)

Low self-control 0.215 1.239 2.51** 0.211 1.235 2.44*

(0.085) (0.087)

Age -0.014 0.986 -1.05 -0.017 0.984 -1.20

(0.014) (0.014)

Male 0.450 1.569 2.01* 0.465 1.591 2.04*

(0.224) (0.227)

Racial minority 0.820 2.270 2.70** 0.824 2.279 2.73**

(0.303) (0.302)

Hispanic 0.578 1.783 1.24 0.588 1.800 1.26

(0.467) (0.468)

Education 0.111 1.118 1.08 0.121 1.129 1.15

(0.103) (0.105)

Retired -0.237 0.789 -1.02 -0.228 0.796 -0.97

(0.231) (0.235)

Married -0.394 0.674 -1.85 -0.405 0.667 -1.87

(0.214) (0.217)

Wald χ2 = 37.85* 40.01**

N = 1950 1950

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
116

Program Familiarity and Contact 

 Table 50 presents data on respondents’ familiarity with Arizona- and Florida-based 

programs that are designed to help elderly citizens prevent and cope with criminal victimization. 

Arizona participants were asked how familiar they are (closed-ended responses include “very 

familiar,” “somewhat familiar,” and “not familiar”) with the Agency on Aging and the Senior 

Sleuths project. Floridians who were interviewed were asked about their level of familiarity with 

the Seniors vs. Crime Program and their state’s Senior Sleuths project. 

Several findings emerge from this analysis. For starters, a vast majority of respondents 

are not familiar with their state’s programs. Nearly 70% of Arizona participants (or 693 of the 

992 respondents for whom data are available) are “not familiar” with the Agency on Aging. 

Approximately 25% (or 250 of the 992 respondents) are “somewhat familiar” with the agency, 

and less than 5% report being “very familiar” with the Agency on Aging. In Florida, 86.5% of 

respondents reported they are “not familiar” the Florida’s Seniors vs. Crime Program (855 or the 

988 respondents). Approximately 11% (or 113 of the 988 respondents) indicated that they are 

“somewhat familiar” with the program, and only 2% (or 20 of the 988 respondents) are “very 

familiar” with the Seniors vs. Crime program. 

The Senior Sleuths projects in both states are not well known by the survey respondents. 

Indeed, 98.6% of Arizona participants (or 962 of the 976 respondents) and 97.5% of Florida 

respondents (or 953 of the 977 respondents) reported they are “not familiar” with the Seniors 

Sleuths project. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
117

Table 50

Program Familiarity in Arizona and Florida

Arizona

Agency on Aging Senior Sleuths Project

% N % N

Very familiar 4.9% 49 0.0% 0

Somewhat familiar 25.2% 250 1.4% 14

Not familiar 69.9% 693 98.6% 962

Florida

Seniors vs. Crime Program Senior Sleuths Project

% N % N

Very familiar 2.0% 20 0.5% 5

Somewhat familiar 11.4% 113 1.9% 19

Not familiar 86.5% 855 97.5% 953

 Table 51 presents survey results showing where respondents who reported some level of 

familiarity with available programs first learned about them. “Friends or family members” were 

the most commonly reported for Agency on Aging (28.5%; or 77 of the 270 respondents). Other 

relatively common sources include “newspapers” (17.8%) and “word of mouth” (11.9%).

About an even number of Florida respondents learned about the Seniors vs. Crime 

Program from “friends or family members” (19.8%; or 24 of the 121 respondents), “television”

(19.8%), and “newspapers” (20.7%). 

With respect to the Senior Sleuths project, familiarity among respondents in both states 

was so sparse that none of the sources included in the survey (including an open-ended response) 

proved beneficial as a mode to disseminate program information. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
118

Table 51

Informational Sources for Programs

Arizona

Agency on Aging Senior Sleuths Project

Source % (N) % (N)

Friend or family member 28.5% (77) 23.1% (3)

Television 6.7% (18) 15.4% (2)

Radio 1.5% (4) 0.0% (0)

Newspaper 17.8% (48) 15.4% (2)

Web page or email 5.2% (14) 0.0% (0)

Mail 6.3% (17) 15.4% (2)

Church 3.3% (9) 15.4% (2)

Work 1.9% (5) 7.7% (1)

Previous experience 7.8% (21) 0.0% (0)

Police department/crime watch 0.0% (1) 0.0% (0)

Magazine 0.1% (2) 0.0% (0)

Word of mouth 11.9% (32) 0.0% (0)

Phone call 2.2% (6) 0.0% (0)

Hospital 1.1% (3) 0.0% (0)

Other 4.8% (13) 7.7% (1)

Florida

Seniors vs. Crime Program Senior Sleuths Project

Source % (N) % (N)

Friend or family member 19.8% (24) 26.1% (6)

Television 19.8% (24) 17.4% (4)

Radio 0.8% (1) 0.0% (0)

Newspaper 20.7% (25) 17.4% (4)

Web page or email 3.3% (4) 0.0% (0)

Mail 6.6% (8) 4.3% (1)

Church 1.7% (2) 4.3% (1)

Work 4.1% (5) 8.7% (2)

Previous experience 2.5% (3) 0.0% (0)

Police department/crime watch 6.6% (8) 0.0% (0)

Magazine 1.7% (2) 0.0% (0)

Word of mouth 6.6% (8) 0.0% (0)

Phone call 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)

Hospital 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)

Other 5.8% (7) 21.7% (5)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
119

Table 52 shows whether respondents who are either “somewhat” or “very familiar” with 

the programs of interest have actually contacted them. In Arizona, only a small portion of 

respondents who are aware of the Agency on Aging contacted them in the year leading up to the 

interview (8.4%; or 25 of the 277 respondents). Only one participant from Arizona reported 

contacting the Senior Sleuths project.

A similar pattern of results emerged for Florida. Approximately 5.3% (or 7 of the 133

respondents) of participants contacted the Seniors vs. Crime Program. Only 3 respondents in 

Florida said they contacted the Senior Sleuths project during the year prior to the study. 

Table 52

Contact with Programs

Arizona

Agency on Aging Senior Sleuths Project

% N % N

No 91.6% 272 92.9% 13

Yes 8.4% 25 7.1% 1

Florida

Seniors vs. Crime Program Senior Sleuths Project

% N % N

No 94.7% 126 87.5% 21

Yes 5.3% 7 12.5% 3

The survey also queried respondents about the sources that have provided information on 

how to protect themselves from consumer fraud victimization. These results are featured in Table 

53. Study participants report that they received prevention information from a variety of sources. 

Television, however, was the most commonly reported source of information in both states 

(28.3% in Arizona, 31.1% in Florida). Internet websites, emails, magazines, radio, and 

brochures/fliers were also relatively common sources of fraud prevention information.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 53

Informational Sources on Consumer Fraud Prevention

Arizona Florida

Source % (N) % (N)

Internet website 15.0% (243) 14.6% (204)

Email 11.0% (178) 9.7% (135)

Television 28.3% (459) 31.1% (435)

Radio 9.1% (148) 8.6% (120)

Magazines 16.3% (264) 15.5% (216)

Brochures or fliers 9.9% (161) 9.6% (134)

AARP 0.5% (8) 0.4% (5)

Newspaper 3.5% (57) 4.3% (60)

Bank or credit card company 1.0% (17) 0.6% (8)

Word of mouth (family/friends) 2.3% (37) 2.2% (31)

Mail 0.6% (10) 0.7% (10)

Police department 0.4% (6) 0.9% (12)

Telephone 0.1% (1) 0.3% (4)

Neighborhood crime watch 0.2% (3) 0.5% (7)

Attorney General’s Office 0.2% (3) 0.0% (0)

Other 1.5% (25) 1.1% (16)

Table 54 features two ordinal regression models examining whether respondents’

demographic characteristics are associated with program familiarity. Regarding Arizona’s

Agency on Aging, several demographic variables are correlated with program awareness as 

evidenced by the statistically significant z-tests. The regression estimates show that older and 

more educated individuals are more familiar with the Agency on Aging. Male respondents are 

less familiar with the agency than females. 

Turning attention to Florida’s Seniors vs. Crime Program, we see that the pattern of 

results is very similar to that of the Agency on Aging. Older respondents are more familiar with 

the Seniors vs. Crime program. Males in the Florida subsample are less familiar with the 

program than females. Finally, racial minorities report higher levels of awareness with Florida’s 

Seniors vs. Crime program compared to non-Hispanic whites. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
121

Table 54

Program Familiarity Ordinal Regression Models

Arizona Florida

Agency on Aging Seniors vs. Crime Program

b (s.e.) z-test b (s.e.) z-test

Age 0.024 (0.010) 2.43* 0.023 (0.012) 1.97*

Male -0.692 (0.159) -4.36** -0.426 (0.217) -1.96*

Racial minority -0.598 (0.416) -1.44 0.880 (0.274) 3.21**

Hispanic -0.589 (0.424) -1.39 0.810 (0.490) 1.65

Education 0.190 (0.066) 2.87** -0.019 (0.088) -0.22

Retired 0.100 (0.182) 0.55 0.084 (0.231) 0.36

Married -0.068 (0.151) -0.45 0.072 (0.204) 0.35

Cut 1 2.983 (0.749) 3.580 (0.946)

Cut 2 5.156 (0.762) 5.626 (0.973)

Wald χ2 = 38.75** 23.31**

N = 976 979

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

 The final set of program familiarity analyses assess whether respondent demographic 

characteristics are related to familiarity with the Senior Sleuths project in both states. Too few 

respondents reported that they were familiar with the Senior Sleuths to conduct multivariate 

analyses. Accordingly, a series of cross-tabulations are presented for Arizona (see Table 55) and 

Florida (see Table 56). Two observations emerge from these analyses. First, an overwhelming 

majority of respondents in every demographic group included in the analysis reported they were 

“not familiar” with the Senior Sleuth project. The pattern of findings is observed in both Florida 

and Arizona. Second, no statistically significant differences in levels of awareness are detected. 

In sum, the evidence shows that survey respondents from all walks of life are not too familiar 

with their state’s Senior Sleuths project.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 55

Familiarity across Demographic Groups for Arizona’s Senior Sleuths Project

Arizona’s Senior Sleuths Project

Not familiar Somewhat familiar Very familiar

% (N) % (N) % (N) Chi-square

Age

 Young-old (60 to 72) 98.9 (538) 1.1 (6) 0.0 (0) 4.486

 Old-old (73 to 79) 99.1 (231) 0.9 (2) 0.0 (0)

 Oldest-old (80 and older) 97.0 (193) 3.0 (6) 0.0 (0)

Gender

 Female 99.0 (604) 1.0 (6) 0.0 (0) 2.338

 Male 97.8 (358) 2.2 (8) 0.0 (0)

Racial minority

 No 98.7 (921) 1.3 (12) 0.0 (0) 4.245

 Yes 94.6 (35) 5.4 (2) 0.0 (0)

Hispanic

 No 98.5 (922) 1.5 (14) 0.0 (0) 0.577

 Yes 100.0 (38) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0)

Retired

 No 97.5 (237) 2.5 (6) 0.0 (0) 2.424

 Yes 98.9 (722) 1.1 (8) 0.0 (0)

Married

 No 98.7 (378) 1.3 (5) 0.0 (0) 0.005

 Yes 98.6 (581) 1.4 (8) 0.0 (0)

Education 

 Less than high school 96.1 (73) 3.9 (3) 0.0 (0) 4.640

 HS graduate/equivalency 99.3 (144) 0.7 (1) 0.0 (0)

 Some college 99.0 (307) 1.0 (3) 0.0 (0)

 College graduate 98.3 (283) 1.7 (5) 0.0 (0)

 Graduate school 98.7 (153) 1.3 (2) 0.0 (0)

Note. Sample sizes are in parentheses. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
123

Table 56

Familiarity across Demographic Groups for Florida’s Senior Sleuths Project

Florida’s Senior Sleuths Project

Not familiar Somewhat familiar Very familiar

% (N) % (N) % (N) Chi-square

Age

 Young-old (60 to 72) 97.7 (508) 2.1 (11) 0.2 (1) 5.002

 Old-old (73 to 79) 98.3 (233) 1.3 (3) 0.4 (1)

 Oldest-old (80 and older) 96.4 (212) 2.3 (5) 1.4 (3)

Gender

 Female 97.8 (619) 1.6 (10) 0.6 (4) 1.749

 Male 97.1 (334) 2.6 (9) 0.3 (1)

Racial minority

 No 97.9 (867) 1.7 (15) 0.5 (4) 4.069

 Yes 94.4 (84) 4.5 (4) 1.1 (1)

Hispanic

 No 97.5 (927) 2.0 (19) 0.5 (5) 0.621

 Yes 100.0 (24) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0)

Retired

 No 97.5 (270) 1.4 (4) 1.1 (3) 2.957

 Yes 97.6 (680) 2.2 (15) 0.3 (2)

Married

 No 98.2 (432) 1.4 (6) 0.5 (2) 1.485

 Yes 97.0 (520) 2.4 (13) 0.6 (3)

Education 

 Less than high school 97.7 (130) 1.5 (2) 0.8 (1) 10.098

 HS graduate/equivalency 97.5 (197) 2.0 (4) 0.5 (1)

 Some college 97.0 (287) 3.0 (9) 0.0 (0)

 College graduate 98.4 (239) 0.4 (1) 1.2 (3)

 Graduate school 97.1 (100) 2.9 (3) 0.0 (0)

Note. Sample sizes are in parentheses. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
124

Reporting Consumer Fraud Victimization and Financial Mistreatment 

 The analysis now shifts to the topic of what drives victims of consumer fraud and 

financial mistreatment decision to report their experiences to authorities. Because notifying 

authorities is done by victims (a subsample of respondents), the two-stage probit model with 

sample selection is used. 

 The results for reporting consumer fraud to authorities are presented in Table 57. Two 

variables—low self-control and retired—act as the exclusionary restrictions. As seen in previous 

analyses (see Table 35), low self-control and remote purchasing are two important drivers of 

fraud victimization. The Wald χ

2

indicates that the predictive ability of the reporting 

victimization model is greater than what we would expect by chance alone. Note also that the log 

likelihood ratio is statistically significant, suggesting the presence of selection bias. This finding 

underscores the need to use this two-stage modeling technique. To do otherwise could result in 

misleading regression estimates. Two variables achieve statistical significance in the reporting 

victimization model. Specifically, the directional hypothesis stating that the likelihood of 

reporting consumer fraud victimization increases as the seriousness of the incident (measured in 

terms of monetary loss) also increases is confirmed. This finding is largely consistent with prior 

research on reporting other forms of criminal victimization. Remote purchasing is also associated 

with notifying authorities among consumer fraud victims. The regression estimate indicates that 

individuals who engage is more modes of remote purchasing are more likely to call on 

authorities in the event that they are victimized by fraudsters. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
125

Table 57

Reporting Fraud Victimization Probit Regression with Sample Selection

Fraud victimization Reporting victimization

b z-test b z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Monetary loss --- --- 0.004 1.84†

(0.002)

Remote purchasing 0.325 7.86** 0.160 2.35*

(0.0414) (0.068)

Age 0.005 1.01 -0.003 -0.42

(0.005) (0.008)

Male -0.064 -0.83 -0.049 -0.40

(0.077) (0.122)

Racial minority 0.204 1.44 0.147 0.67

(0.142) (0.220)

Hispanic 0.141 0.71 -0.433 -1.01

(0.200) (0.428)

Education -0.044 -1.50 --- ---

(0.029)

Retired -0.192 -2.50* --- ---

(0.076)

Married 0.254 0.37 --- ---

(0.069)

Low self-control 0.116 3.74** --- ---

(0.031)

N = 1857 290

Wald χ2 = 14.40*

Likelihood Ratio χ2 = 5.61*

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test); 

† p < 0.05 (one-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
126

In Table 58, the two-stage probit regression for reporting incidents of financial 

mistreatment is presented. In terms of sign and significance, the estimates observed in the 

selection equation are very similar to those reported in the financial mistreatment model featured 

in Table 46 (Model 1). For example, the odds of financial mistreatment are greater among 

individuals with poor self-control. Those living busy lives (as indicated by the routine activity 

scale), however, are protected against mistreatment. These two measures—low self-control and 

routine activity—serve as exclusionary restrictions. Two variables achieve statistical significance 

in the reporting mistreatment equation. Much like consumer fraud victims, the likelihood that 

financial mistreatment victims will notify authorities increases substantially as the monetary loss 

also increases. The second important factor, stranger assailant, indicates that reporting is much 

more likely if the perpetrator is someone who the victim does not know personally. These two 

findings are very consistent with prior research investigating the determinants of reporting other 

forms of criminal victimization. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
127

Table 58

Reporting Financial Mistreatment Probit Regression with Sample Selection

Financial mistreatment Reporting mistreatment

b z-test b z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Monetary loss --- --- 0.006 2.23*

(0.003)

Stranger assailant --- --- 0.730 2.94**

(0.247)

Age -0.012 -2.17* -0.009 -0.68

(0.005) (0.014)

Male 0.223 2.61** -0.319 -1.22

(0.085) (0.262)

Racial minority 0.243 1.76 0.235 0.61

(0.138) (0.383)

Hispanic 0.347 1.79 -0.043 -0.09

(0.194) (0.501)

Education 0.036 0.94 --- ---

(0.038)

Retired -0.088 -0.85 --- ---

(0.103)

Married -0.166 -1.86 --- ---

(0.089)

Low self-control 0.154 4.29** --- ---

(0.036)

Routine activity -0.042 -2.78** --- ---

(0.015)

N = 1937 159

Wald χ2 = 12.60*

Likelihood Ratio χ2 = 0.08

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
128

CONCLUSION 

Discussion of Findings 

This study supports the findings of prior research in demonstrating that elderly 

populations are significantly targeted for various types of fraud, including shopping/purchasing 

fraud, financial fraud, and other consumer fraud. It revealed, for example, that over two-thirds of 

individuals ages 60 and over in Arizona and Florida were subjected to attempted fraud in the two 

years prior to the survey. It also revealed that victimization is relatively common—in this same 

time period, 1 in 5 respondents reported being the victim of fraud. Financial mistreatment, such 

as having someone spend your money or forge your signature, occurred among 8.4% of the 

respondents during the two years leading up to the study. Such incidents typically resulted from 

victimization by family members, especially children. Notably, the study found that few 

individuals who are targeted for fraud, and only slightly more who experience fraud 

victimization, contact law enforcement authorities. 

Those who engage in consumer fraud victimization of the elderly tend to be “equal 

opportunity” offenders. For example, there were few demographic or social groups who were 

substantially more likely to be targeted for fraud or to be the victims of fraud. That said, 

individuals who were ages 60-72 and who were male were more likely to experience fraud 

targeting and victimization. Racial minorities who were targeted for fraud were more likely to 

report victimization or financial mistreatment. Notably, the most robust individual 

characteristics predictive of fraud targeting and victimization were remote purchasing (e.g., 

making many purchases online of via telephone) and being low in self-control. Financial 

mistreatment was less likely among individuals who adhered to such routine activities as 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
129

participating in social activities away from home and, more generally, socializing with 

individuals outside the home. 

Results from the study show that respondents were unfamiliar with the state-level efforts, 

in Arizona and Florida, to educate the elderly about consumer fraud. Over 70% of Arizona 

participants and 87% of Florida participants were “not familiar” with the efforts. Almost none of 

the respondents were familiar with the Seniors Sleuths project. Those who were familiar with 

these different efforts learned about them primarily from friends and family members, 

newspapers, television, and “word of mouth.”

The results of this study are significant for several reasons. In particular, they provide an 

empirical foundation on which to understand the distribution and causes of financial exploitation 

of the elderly and steps that can be taken to reduce it. The main conclusion to be drawn from the 

study is that consumer fraud targeting and fraud victimization of the elderly are common and 

result from activities, such as frequent online and telemarketing purchases, that can be curbed or 

that can be coupled with simple steps to protect individuals from actual victimization. The study 

also highlights that the elderly population is largely unaware of efforts that exist to educate them 

about consumer fraud. Accordingly, a considerable opportunity exists to make substantial strides 

in educating the elderly about fraud victimization by more aggressively distributing information 

through different media. Several specific recommendations are discussed further below after 

discussing implications for further research. 

Implications for Further Research 

Although this study constitutes an advance over prior research, several limitations bear 

mention that point to directions for future research. First, the study examined elderly populations 

in Arizona and Florida. Thus, the extent to which the results generalize to the rest of the country 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
130

is unknown. That said, the prevalence estimates of victimization largely accord with those found 

in prior research, suggesting that the results likely provide a reasonable estimate of what would 

be found with studies in other states or the country as a whole. Clearly, however, the prevalence 

of fraud targeting and victimization, and the specific causes, may vary from place to place. 

Second, there remains a need to undertake studies that employ several sources of 

information, including self-report data from offenders on abuse and victimization of the elderly, 

official records data from law enforcement agencies, and interviews with policymakers, 

practitioners, and advocates involved in efforts to protect the elderly from fraudulent activity. It 

is possible, for example, that fraud targeting and victimization are lower in areas where a critical 

threshold of awareness about consumer fraud of the elderly exists. The use of multiple sources 

of data could aid in the development of measures that gauge such awareness and in turn enable 

empirical tests of that possibility. 

Third, although this study identified key risk factors that increase the likelihood of fraud 

targeting and victimization, the precise causal mechanisms involved warrant further 

investigation. For example, individuals who engage in routine activities, such as socializing with 

their friends in the community, are less likely to experience financial mistreatment. What 

exactly produces this effect bears closer scrutiny. It could be that such activities reduce 

opportunities for fraud targeting and victimization to occur, but they also could expose 

individuals to a broader network of individuals who provide informal social support that protects 

them against fraudulent activities that family members of relatives might seek to undertake. 

Fourth, this study included questions about several state-level efforts in Arizona and 

Florida to prevent and combat elderly fraud victimization. A wide range of similar and different 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
131

efforts exist in other states and their implementation, the extent to which they target the risk 

factors associated with elderly victimization, and their effectiveness remain to be examined. 

Implications for Policy and Practice 

The diversity of methods through which fraud targeting occurs is considerable, including 

telephone, mail, email, web sites, phony prize offers, requests for contributions to phone 

charitable causes, and more. The plethora of such methods in turn indicates that any efforts to 

reduce victimization likely must be multifaceted and, for example, should target these different 

methods as well as educate elderly consumers about the ways in which consumer fraud 

victimization can occur. 

The fact that few fraud attempts or actual fraud victimization events are reported to law 

enforcement suggests the need for education about the importance of reporting such events and, 

at the same time, for efforts to ensure that law enforcement respond to such reports in a proactive 

and well-publicized manner. Such steps can increase the chances that the elderly will learn about 

consumer fraud victimization, that they will report it, and that a potential general deterrent effect 

can be created or increased. For example, would-be offenders, such as family members and 

solicitors, may be less likely to engage in fraud if they read or hear about law enforcement 

aggressively responding to claims of fraudulent activity. 

Given the greater targeting and victimization of them, males and individuals ages 60-72 

should be educated about the importance of taking steps to prevent fraud and of reporting 

attempted or actual fraud. Similarly, individuals who engage in greater amounts of remote 

purchasing or who are low in self-control should be targeted for similar educational efforts since 

these two factors emerged as the most robust predictors of various types of fraud targeting and 

victimization. Not least, since financial mistreatment was associated with failing to engage in 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
132

routine activities, such as social events, outside the home, elderly individuals should be 

encouraged to participate in social activities in their community. Doing so may create a social 

support network that provides a protective effect against fraud targeting and especially 

victimization. 

Few respondents in the study were familiar with state-level efforts to educate and help the 

elderly in matters related to consumer fraud. Accordingly, there likely is substantial room to 

reduce consumer fraud victimization by greater attention to implementing these efforts in ways 

that better reach their intended target populations. Such efforts could include flyers, radio and 

television advertisements during shows or times when the elderly are more likely to be listening 

or watching, and other related activities. These are the primary avenues through which 

respondents reported learning about these programs, but, ultimately, the effectiveness of such 

efforts depends heavily on whether informational material reaches the intended audience. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
133

REFERENCES 

Acierno, Ron, Melba Hernandez-Tejada, Wendy Muzzy, and Kenneth Steve. 2009. National 

Elder Mistreatment Study. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice. 

Acierno, Ron, Melba A. Hernandez, Ananda B. Amstadter, Heidi S. Resnick, Kenneth Steve, 

Wendy Muzzy, and Dean G. Kilpatrick. 2010. Prevalence and Correlates of Emotional, 

Physical, Sexual, and Financial Abuse and Potential Neglect in the United States: The 

National Elder Mistreatment Study. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 292-297.

Administration on Aging (AOA). 2010. Statistics on Aging. Retrieved from the AOA website: 

www.aoa.gov/aoaroot/aging_statistics.

Akers, Ronald L., Anthony L. LaGreca, Christine Sellers, and John Cochran. 1987. Fear of 

Crime and Victimization Among the Elderly in Different Types of Communities. 

Criminology, 25, 487-505.

Albanese, Jay S. 2005. Fraud: The Characteristic Crime of the 21st Century. Trends in Organized 

Crime, 8, 6-14.

Allison, Paul. 2001. Missing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Alves, Linda M., Steve R. Wilson. 2008. The effects of loneliness on telemarketing fraud 

vulnerability among older adults. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 20, 63-85.

American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). 2011. Standard Definitions: Final 

Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 7

th Edition. AAPOR. 

American Association of Retired Persons. 2003. Off the Hook: Reducing Participation in 

Telemarketing Fraud. Executive Summary. Washington, D.C.: AARP. 

American Association of Retired Persons. 1996. Telemarketing Fraud and Older Americans: An 

AARP Survey. Washington, D.C.: AARP. 

American Geriatrics Society. 2006. Trends in the Elderly Population. New York: American 

Geriatrics Foundation for Health in Aging. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
134

Anderson, Keith B. 2013. Consumer Fraud in the United States, 2011: The Third FTC Survey.

Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Economics and Consumer Protection, Federal Trade 

Commission. 

Anderson, Keith B. 2007. Consumer Fraud in the United States: The Second FTC Survey. 

Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Economics and Consumer Protection, Federal Trade 

Commission. 

Anderson, Keith B. 2004. Consumer Fraud Victimization in the United States: An FTC Survey. 

Washington, D. C.: Bureau of Economics and Consumer Protection, Federal Trade 

Commission.

Arizona Elder Abuse Coalition. 2007. Financial Exploitation of the Elderly. Phoenix, AZ: 

Arizona Elder Abuse Coalition. 

Berk, Richard A. 1983. An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data. American 

Sociological Review, 48, 386-397.

Blumberg, Stephen J., and Julian V. Luke. 2007. Wireless Substitution: Early Release of 

Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, July-December 2007. Retrieved 

from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless200805.pdf. 

Bonnie, Richard J., and Robert B. Wallace (Eds). 2002. Elder Mistreatment: Abuse, Neglect, and 

Exploitation in an Aging America. National Academies Press. 

Callahan, Christopher M., Unverzagt, Frederick W., Hui, Siu L., Perkins, Anthony J., and Hugh 

C. Hendrie. 2002. Six-Item Screener to Identify Cognitive Impairment among Potential 

Subjects for Clinical Research. Medical Care, 40, 771-781.

Carach, Carlos, Adam Graycar, and Glenn Muscat. 2001. The Victimization of Older Americans.

Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
135

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 2002. Second Longitudinal Study of Aging Wave 3: 

Survivor Questionnaire (Version SF 2.1). Atlanta, GA: Author. 

Choi, Namkee G., and James Mayer. 2000. Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation: Risk Factors 

and Prevention Strategies. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 33, 5-25. 

Cohen, Lawrence E., and Marcus Felson. 1979. Social change and Crime Rate Trends: A 

Routine Activity Approach. American Sociological Review, 52, 170-183. 

Conrad, Kendon J., Iris, Madelyn, Ridings, John W., Langley, Kate, and Kathleen Wilber. 2010. 

Self-Report Measure of Financial Exploitation of Older Adults. The Gerontologist, 50, 

758-773.

Curtin, Richard, Presser, Stanley, and Eleanor Singer. 2005. Changes in Telephone Survey 

Nonresponse over the Past Quarter Century. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69, 87-98.

Dietz, Tracy L., and James D. Wright. 2005. Age and gender differences and predictors of 

victimization of the older homeless. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 17, 37-60. 

Feldmeyer, Ben, and Darrell Steffensmeier. 2007. Elder crime: Patterns and current trends, 1980-

2004. Research on Aging, 29, 297-322.

Friedman, Monroe. 1998. Coping With Consumer Fraud: The Need for a Paradigm Shift. 

Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32, 1-12.

Gmel, Gerhard. 2001. Imputation of Missing Values in the Case of Multiple Item Instrument 

Measuring Alcohol Consumption. Statistics in Medicine, 20, 2369-2381. 

Gottfredson, Michael R., and Travis Hirschi. 1990. A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: 

Stanford University Press. 

Hafemeister, Thomas L. 2002. Financial Abuse of the Elderly in Domestic Settings. Pp. 382-445 

in Richard J. Bonnie and Robert B. Wallace (Eds.), Elder Mistreatment: Abuse, Neglect, 

and Exploitation in an Aging America. National Academies Press. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
136

Hall, Ryan, C., Richard C.W. Hall, and Marcia J. Chapman. 2005. Exploitation of the Elderly: 

Undue Influence as a Form of Elder Abuse. Clinical Geriatrics, 13, 28-36.

Holtfreter, Kristy, Michael D. Reisig, and Thomas G. Blomberg. 2006. Consumer Fraud 

Victimization in Florida: An Empirical Study. St. Thomas Law Review, 18, 761-789.

Holtfreter, Kristy, Michael D. Reisig, and Travis Pratt. 2008. Low Self-Control, Routine 

Activities, and Fraud Victimization. Criminology, 46, 189-220.

Hox, Joop J., and Edith D. De Leeuw. 1994. A Comparison of Nonresponse in Mail, Telephone, 

and Face-to-Face Surveys: Applying Multilevel Modeling in Meta-Analysis. Quality and 

Quantity, 28, 329-344.

Jesilow, Paul, Esther Klemper, and Victoria Chao. 1992. Reporting Consumer and Major Fraud: 

A Survey of Complainants. Pp. 149-168 in White-Collar Crime Reconsidered, edited by 

Kip Schlegel and David Weisburd. Boston: Northeastern University Press. 

Johnson, Kelly D. 2003. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly. Washington, D.C.: Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services. 

Klaus, Patsy. 2005. Crimes Against Persons Age 65 or Older, 1993-2002. Washington, 

D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Laumann Edward O., Sara A. Leitsch, and Linda J. Waite. 2008. Elder Mistreatment in the 

United States: Prevalence Estimates from a Nationally Representative Study. Journals of 

Gerontology: Social Sciences, 63B, S248–S254. 

Lee, Jinkook, and Horacio Soberon-Ferrer. 1997. Consumer Vulnerability to Fraud: Influencing 

Factors. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 31, 70-89. 

Lewis, Catherine F., Cynthia Fields, and Elizabeth Rainey. 2006. A Study of Geriatric Forensic 

Evaluees: Who Are the Violent Elderly? Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry 

and the Law, 34, 324-332.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
137

Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Mason, Karen, and Michael Benson. 1996. The Effect of Social Support on Fraud Victims’ 

Reporting Behavior: A Research Note. Justice Quarterly, 12, 511-523. 

McGuire, Mary V., and Herbert Elderhertz. 1980. Consumer Abuse of Older Americans: 

Victimization and Remedial Action in Two Metropolitan Areas. Pp. 266-292 in WhiteCollar Crime: Theory and Research, edited by Gilbert Geis and Ezra Stotland. Beverly 

Hills, CA: Sage. 

Menard, Scott. 2002. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage. 

Miller, Larry S. and John T. Whitehead. 1996. Introduction to Criminal Justice Research and 

Statistics. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. 

Miranda, Alfonso and Sophia Rabe-Hesketh. 2006. Maximum Likelihood of Endogenous 

Switching and Sample Selection Models for Binary, Ordinal, and Count Variables. The 

Stata Journal, 6, 285-308.

Muscat, Glenn, Marianne James, and Adam Graycar. 2002. Older People and Consumer Fraud. 

Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 

Myrtveit, Ingunn, Stensrud, Erik, and Ulf Olsson. 2001. Analyzing Data Sets with Missing Data: 

An Empirical Evaluation of Imputation Methods and Likelihood-based Methods. IEEE 

Transactions on Software Engineering, 27, 999-1013. 

Pratt, Travis C., Kristy Holtfreter, and Michael D. Reisig. 2010. Routine Online Activity and 

Internet Fraud Targeting: Extending the Generality of Routine Activity Theory. Journal 

of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47, 267-296. 

Princeton Survey Research Associates. 1999. Consumer Behavior, Experiences, and Attitudes: A 

Comparison by Age Groups. Washington, D.C.: AARP. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
138

Ravenna, Donald. 2004. Seniors vs. Crime Annual Report. Tallahassee, FL: Office of the 

Attorney General. 

Reisig, Michael D., and Kristy Holtfreter. 2013. Shopping Fraud Victimization Among the 

Elderly. Journal of Financial Crime, 20, 324-337.

Reisig, Michael D., and Kristy Holtfreter. 2007. Fraud Victimization and Confidence in Florida’s 

Legal Authorities. Journal of Financial Crime, 14, 113-126.

Reisig, Michael D., Travis C. Pratt, and Kristy Holtfreter. 2009. Perceived Risk of Internet Theft 

Victimization: Examining the Effects of Social Vulnerability and Impulsivity. Criminal 

Justice and Behavior, 36, 369-384.

Reyns, Bradford W. 2013. Online Routines and Identity Theft: Further Expanding Routine 

Activity Theory Beyond Direct-Contact Offenses. Journal of Research in Crime and 

Delinquency, 50, 216-238. 

Romal, Jane B., and Barbara J. Kaplan. 1995. Differences in Self-Control Among Spenders and 

Savers. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 32, 8-17.

Rosoff, Stephen M., Henry N. Pontell, and Robert H. Tillman. 2004. Profit Without Honor: 

White-Collar Crime and the Looting of America (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: 

Prentice-Hall. 

Roth, Philip L. 1994. Missing Data: A Conceptual Review for Applied Psychologists. Personnel 

Psychology, 47, 537-560. 

Schafer, Joseph L., and John W. Graham. 2002. Missing Data: Our View of the State of the Art. 

Psychological Methods, 7, 147-177.

Schreck, Christopher J. 1999. Criminal Victimization and Low Self-Control: An Extension and 

Test of a General Theory of Crime. Justice Quarterly, 16, 633-654.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
139

Stewart, Eric A., Kirk W. Elifson, and Claire E. Sterk. 2004. Integrating the General Theory of 

Crime into an Explanation of Violent Victimization Among Female Offenders. Justice 

Quarterly, 21, 159-181.

Suzman, Richard M., David P. Willis, and Kenneth G. Manton. 1992. The Oldest Old. New 

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Tangney, June P., Roy F. Baumeister, and Angie Luzio Boone. 2004. High Self-Control Predicts 

Good Adjustment, Less Pathology, Better Grades, and Interpersonal Success. Journal of 

Personality, 72, 271-324.

Titus, Richard, Fred Heinzelmann, and John M. Boyle. 1995. Victimization of Persons by Fraud. 

Crime and Delinquency, 41, 54-72.

United States Bureau of the Census. 2012. Florida Quick Facts: Persons 65 Years and Over, 

Percent, 2012. Washington, D.C.: United States Bureau of the Census. 

United States Bureau of the Census. 2000. Census Data for the State of Florida. Washington, 

D.C.: United States Bureau of the Census. 

Van Wilsem, Johan A. 2013. ‘Bought It, but Never Got It’: Assessing Risk Factors for Online 

Consumer Fraud Victimization. European Sociological Review, 29, 168-178. 

Van Wyk, Judy, and Michael Benson. 1997. Fraud Victimization: Risky Business or Just Bad 

Luck? American Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 163-179.

Van Wyk, Judy, and Karen Mason. 2001. Investigating Vulnerability and Reporting Behavior for 

Consumer Fraud Victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 17, 328-345. 

Woodford, H. J., and J. George. 2007. Cognitive Assessment in the Elderly: A Review of 

Clinical Methods. Quarterly Journal of Medicine, 100, 469-484.

Zickuhr, Kathryn. 2011. Generations and their gadgets. Retrieved from Pew Research Center 

website:http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP_Generations_and_

Gadgets.pdf

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
DISSEMINATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS 

Conference Presentations 

Holtfreter, Kristy, and Michael D. Reisig (2013). Routine activities and identity theft 

victimization in late adulthood. The 65th Annual Meeting of the American Society 

of Criminology, Atlanta, GA. 

Mears, Daniel P., Michael D. Reisig, Samuel Scaggs, and Kristy Holtfreter (2013). 

Awareness among the elderly of efforts to reduce fraud victimization. The 65th

Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, GA. 

Wolfe, Scott E., Michael D. Reisig, and Kristy Holtfreter (2013). Opportunity, offending, 

and crime analogous outcomes in late life: General routines or domain-specific 

opportunities? The 65th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, 

Atlanta, GA. 

Reisig, Michael D., and Kristy Holtfreter (2012). Explaining elderly victimization: 

Assault, theft, and consumer fraud. The 64th Annual Meeting of the American 

Society of Criminology, Chicago, IL. 

Wolfe, Scott E. (2012). Gender, race, self-control, and offending in late life: A test of 

self-control theory and the invariance thesis. The 64th Annual Meeting of the 

American Society of Criminology, Chicago, IL. 

Wolfe, Scott E. (2011). Routine activity, low self-control, and offending late in the life 

course. The 63rd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, 

Washington, D.C. 

Reisig, Michael D., Kristy Holtfreter, Daniel P. Mears, and Scott E. Wolfe (2011). 

Financial exploitation of the elderly in a consumer context: Some preliminary 

findings. The 63rd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, 

Washington, D.C. 

Completed Dissertation 

Wolfe, Scott E. (2012). Crime in late life. Arizona State University, School of 

Criminology and Criminal Justice. 

Published Articles 

Reisig, Michael D., and Kristy Holtfreter (2013). Shopping fraud victimization among 

the elderly. Journal of Financial Crime 20 (3): 324-337.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
141

Articles under Review and In Progress 

Mears, Daniel P., Michael D. Reisig, Samuel Scaggs, and Kristy Holtfreter. Efforts to 

reduce consumer fraud victimization among the elderly: The effect of information 

access on program awareness and contact. Under review. 

Wolfe, Scott E. (2012). Gender, race, self-control, and offending in late life: Support and 

challenges for the generality of self-control theory. Under review. 

Wolfe, Scott E., Michael D. Reisig, and Kristy Holtfreter. Crime in late life: Implications 

for the generality of low self-control theory. In progress. 

Holtfreter, Kristy, and Michael D. Reisig. Routine activities and identity theft 

victimization in late adulthood. In progress. 

Holtfreter, Kristy, Michael D. Reisig, and Jillian J. Turanovic. Victimization, depression, 

and negative coping in late adulthood: A test of General Strain Theory. In 

progress. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
142

APPENDIX A: The Nature and Prevalence Of Physical Mistreatment 

The portion of the survey that featured the physical mistreatment items began with the 

following introduction: 

People are sometimes physically hurt by other people. The person doing 

these things could be someone close to you, like a family member or 

friend, or someone you don’t know very well.

The following three items are used to capture incidents of physical mistreatment. These 

items are very similar to those used in previous studies (see, e.g., Acierno et al., 2010; 

Laumann, Leitsch, & Waite, 2008). Much like the consumer fraud and financial 

mistreatment items, these items also included a number of follow-up questions that were 

presented to those who answered in the affirmative to any of the three following items. 

1. “Has anyone ever hit you with their hand or object, slapped you, kicked you, or 

threatened you with a weapon?” (hit, kicked or threatened) 

2. “Has anyone ever held you down, tied you up, or locked you in your room or house 

or some other place against your will?” (forcibly restrained) 

3. “Has anyone ever physically hurt you so that you suffered some degree of injury, 

including cuts, bruises, or other marks?” (physically injured) 

Self-reported incidents of physical mistreatment are assessed from two time periods: (1) 

the year prior to the study; and, (2) two years prior to the study. Each of the three 

physical mistreatment items feature a binary response set (1 = yes, 0 = no). For the 

multivariate analysis, respondents are considered a victim of mistreatment (coded as 1) if 

the answered in the affirmative to one or more of the three survey items. 

 The overall prevalence of physical mistreatment was 0.6% (or 12 of the 1982 

respondents for whom data are available) during the one-year observation period. This is 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
143

lower than recent national prevalence estimates of 1.6% (Acierno et al., 2009). For the 

two years leading up to this study the prevalence of physical mistreatment was 1.4% (or 

28 of the 1982 respondents). In terms of seriousness, a majority of individuals did not 

receive medical treatment as a result of their physical victimization. However, physical 

mistreatment still led to 27.3% of victims receiving medical treatment during the oneyear observation period (see Appendix Table 1). 

The frequency distributions clearly show that all three types of physical 

mistreatment are rare. Only seven participants reported that someone had hit, slapped, 

kicked, or threatened them with a weapon in the year prior to the study (0.4%). Similarly, 

five people indicated that someone had physically injured them (0.3%) and two 

individuals reporting that someone had held them down, tied them up, or locked them in 

a room or house against their will (0.1%). This general pattern of findings was also 

observed during the two-year observation. 

Appendix A Table 1

Prevalence of Physical Mistreatment

Past year Past 2 years

N % N %

Physical mistreatment Yes 12 0.6 28 1.4

No 1970 99.4 1954 98.6

Hit, kicked or threatened Yes 7 0.4 22 1.1

No 1985 99.6 1970 98.9

Forcibly restrained Yes 2 0.1 3 0.2

No 1994 99.9 1993 99.8

Physically injured Yes 5 0.3 7 0.4

No 1984 99.7 1982 99.6

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
144

 Appendix Table 2 features information regarding the victim-offender 

relationships for physical mistreatment. Similar to financial mistreatment (see, e.g., Table 

22), strangers (36.4%; or 4 of the 11 victims) and family members (i.e., spouse/partner 

and son/daughter) (36.4%; or 4 of the 11 victims) were the most common offenders. 

Within the family member category, spouses/partners were the most common group of 

offenders. The two-year observation period yielded a similar pattern of results. 

Appendix A Table 2

Victim-Offender Relationship for Physical Mistreatment

Past year Past 2 years

N % N %

Physical mistreatment

 Spouse or partner 3 27.3 6 26.1

 Ex-spouse or partner 0 0.0 2 8.7

 Son or daughter 1 9.1 1 4.3

 Friend 1 9.1 1 4.3

 Neighbor 1 9.1 1 4.3

 Stranger (no relation) 4 36.4 9 39.1

 Other non-relative 1 9.1 3 13.0

Hit, kicked or threatened

 Spouse or partner 1 16.7 4 25.0

 Ex-spouse or partner 0 0.0 2 12.5

 Son or daughter 1 16.7 1 6.3

 Neighbor 1 16.7 1 6.3

 Stranger (no relation) 3 50.0 7 43.8

 Other non-relative 0 0.0 1 6.3

Forcibly restrained 

 Spouse or partner 2 100.0 2 66.7

 Ex-spouse or partner 0 0.0 1 33.3

Physically injured

 Spouse or partner 1 25.0 1 16.7

 Friend 1 25.0 1 16.7

 Neighbor 1 25.0 2 33.3

 Stranger (no relation) 1 25.0 2 33.3

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
145

These results are consistent across each type of physical mistreatment. Victims 

were most frequently hit, slapped, kicked, or threatened by a stranger (50.0%; or 3 of the 

6 victims). About one-third of victims of hitting were victimized by a family member 

(i.e., spouse/partner and son/daughter) (33.3%; or 2 of the 6 victims). Respondents who 

indicated that they had been restrained against their will were victimized by a relative 

(i.e., spouse/partner and ex-spouse/partner). Of the four victims of physical injury the 

offenders were equally distributed between a spouse/partner, friend, neighbor, and 

stranger (25.0%; or 1 of the 4 victims for each offender type). 

Victims of physical mistreatment reporting practices are featured in Appendix 

Table 3. The results for overall physical mistreatment show that over half of victims 

called the police (54.5%; or 6 of the 11 victims). The data also show that other authorities 

such as social services were contacted less frequently than the police (36.4%; or 4 of the 

11 victims). Victims of physical mistreatment are more likely to contact the police and 

social services when compared to victims of financial mistreatment (see, e.g., Table 23). 

The small cell counts for reporting practices across specific forms of physical 

mistreatment make it difficult to reliably interpret the findings. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
146

Appendix A Table 3

Reporting of Physical Mistreatment to Authorities

Past year Past 2 years

N % N %

Physical mistreatment

 Reported to police Yes 6 54.5 11 47.8

No 5 45.5 12 52.2

 Reported to other authorities Yes 4 36.4 4 18.2

No 7 63.6 18 81.8

Hit, kicked or threatened

 Reported to police Yes 3 50.0 8 47.1

No 3 50.0 9 52.9

 Reported to other authorities Yes 3 50.0 3 18.8

No 3 50.0 13 81.3

Forcibly restrained

 Reported to police Yes 1 50.0 1 33.3

No 1 50.0 2 66.7

 Reported to other authorities Yes 1 50.0 1 50.0

No 1 50.0 1 50.0

Physically injured

 Reported to police Yes 3 75.0 3 50.0

No 1 25.0 3 50.0

 Reported to other authorities Yes 0 0.0 0 0.0

No 5 100.0 7 100.0

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX B: Fraud Targeting State Subsample Analyses 

Appendix B Table 1

Fraud Targeting Logistic Regression Models for Arizona

Fraud targeting in Arizona

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.422 1.525 4.98** --- --- ---

(0.085)

Telemarketing purchase --- --- --- 2.279 9.766 2.22*

(1.024)

Online purchase --- --- --- 0.493 1.638 3.23**

(0.153)

Infomercial purchase --- --- --- 0.219 1.244 1.16

(0.188)

Mail-order purchase --- --- --- 0.249 1.283 1.06

(0.235)

Email-order purchase --- --- --- 0.627 1.871 2.27*

(0.276)

Low self-control 0.214 1.238 3.38** 0.217 1.242 3.42**

(0.063) (0.064)

Age -0.016 0.984 -1.67 -0.015 0.985 -1.45

(0.010) (0.010)

Male 0.094 1.099 0.65 0.085 1.088 0.58

(0.144) (0.145)

Racial minority 0.473 1.605 1.35 0.502 1.651 1.42

(0.349) (0.354)

Hispanic 0.736 2.087 1.91 0.782 2.187 2.01*

(0.386) (0.389)

Education 0.161 1.174 2.63** 0.160 1.173 2.60**

(0.061) (0.062)

Retired -0.037 0.964 -0.22 -0.024 0.976 -0.14

(0.170) (0.171)

Married -0.051 0.950 -0.35 -0.057 0.944 -0.39

(0.144) (0.145)

Wald χ2 = 61.48** 65.84**

N = 978 978

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
148

Appendix B Table 2

Fraud Targeting Logistic Regression Models for Florida

Fraud targeting in Florida

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.314 1.369 3.73** --- --- ---

(0.084)

Telemarketing purchase --- --- --- 0.737 2.090 1.42

(0.520)

Online purchase --- --- --- 0.128 1.137 0.85

(0.151)

Infomercial purchase --- --- --- 0.379 1.461 2.12*

(0.179)

Mail-order purchase --- --- --- 0.520 1.682 2.15*

(0.242)

Email-order purchase --- --- --- 0.267 1.306 0.92

(0.289)

Low self-control 0.103 1.108 1.81 0.102 1.107 1.78

(0.057) (0.057)

Age -0.003 0.997 -0.30 -0.006 0.994 -0.69

(0.009) (0.009)

Male 0.443 1.557 3.03** 0.461 1.586 3.12**

(0.146) (0.148)

Racial minority 0.166 1.181 0.69 0.117 1.124 0.47

(0.241) (0.246)

Hispanic -0.031 0.970 -0.07 -0.045 0.956 -0.10

(0.437) (0.435)

Education 0.107 1.113 1.88 0.119 1.126 2.04*

(0.057) (0.058)

Retired -0.341 0.711 -2.14* -0.358 0.699 -2.25*

(0.159) (0.159)

Married -0.003 0.997 -0.02 0.012 1.012 0.09

(0.139) (0.140)

Wald χ2 = 43.30** 44.57**

N = 980 980

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
149

APPENDIX C: Fraud Victimization (Full Sample) State Subsample Analyses 

Appendix C Table 1

Fraud Victimization Logistic Regression Models (Full Sample) for Arizona

Fraud victimization in Arizona

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.453 1.573 4.35** --- --- ---

(0.104)

Telemarketing purchase --- --- --- 0.548 1.730 0.89

(0.616)

Online purchase --- --- --- 0.546 1.726 2.39*

(0.228)

Infomercial purchase --- --- --- 0.516 1.675 2.16*

(0.238)

Mail-order purchase --- --- --- 0.228 1.256 0.78

(0.294)

Email-order purchase --- --- --- 0.446 1.563 1.39

(0.320)

Low self-control 0.303 1.353 3.45** 0.308 1.361 3.51**

(0.088) (0.088)

Age 0.014 1.014 0.96 0.017 1.017 1.15

(0.014) (0.014)

Male -0.351 0.704 -1.63 -0.360 0.697 -1.66

(0.215) (0.217)

Racial minority 1.026 2.789 2.51* 1.043 2.838 2.52*

(0.408) (0.414)

Hispanic 0.613 1.846 1.32 0.643 1.901 1.39

(0.463) (0.463)

Education -0.017 0.983 -0.19 -0.019 0.981 -0.21

(0.091) (0.091)

Retired -0.175 0.839 -0.70 -0.182 0.834 -0.73

(0.249) (0.250)

Married 0.150 1.161 0.69 0.141 1.151 0.63

(0.217) (0.222)

Wald χ2 = 41.46** 43.41**

N = 973 973

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05,** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
150

Appendix C Table 2

Fraud Victimization Logistic Regression Models (Full Sample) for Florida

Fraud victimization in Florida

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.551 1.734 5.07** --- --- ---

(0.109)

Telemarketing purchase --- --- --- 1.362 3.905 2.91**

(0.468)

Online purchase --- --- --- -0.073 0.930 -0.32

(0.228)

Infomercial purchase --- --- --- 0.843 2.323 3.97**

(0.212)

Mail-order purchase --- --- --- 0.529 1.697 1.91

(0.276)

Email-order purchase --- --- --- 0.786 2.194 2.43*

(0.323)

Low self-control 0.188 1.206 2.04* 0.188 1.207 2.02*

(0.092) (0.093)

Age 0.030 1.030 2.47* 0.020 1.020 1.56

(0.012) (0.013)

Male 0.234 1.263 1.17 0.312 1.366 1.54

(0.199) (0.202)

Racial minority 0.397 1.487 1.32 0.181 1.199 0.56

(0.301) (0.323)

Hispanic 0.207 1.230 0.33 0.153 1.165 0.26

(0.373) (0.587)

Education -0.057 0.944 -0.66 -0.014 0.986 -0.16

(0.062) (0.086)

Retired -0.293 0.746 -1.41 -0.357 0.700 -1.67

(0.159) (0.214)

Married 0.247 1.280 1.25 0.298 1.347 1.49

(0.198) (0.200)

Wald χ2 = 38.53** 53.73**

N = 979 979

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX D: Fraud Victimization (Targeted Sample) State Subsample Analyses 

Appendix D Table 1

Fraud Victimization Logistic Regression Models (Targeted Sample) for Arizona

Fraud victimization in Arizona

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.313 1.368 2.89** --- --- ---

(0.108)

Telemarketing purchase --- --- --- 0.094 1.099 0.15

(0.611)

Online purchase --- --- --- 0.412 1.510 1.68

(0.245)

Infomercial purchase --- --- --- 0.471 1.601 1.84

(0.256)

Mail-order purchase --- --- --- 0.108 1.115 0.36

(0.305)

Email-order purchase --- --- --- 0.222 1.248 0.67

(0.329)

Low self-control 0.235 1.265 2.51* 0.242 1.273 2.54*

(0.094) (0.095)

Age 0.030 1.030 1.94 0.033 1.034 2.09*

(0.016) (0.016)

Male -0.436 0.647 -1.91 -0.446 0.641 -1.94

(0.228) (0.230)

Racial minority 1.008 2.741 2.28* 1.050 2.858 2.36*

(0.442) (0.446)

Hispanic 0.312 1.366 0.63 0.348 1.416 0.69

(0.499) (0.501)

Education -0.118 0.889 -1.23 -0.118 0.889 -1.21

(0.096) (0.097)

Retired -0.194 0.823 -0.76 -0.211 0.810 -0.82

(0.257) (0.258)

Married 0.132 1.141 0.58 0.126 1.135 0.54

(0.228) (0.232)

Wald χ2 = 25.11** 27.29**

N = 560 560

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
152

Appendix D Table 2

Fraud Victimization Logistic Regression Models (Targeted Sample) for Florida

Fraud victimization in Florida

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Remote purchasing 0.490 1.633 4.16** --- --- ---

(0.118)

Telemarketing purchase --- --- --- 1.267 3.550 2.42*

(0.522)

Online purchase --- --- --- -0.118 0.889 -0.48

(0.246)

Infomercial purchase --- --- --- 0.806 2.239 3.50**

(0.230)

Mail-order purchase --- --- --- 0.336 1.399 1.16

(0.290)

Email-order purchase --- --- --- 0.806 2.238 2.33*

(0.346)

Low self-control 0.152 1.164 1.71 0.156 1.169 1.72

(0.089) (0.091)

Age 0.037 1.038 2.89** 0.028 1.028 2.04*

(0.013) (0.014)

Male 0.061 1.062 0.29 0.154 1.167 0.72

(0.210) (0.215)

Racial minority 0.367 1.443 1.18 0.141 1.152 0.41

(0.311) (0.340)

Hispanic 0.355 1.426 0.59 0.223 1.250 0.37

(0.606) (0.603)

Education -0.131 0.877 -1.48 -0.074 0.929 -0.83

(0.089) (0.089)

Retired -0.206 0.814 -0.92 -0.267 0.765 -1.16

(0.223) (0.230)

Married 0.288 1.333 1.37 0.340 1.404 1.58

(0.210) (0.214)

Wald χ2 = 26.83** 37.10**

N = 581 581

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
153

APPENDIX E: Financial Mistreatment State Subsample Analyses 

Appendix E Table 1

Financial Mistreatment Logistic Regression Models for Arizona

Financial mistreatment in Arizona

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Routine activity -0.069 0.933 -1.59 --- --- ---

(0.044)

Outside-home activities --- --- --- -0.338 0.713 -2.17*

(0.156)

Social get-togethers --- --- --- 0.051 1.053 0.24

(0.211)

Street-side shopping --- --- --- -0.172 0.842 -0.94

(0.183)

Entertainment --- --- --- 0.128 1.137 0.91

(0.140)

Leisure sports --- --- --- -0.035 0.966 -0.31

(0.114)

Low self-control 0.216 1.241 1.94 0.214 1.239 1.89

(0.111) (0.113)

Age 0.005 1.005 0.33 0.002 1.002 0.13

(0.016) (0.016)

Male 0.319 1.376 1.17 0.299 1.349 1.11

(0.274) (0.269)

Racial minority 0.481 1.618 0.93 0.506 1.659 0.99

(0.517) (0.511)

Hispanic 1.155 3.174 2.53* 1.173 3.232 2.61**

(0.457) (0.450)

Education 0.246 1.279 1.88 0.248 1.281 1.90

(0.131) (0.131)

Retired -0.364 0.695 -1.27 -0.352 0.703 -1.23

(0.286) (0.287)

Married -0.028 0.972 -0.11 -0.047 0.954 -0.18

(0.259) (0.263)

Wald χ2 = 27.01** 28.71**

N = 967 967

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
154

Appendix E Table 2

Financial Mistreatment Logistic Regression Models for Florida

Financial mistreatment in Florida

Model 1 Model 2

b Odds

ratio

z-test b Odds

ratio

z-test

(s.e.) (s.e.)

Routine activity -0.092 0.912 -2.09* --- --- ---

(0.044)

Outside-home activities --- --- --- -0.019 0.981 -0.14

(0.133)

Social get-togethers --- --- --- -0.251 0.778 -1.55

(0.162)

Street-side shopping --- --- --- -0.056 0.946 -0.30

(0.184)

Entertainment --- --- --- 0.026 1.027 0.18

(0.149)

Leisure sports --- --- --- -0.160 0.852 -1.50

(0.107)

Low self-control 0.310 1.364 2.92** 0.310 1.363 2.86**

(0.106) (0.108)

Age -0.041 0.960 -2.68** -0.040 0.961 -2.54*

(0.015) (0.016)

Male 0.582 1.790 2.46* 0.595 1.814 2.50*

(0.237) (0.238)

Racial minority 0.427 1.533 1.28 0.458 1.581 1.36

(0.334) (0.336)

Hispanic 0.168 1.183 0.25 0.207 1.230 0.31

(0.671) (0.679)

Education -0.038 0.963 -0.36 -0.038 0.963 -0.36

(0.105) (0.106)

Retired 0.002 1.002 0.01 0.023 1.024 0.09

(0.255) (0.257)

Married -0.466 0.628 -2.00* -0.453 0.636 -1.93

(0.233) (0.234)

Wald χ2 = 31.39** 33.63**

N = 975 975

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
155

APPENDIX F: Survey Instrument 

[Initial Introduction] Hello, my name is __________, and I’m calling on behalf of [Arizona 

State University or Florida State University. We are interested in talking with people 60 years 

of age or older.

Q1 How many adults age 60 or older live in this household?

0 = Thank and End.

1 = Go to Question 2

2 or more = Go to Question 3

Q2 May I speak with that person?

1 = On the phone (Continue to Follow-up Introduction)

2 = Impaired (Thank and End)

3 = Called to the phone (Repeat Initial Introduction and continue to Follow-up 

Introduction)

4 = Unavailable (Schedule Callback)

5 = Refused (Thank and End)

Q3 In order to select just one person to interview, may I please speak to the person 60 years 

of age or older living in your household who will have the next birthday?

1 = On the phone (Continue to Follow-up Introduction)

2 = Impaired (Thank and End)

3 = Called to the phone (Repeat Initial Introduction and continue to Follow-up 

Introduction)

4 = Unavailable (Schedule Callback)

5 = Refused (Thank and End)

[Follow-Up Introduction] We are interviewing [Arizonans or Floridians] about different kinds 

of crimes on behalf of the National Institute of Justice, a research agency in the U.S. 

Department of Justice. There are no wrong or right answers. You can skip questions if you 

wish. You may choose to stop at any time. Your participation is voluntary. We will not ask for 

your name or any information that would allow us or others to guess who you are. The 

interview takes about 15 minutes. Is now a good time?

I would like to begin by asking you some questions that require you to use your memory. I am 

going to name three objects. Please wait until I say all three words. Do not write them down. 

Remember what they are because I am going to ask you to name them again in a few moments. 

The three words are: APPLE, TABLE, PENNY. (Interviewer may repeat names 3 times if 

necessary.)

Q4 What year is this?

1 = Correctly identified

0 = Incorrectly identified

Q5 What month is this?

1 = Correctly identified

0 = Incorrectly identified

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
156

Q6 What is the day of the week?

1 = Correctly identified

0 = Incorrectly identified

Q7 What were the three objects I asked you to remember? (Record # remembered; Order 

of recall is not important.)

0 = Zero Correct

1 = One Correct

2 = Two Correct

3 = Three Correct

[Sum response codes for Q4 – Q7. If score is 3 or higher, continue with interview. If score is 0, 

1, or 2, then thank and end interview.]

Now, please tell me whether, yes or no, you have done any of the following in the past YEAR. 

(RANDOMIZE Q8 – Q12 STATEMENTS)

Q8 Have you purchased something in response to a telemarketing call from a company 

with whom you have NOT previously done business?

1 = Yes (go to Q8a)

0 = No (go to Q9)

99 = Don’t Know/Refused (go to Q9)

Q8a How many purchases have you made in the last year? (RECORD EXACT 

NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused) (go to Q8b)

Q8b How much money did you spend on all such purchases last year? (RECORD 

EXACT AMOUNT IN DOLLARS; -999 Don’t Know/Refused)

Q9 Have you purchased something from an Internet web site?

1 = Yes (go to Q9a)

0 = No (go to Q10)

99 = Don’t Know/Refused (go to Q10)

Q9a How many purchases have you made in the last year? (RECORD EXACT 

NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused) (go to Q9b)

Q9b How much money did you spend on all such purchases last year? (RECORD 

EXACT AMOUNT IN DOLLARS; -999 Don’t Know/Refused)

Q10 Have you placed an order for a product by phone, Internet or mail after seeing a 

television advertisement or infomercial?

1 = Yes (go to Q10a)

0 = No (go to Q11)

99 = Don’t Know/Refused (go to Q11)

Q10a How many purchases have you made in the last year? (RECORD EXACT 

NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused) (go to Q10b)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
157

Q10b How much money did you spend on all such purchases last year? (RECORD 

EXACT AMOUNT IN DOLLARS; -999 Don’t Know/Refused)

Q11 Have you placed an order for a product by phone, Internet or mail after receiving an 

offer in the mail from a company with whom you have NOT previously done business?

1 = Yes (go to Q11a)

0 = No (go to Q12)

99 = Don’t Know/Refused (go to Q12)

Q11a How many purchases have you made in the last year? (RECORD EXACT 

NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused) (go to Q11b)

Q11b How much money did you spend on all such purchases last year? (RECORD 

EXACT AMOUNT IN DOLLARS; -999 Don’t Know/Refused)

Q12 Have you placed an order for a product by phone, Internet or mail after receiving an 

email offer from a company with whom you have NOT previously done business?

1 = Yes (go to Q12a)

0 = No (go to Q13)

99 = Don’t Know/Refused (go to Q13)

Q12a How many purchases have you made in the last year? (RECORD EXACT 

NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused) (go to Q12b)

Q12b How much money did you spend on all such purchases last year? (RECORD 

EXACT AMOUNT IN DOLLARS; -999 Don’t Know/Refused)

Thank you. That is helpful.

Q13 Do you ever go online to access the Internet?

1 = Yes (go to Q13a)

0 = No (go to Q14)

99 = Don’t Know/Refused (go to Q14)

Q13a How many hours each week would you say you spend on the Internet? 

(RECORD EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS; -999 for Don’t know/Refused)

Q14 Do you manage your own money, like a checking account?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q15 How much difficulty do you have managing your money, such as keeping track of 

expenses or paying bills? (READ RESPONSES)

0 = No difficulty

1 = Some difficulty

2 = A lot of difficulty

3 = Unable to do it

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
158

Q16 Do you receive help from another person in managing your money?

1 = Yes (go to Q16a)

0 = No (go to Q17)

99 = Don’t Know/Refused (go to Q17)

Q16a What is that person’s relationship to you?

1 = A spouse or partner

2 = An EX-spouse or partner

3 = A son or daughter

4 = A brother or sister

5 = A parent or step-parent

6 = Another relative (Specify)

7 = A friend

8 = A neighbor

9 = Some other non-relative (Specify)

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Please indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the 

following statements. (RANDOMIZE Q17 – Q35 STATEMENTS)

Q17 I am basically satisfied with my life.

1 = Strongly agree

2 = Agree

3 = Disagree

4 = Strongly disagree

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q18 It is easy for me to trust someone.

1 = Strongly agree

2 = Agree

3 = Disagree

4 = Strongly disagree

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q19 I often feel isolated from others.

1 = Strongly agree

2 = Agree

3 = Disagree

4 = Strongly disagree

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q20 I often get bored.

1 = Strongly agree

2 = Agree

3 = Disagree

4 = Strongly disagree

99 = Don’t know/Refused

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
159

Q21 My tendency to trust people is high.

1 = Strongly agree

2 = Agree

3 = Disagree

4 = Strongly disagree

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q22 I do certain things that are bad for me, if they are fun.

1 = Strongly agree

2 = Agree

3 = Disagree

4 = Strongly disagree

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q23 I often feel helpless.

1 = Strongly agree

2 = Agree

3 = Disagree

4 = Strongly disagree

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q24 Trusting someone is NOT difficult for me.

1 = Strongly agree

2 = Agree

3 = Disagree

4 = Strongly disagree

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q25 I am good at resisting temptation.

1 = Strongly agree

2 = Agree

3 = Disagree

4 = Strongly disagree

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q26 I know people who would help me if I were confined to bed.

1 = Strongly agree

2 = Agree

3 = Disagree

4 = Strongly disagree

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q27 I often feel that I lack companionship.

1 = Strongly agree

2 = Agree

3 = Disagree

4 = Strongly disagree

99 = Don’t know/Refused

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
160

Q28 I prefer staying at home rather than going out and doing things.

1 = Strongly agree

2 = Agree

3 = Disagree

4 = Strongly disagree

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q29 I have people who I can talk to about my problems.

1 = Strongly agree

2 = Agree

3 = Disagree

4 = Strongly disagree

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q30 I often act without thinking through all the alternatives.

1 = Strongly agree

2 = Agree

3 = Disagree

4 = Strongly disagree

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q31 I know people who I can turn to if I need good advice about a crisis.

1 = Strongly agree

2 = Agree

3 = Disagree

4 = Strongly disagree

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q32 I feel pretty worthless right now.

1 = Strongly agree

2 = Agree

3 = Disagree

4 = Strongly disagree

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q33 The police in my community can be trusted to make good decisions.

1 = Strongly agree

2 = Agree

3 = Disagree

4 = Strongly disagree

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q34 I believe you should accept decisions made by the police even if you think they are 

wrong.

1 = Strongly agree

2 = Agree

3 = Disagree

4 = Strongly disagree

99 = Don’t know/Refused

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
161

Q35 In my community the criminal justice system does a good job making sure criminals

get what they deserve, no more, no less.

1 = Strongly agree

2 = Agree

3 = Disagree

4 = Strongly disagree

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Now I’d like to ask you about some things that people do from time to time. Remember that 

your answers are anonymous, so please report honestly. Thinking about the PAST YEAR, 

please tell me whether you frequently, sometimes, rarely or never did each of the following: 

(RANDOMIZE Q36 – Q52 STATEMENTS)

Q36 Participated in social activities away from home?

1 = Frequently

2 = Sometimes

3 = Rarely

4 = Never

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q37 Bought something on the spur of the moment that you really did not need?

1 = Frequently

2 = Sometimes

3 = Rarely

4 = Never

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q38 Took an inexpensive item from a store without paying for it?

1 = Frequently

2 = Sometimes

3 = Rarely

4 = Never

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q39 Got together socially with people who DO NOT live with you, such as friends, 

neighbors, and relatives?

1 = Frequently

2 = Sometimes

3 = Rarely

4 = Never

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q40 Took a higher dosage of medicine than recommended by the doctor or the package 

insert?

1 = Frequently

2 = Sometimes

3 = Rarely

4 = Never

99 = Don’t know/Refused

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
162

Q41 Deliberately wrote a bad check?

1 = Frequently

2 = Sometimes

3 = Rarely

4 = Never

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q42 Went shopping at grocery, drug, hardware, department or convenience stores?

1 = Frequently

2 = Sometimes

3 = Rarely

4 = Never

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q43 Borrowed something and DID NOT return it?

1 = Frequently

2 = Sometimes

3 = Rarely

4 = Never

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q44 Slapped, kicked, or punched another person?

1 = Frequently

2 = Sometimes

3 = Rarely

4 = Never

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q45 Went to church, temple, or another place of worship for services or other activities?

1 = Frequently

2 = Sometimes

3 = Rarely

4 = Never

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q46 Took medication that was NOT prescribed to you?

1 = Frequently

2 = Sometimes

3 = Rarely

4 = Never

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q47 Went to a movie, restaurant, club meeting, or other group event?

1 = Frequently

2 = Sometimes

3 = Rarely

4 = Never

99 = Don’t know/Refused

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
163

Q48 Drove a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol?

1 = Frequently

2 = Sometimes

3 = Rarely

4 = Never

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q49 Went to a drinking establishment, like a bar, tavern, or lounge?

1 = Frequently

2 = Sometimes

3 = Rarely

4 = Never

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q50 Broke traffic laws while driving a motor vehicle?

1 = Frequently

2 = Sometimes

3 = Rarely

4 = Never

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q51 Exercised and/or participated in leisure sports?

1 = Frequently

2 = Sometimes

3 = Rarely

4 = Never

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q52 Parked a car in a place that you were NOT supposed to?

1 = Frequently

2 = Sometimes

3 = Rarely

4 = Never

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Sometimes consumers are misled into giving people money who grossly misrepresent or never 

provide goods and services they promised. The people who do these things may or may not 

work for legitimate businesses and may contact consumers through email, Internet sites, 

telemarketing, infomercials, and other ways. (RANDOMIZE Q53 – Q62 STATEMENTS)

Q53 Has anyone ever tried to get you to pay for repairs to your home, an appliance, or 

automobile for work that was never performed or was unnecessary?

1 = Yes (go to Q53a)

0 = No (go to Q54)

99 = Don’t Know (go to Q54)

Q53a About how many times has this happened to you in your lifetime? (RECORD 

EXACT NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused) (go to Q53b)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
164

Q53b When was the last time this happened?

1 = Within the last year (go to Q53c)

2 = One to two years ago (go to Q53c)

3 = More than two years ago (go to Q54)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q54)

Q53c Did you pay for the repairs?

1 = Yes (go to Q53d)

0 = No (go to Q53e)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q54)

Q53d How much did you pay for the repairs? (RECORD EXACT AMOUNT IN 

DOLLARS; -999 Don’t Know/Refused)

Q53e How did the person or company first contact you? (Read if necessary)

1 = Internet web site

2 = Email

3 = Television advertisement or infomercial

4 = Mail advertisement, including a catalog

5 = Telephone

6 = At a store you visited

7 = Someone came to your home

8 = A radio advertisement

9 = A poster or flier

10 = A magazine or newspaper advertisement

11 = A bill you received

12 = Other (SPECIFY)_________________ (example: word of mouth)

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q53f Was the incident reported to the police?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q53g Was the incident reported to other authorities, like the Better Business Bureau 

or a government agency?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q54 Has anyone ever tried to sell you a health care, beauty care, weight-loss or other 

product or service that did not work as claimed?

1 = Yes (go to Q54a)

0 = No (go to Q55)

99 = Don’t Know (go to Q55)

Q54a About how many times has this happened to you in your lifetime? (RECORD 

EXACT NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused) (go to Q54b)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
165

Q54b When was the last time this happened?

1 = Within the last year (go to Q54c)

2 = One to two years ago (go to Q54c)

3 = More than two years ago (go to Q55)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q55)

Q54c Did you pay for the product or service?

1 = Yes (go to Q54d)

0 = No (go to Q54e)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q55)

Q54d How much did you pay for the product or service? (RECORD EXACT 

AMOUNT IN DOLLARS; -999 Don’t Know/Refused)

Q54e How did the person or company first contact you? (Read if necessary)

1 = Internet web site

2 = Email

3 = Television advertisement or infomercial

4 = Mail advertisement, including a catalog

5 = Telephone

6 = At a store you visited

7 = Someone came to your home

8 = A radio advertisement

9 = A poster or flier

10 = A magazine or newspaper advertisement

11 = A bill you received

12 = Other (SPECIFY)_________________ (example: word of mouth)

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q54f Was the incident reported to the police?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q54g Was the incident reported to other authorities, like the Better Business Bureau 

or a government agency?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q55 Has anyone ever tried to sell you a phony subscription to magazines or something else?

1 = Yes (go to Q55a)

0 = No (go to Q56)

99 = Don’t Know/Refused (go to Q56)

Q55a About how many times has this happened to you in your lifetime? (RECORD 

EXACT NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused) (go to Q55b)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
166

Q55b When was the last time this happened?

1 = Within the last year (go to Q55c)

2 = One to two years ago (go to Q55c)

3 = More than two years ago (go to Q56)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q56)

Q55c Did you pay for the subscription?

1 = Yes (go to Q55d)

0 = No (go to Q55e)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q56)

Q55d How much did you pay for the subscription? (RECORD EXACT AMOUNT IN 

DOLLARS; -999 Don’t Know/Refused)

Q55e How did the person or company first contact you? (Read if necessary)

1 = Internet web site

2 = Email

3 = Television advertisement or infomercial

4 = Mail advertisement, including a catalog

5 = Telephone

6 = At a store you visited

7 = Someone came to your home

8 = A radio advertisement

9 = A poster or flier

10 = A magazine or newspaper advertisement

11 = A bill you received

12 = Other (SPECIFY)_________________ (example: word of mouth)

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q55f Was the incident reported to the police?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q55g Was the incident reported to other authorities, like the Better Business Bureau 

or a government agency?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q56 Has anyone ever tried to trick you into giving them money to improve your financial 

situation, like repair credit or get equity out of your home?

1 = Yes (go to Q56a)

0 = No (go to Q57)

99 = Don’t Know/Refused (go to Q57)

Q56a About how many times has this happened to you in your lifetime? (RECORD 

EXACT NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused) (go to Q56b)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
167

Q56b When was the last time this happened?

1 = Within the last year (go to Q56c)

2 = One to two years ago (go to Q56c)

3 = More than two years ago (go to Q57)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q57)

Q56c Did you pay for this service?

1 = Yes (go to Q56d)

0 = No (go to Q56e)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q57)

Q56d How much did you pay the person or company? (RECORD EXACT AMOUNT 

IN DOLLARS; -999 Don’t Know/Refused)

Q56e How did the person or company first contact you? (Read if necessary)

1 = Internet web site

2 = Email

3 = Television advertisement or infomercial

4 = Mail advertisement, including a catalog

5 = Telephone

6 = At a store you visited

7 = Someone came to your home

8 = A radio advertisement

9 = A poster or flier

10 = A magazine or newspaper advertisement

11 = A bill you received

12 = Other (SPECIFY)_________________ (example: word of mouth)

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q56f Was the incident reported to the police?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q56g Was the incident reported to other authorities, like the Better Business Bureau 

or a government agency?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q57 Has anyone ever tried to get you to invest in a phony business opportunity such as 

work-at-home scams?

1 = Yes (go to Q57a)

0 = No (go to Q58)

99 = Don’t Know (go to Q58)

Q57a About how many times has this happened to you in your lifetime? (RECORD 

EXACT NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused) (go to Q57b)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
168

Q57b When was the last time this happened?

1 = Within the last year (go to Q57c)

2 = One to two years ago (go to Q57c)

3 = More than two years ago (go to Q58)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q58)

Q57c Did you invest in the business opportunity?

1 = Yes (go to Q57d)

0 = No (go to Q57e)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q58)

Q57d How much money did you invest? (RECORD EXACT AMOUNT IN 

DOLLARS; -999 Don’t Know/Refused)

Q57e How did the person or company first contact you? (Read if necessary)

1 = Internet web site

2 = Email

3 = Television advertisement or infomercial

4 = Mail advertisement, including a catalog

5 = Telephone

6 = At a store you visited

7 = Someone came to your home

8 = A radio advertisement

9 = A poster or flier

10 = A magazine or newspaper advertisement

11 = A bill you received

12 = Other (SPECIFY)_________________ (example: word of mouth)

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q57f Was the incident reported to the police?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q57g Was the incident reported to other authorities, like the Better Business Bureau 

or a government agency?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q58 Has anyone ever tried to trick you into giving them your financial information, like 

your credit card number or bank account information?

1 = Yes (go to Q58a)

0 = No (go to Q59)

99 = Don’t Know (go to Q59)

Q58a About how many times has this happened to you in your lifetime? (RECORD 

EXACT NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused) (go to Q58b)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
169

Q58b When was the last time this happened?

1 = Within the last year (go to Q58c)

2 = One to two years ago (go to Q58c)

3 = More than two years ago (go to Q59)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q59)

Q58c Did the person your financial information?

1 = Yes (go to Q58d)

0 = No (go to Q58e)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q59)

Q58d How much money did you lose as a result of this incident? (RECORD EXACT 

AMOUNT IN DOLLARS; -999 Don’t Know/Refused)

Q58e How did the person or company first contact you? (Read if necessary)

1 = Internet web site

2 = Email

3 = Television advertisement or infomercial

4 = Mail advertisement, including a catalog

5 = Telephone

6 = At a store you visited

7 = Someone came to your home

8 = A radio advertisement

9 = A poster or flier

10 = A magazine or newspaper advertisement

11 = A bill you received

12 = Other (SPECIFY)_________________ (example: word of mouth)

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q58f Was the incident reported to the police?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q58g Was the incident reported to other authorities, like the Better Business Bureau 

or a government agency?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

12 = Other (SPECIFY)_________________ (example: word of mouth)

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q59 Has anyone ever tried to get you to contribute money to a phony charity or religious 

organization?

1 = Yes (go to Q59a)

0 = No (go to Q60)

99 = Don’t Know (go to Q60)

Q59a About how many times has this happened to you in your lifetime? (RECORD 

EXACT NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused) (go to Q59b)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
170

Q59b When was the last time this happened?

1 = Within the last year (go to Q59c)

2 = One to two years ago (go to Q59c)

3 = More than two years ago (go to Q60)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q60)

Q59c Did contribute money to the charity or organization?

1 = Yes (go to Q59d)

0 = No (go to Q59e)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q60)

Q59d How much money did you contribute? (RECORD EXACT AMOUNT IN 

DOLLARS; -999 Don’t Know/Refused)

Q59e How did the person or company first contact you? (Read if necessary)

1 = Internet web site

2 = Email

3 = Television advertisement or infomercial

4 = Mail advertisement, including a catalog

5 = Telephone

6 = At a store you visited

7 = Someone came to your home

8 = A radio advertisement

9 = A poster or flier

10 = A magazine or newspaper advertisement

11 = A bill you received

12 = Other (SPECIFY)_________________ (example: word of mouth)

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q59f Was the incident reported to the police?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q59g Was the incident reported to other authorities, like the Better Business Bureau 

or a government agency?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q60 Has anyone ever tried to get you to pay a fee to claim a phony prize, like a sweepstakes 

or vacation?

1 = Yes (go to Q60a)

0 = No (go to Q61)

99 = Don’t Know (go to Q61)

Q60a About how many times has this happened to you in your lifetime? (RECORD 

EXACT NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused) (go to Q60b)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
171

Q60b When was the last time this happened?

1 = Within the last year (go to Q60c)

2 = One to two years ago (go to Q60c)

3 = More than two years ago (go to Q61)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q61)

Q60c Did you end up paying money for the prize?

1 = Yes (go to Q60d)

0 = No (go to Q60e)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q61)

Q60d How much money did you pay to claim the prize? (RECORD EXACT 

AMOUNT IN DOLLARS; -999 Don’t Know/Refused)

Q60e How did the person or company first contact you? (Read if necessary)

1 = Internet web site

2 = Email

3 = Television advertisement or infomercial

4 = Mail advertisement, including a catalog

5 = Telephone

6 = At a store you visited

7 = Someone came to your home

8 = A radio advertisement

9 = A poster or flier

10 = A magazine or newspaper advertisement

11 = A bill you received

12 = Other (SPECIFY)_________________ (example: word of mouth)

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q60f Was the incident reported to the police?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q60g Was the incident reported to other authorities, like the Better Business Bureau 

or a government agency?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q61 Has anyone ever tried to get you to pay money in advance to reduce your mortgage 

payments?

1 = Yes (go to Q61a)

0 = No (go to Q62)

99 = Don’t Know (go to Q62)

Q61a About how many times has this happened to you in your lifetime? (RECORD 

EXACT NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused) (go to Q61b)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
172

Q61b When was the last time this happened?

1 = Within the last year (go to Q61c)

2 = One to two years ago (go to Q61c)

3 = More than two years ago (go to Q62)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q62)

Q61c Did you end up paying money in advance?

1 = Yes (go to Q61d)

0 = No (go to Q61e)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q62)

Q61d How much did you pay in advance to have your mortgage reduced? (RECORD 

EXACT AMOUNT IN DOLLARS; -999 Don’t Know/Refused)

Q61e How did the person or company first contact you? (Read if necessary)

1 = Internet web site

2 = Email

3 = Television advertisement or infomercial

4 = Mail advertisement, including a catalog

5 = Telephone

6 = At a store you visited

7 = Someone came to your home

8 = A radio advertisement

9 = A poster or flier

10 = A magazine or newspaper advertisement

11 = A bill you received

12 = Other (SPECIFY)_________________ (example: word of mouth)

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q61f Was the incident reported to the police?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q61g Was the incident reported to other authorities, like the Better Business Bureau 

or a government agency?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q62 Has anyone ever tried to steal your personal information so they could use it to get a 

credit card or a loan?

1 = Yes (go to Q62a)

0 = No (go to Q63)

99 = Don’t Know (go to Q63)

Q62a About how many times has this happened to you in your lifetime? (RECORD 

EXACT NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused) (go to Q62b)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
173

Q62b When was the last time this happened?

1 = Within the last year (go to Q62c)

2 = One to two years ago (go to Q62c)

3 = More than two years ago (go to Q63)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q63)

Q62c Did the person steal your personal information?

1 = Yes (go to Q62d)

0 = No (go to Q62e)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q63)

Q62d How much did you lose as a result of this incident? (RECORD EXACT 

AMOUNT IN DOLLARS; -999 Don’t Know/Refused)

Q62e How did the person or company first contact you? (Read if necessary)

1 = Internet web site

2 = Email

3 = Television advertisement or infomercial

4 = Mail advertisement, including a catalog

5 = Telephone

6 = At a store you visited

7 = Someone came to your home

8 = A radio advertisement

9 = A poster or flier

10 = A magazine or newspaper advertisement

11 = A bill you received

12 = Other (SPECIFY)_________________ (example: word of mouth)

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q62f Was the incident reported to the police?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q62g Was the incident reported to other authorities, like the Better Business Bureau 

or a government agency?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Now I want to ask you about statewide agencies and programs that help seniors protect 

themselves.

Q63 How familiar are you with the [Arizona Agency on Aging or Florida’s Senior vs. Crime 

program]?

1 = Very familiar (go to Q63a)

2 = Somewhat familiar (go to Q63a)

3 = Not familiar (go to Q64)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q64)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
174

Q63a How did you first hear about [Arizona Agency on Aging or Florida’s Senior vs. 

Crime program]?

1 = From a friend or family member

2 = From watching television

3 = From the radio

4 = From the newspaper

5 = From an Internet web page or email

6 = From something I received in the mail

7 = Other (Specify)

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q63b In the past year, have you contacted [Arizona Agency on Aging or Florida’s 

Senior vs. Crime program]?

1 = Yes (go to Q63c)

0 = No (go to Q64)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q64)

Q63c How satisfied were you with your experience with [Arizona Agency on Aging 

or Florida’s Senior vs. Crime program]?

1 = Very satisfied

2 = Satisfied

3 = Dissatisfied

4 = Very dissatisfied

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q63d Did you learn anything that led you to take precautions to prevent 

victimization? 

1 = Yes (go to Q63e)

0 = No (go to Q64)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q64)

Q63e Did you talk with others about what you learned?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Now I want to ask you about another program.

Q64 How familiar are you with the Senior Sleuths program?

1 = Very familiar (go to Q64a)

2 = Somewhat familiar (go to Q64a)

3 = Not familiar (go to Q65)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q65)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
175

Q64a How did you first hear about The Senior Sleuths program?

1 = From a friend or family member

2 = From watching television

3 = From the radio

4 = From the newspaper

5 = From an Internet web page or email

6 = From something I received in the mail

7 = Other (Specify)

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q64b In the past year, have you contacted The Senior Sleuths program?

1 = Yes (go to Q64c)

0 = No (go to Q65)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q65)

Q64c How satisfied were your with your experience with The Senior Sleuths 

program?

1 = Very satisfied

2 = Satisfied

3 = Dissatisfied

4 = Very dissatisfied

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q64d Did you learn anything that led you to take precautions to prevent 

victimization? 

1 = Yes (go to Q64e)

0 = No (go to Q65)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q65)

Q64e Did you talk with others about what you learned?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q65 In the past year, which of the following sources have provided you with information 

about how to protect yourself against consumer fraud? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

1 = Internet websites

2 = Email

3 = Television

4 = Radio

5 = Magazines

6 = Brochure or Flier

7 = Other (Specify)

8 = None of these sources

99 = Don’t know/Refused

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
176

People sometimes illegally use other people’s money or property for their own benefit. The 

individuals doing these things could be close to you, like a family member or friend, or 

someone you don’t know very well. (RANDOMIZE Q66 – Q69 STATEMENTS)

Q66 Has anyone ever spent your money or sold something of yours without your

permission?

1 = Yes (go to Q66a)

0 = No (go to Q67)

99 = Don’t Know (go to Q67)

Q66a About how many times has this happened to you in your lifetime? (RECORD 

EXACT NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused) (go to Q66b)

Q66b When was the last time this happened?

1 = Within the last year (go to Q66c)

2 = One to two years ago (go to Q66c)

3 = More than two years ago (go to Q67)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q67)

Q66c Thinking about the most recent incident, how were you related to the person?

1 = A spouse or partner

2 = An EX-spouse or partner

3 = A son or daughter

4 = A brother or sister

5 = A parent or step-parent

6 = Another relative (Specify)

7 = A friend

8 = A neighbor

9 = Some other non-relative (Specify)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q67)

Q66d What was the approximate value of the property or amount of money that was 

involved? (RECORD EXACT AMOUNT IN DOLLARS; -999 Don’t 

Know/Refused)

Q66e Was the incident reported to the police?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q66f Was the incident reported to other authorities, such as social services?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
177

Q67 Has anyone ever forged your signature without your permission in order to sell your 

things or to get money from your accounts?

1 = Yes (go to Q67a)

0 = No (go to Q68)

99 = Don’t Know/Refused (go to Q68)

Q67a About how many times has this happened to you in your lifetime? (RECORD 

EXACT NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused) (go to Q67b)

Q67b When was the last time this happened?

1 = Within the last year (go to Q67c)

2 = One to two years ago (go to Q67c)

3 = More than two years ago (go to Q68)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q68)

Q67c Thinking about the most recent incident, how were you related to the person?

1 = A spouse or partner

2 = An EX-spouse or partner

3 = A son or daughter

4 = A brother or sister

5 = A parent or step-parent

6 = Another relative (Specify)

7 = A friend

8 = A neighbor

9 = Some other non-relative (Specify)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q68)

Q67d What was the approximate value of the property or amount of money that was 

involved? (RECORD EXACT AMOUNT IN DOLLARS; -999 Don’t 

Know/Refused)

Q67e Was the incident reported to the police?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q67f Was the incident reported to other authorities, such as social services?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q68 Has anyone ever stolen your money or taken your things for themselves, for their 

friends, or to sell?

1 = Yes (go to Q68a)

0 = No (go to Q69)

99 = Don’t Know (go to Q69)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
178

Q68a About how many times has this happened to you in your lifetime? (RECORD 

EXACT NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused) (go to Q68b)

Q68b When was the last time this happened?

1 = Within the last year (go to Q68c)

2 = One to two years ago (go to Q68c)

3 = More than two years ago (go to Q69)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q69)

Q68c Thinking about the most recent incident, how were you related to the person?

1 = A spouse or partner

2 = An EX-spouse or partner

3 = A son or daughter

4 = A brother or sister

5 = A parent or step-parent

6 = Another relative (Specify)

7 = A friend

8 = A neighbor

9 = Some other non-relative (Specify)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q69)

Q68d What was the approximate value of the property or amount of money that was 

involved? (RECORD EXACT AMOUNT IN DOLLARS; -999 Don’t 

Know/Refused)

Q68e Was the incident reported to the police?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q68f Was the incident reported to other authorities, such as social services?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q69 Has anyone ever forced you to give them money or something else of yours?

1 = Yes (go to Q69a)

0 = No (go to Q70)

99 = Don’t Know (go to Q70)

Q69a About how many times has this happened to you in your lifetime? (RECORD 

EXACT NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused) (go to Q69b)

Q69b When was the last time this happened?

1 = Within the last year (go to Q69c)

2 = One to two years ago (go to Q69c)

3 = More than two years ago (go to Q70)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q70)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
179

Q69c Thinking about the most recent incident, how were you related to the person?

1 = A spouse or partner

2 = An EX-spouse or partner

3 = A son or daughter

4 = A brother or sister

5 = A parent or step-parent

6 = Another relative (Specify)

7 = A friend

8 = A neighbor

9 = Some other non-relative (Specify)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q70)

Q69d What was the approximate value of the property or amount of money that was 

involved? (RECORD EXACT AMOUNT IN DOLLARS; -999 Don’t 

Know/Refused)

Q69e Was the incident reported to the police?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q69f Was the incident reported to other authorities, such as social services?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

People are sometimes physically hurt by other people. The person doing these things could be 

someone close to you, like a family member or friend, or someone you don’t know very well. 

(RANDOMIZE Q70 – Q72 STATEMENTS)

Q70 Has anyone ever hit you with their hand or object, slapped you, kicked you, or 

threatened you with a weapon?

1 = Yes (go to Q70a)

0 = No (go to Q71)

99 = Don’t Know (go to Q71)

Q70a About how many times has this happened to you in your lifetime? (RECORD 

EXACT NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused) (go to Q70b)

Q70b When was the last time this happened?

1 = Within the last year (go to Q70c)

2 = One to two years ago (go to Q70c)

3 = More than two years ago (go to Q71)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q71)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
180

Q70c Thinking about the most recent incident, how were you related to the person?

1 = A spouse or partner

2 = An EX-spouse or partner

3 = A son or daughter

4 = A brother or sister

5 = A parent or step-parent

6 = Another relative (Specify)

7 = A friend

8 = A neighbor

9 = Some other non-relative (Specify)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q71)

Q70d Did you receive medical attention as a result of the most recent incident?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q70e Was the incident reported to the police?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q70f Was the incident reported to other authorities, such as social services?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q71 Has anyone ever held you down, tied you up, or locked you in your room or house or 

some other place against your will?

1 = Yes (go to Q71a)

0 = No (go to Q72)

99 = Don’t Know (go to Q72)

Q71a About how many times has this happened to you in your lifetime? (RECORD 

EXACT NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused) (go to Q71b)

Q71b When was the last time this happened?

1 = Within the last year (go to Q71c)

2 = One to two years ago (go to Q71c)

3 = More than two years ago (go to Q72)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q72)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
181

Q71c Thinking about the most recent incident, how were you related to the person?

1 = A spouse or partner

2 = An EX-spouse or partner

3 = A son or daughter

4 = A brother or sister

5 = A parent or step-parent

6 = Another relative (Specify)

7 = A friend

8 = A neighbor

9 = Some other non-relative (Specify)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q72)

Q71d Did you receive medical attention as a result of the most recent incident?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q71e Was the incident reported to the police?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q71f Was the incident reported to other authorities, such as social services?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q72 Has anyone ever physically hurt you so that you suffered some degree of injury, 

including cuts, bruises, or other marks?

1 = Yes (go to Q72a)

0 = No (go to Q73)

99 = Don’t Know (go to Q73)

Q72a About how many times has this happened to you in your lifetime? (RECORD 

EXACT NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused) (go to Q72b)

Q72b When was the last time this happened?

1 = Within the last year (go to Q72c)

2 = One to two years ago (go to Q72c)

3 = More than two years ago (go to Q73)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q73)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
182

Q72c Thinking about the most recent incident, how were you related to the person?

1 = A spouse or partner

2 = An EX-spouse or partner

3 = A son or daughter

4 = A brother or sister

5 = A parent or step-parent

6 = Another relative (Specify)

7 = A friend

8 = A neighbor

9 = Some other non-relative (Specify)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q73)

Q72d Did you receive medical attention as a result of the most recent incident?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q72e Was the incident reported to the police?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Q72f Was the incident reported to other authorities, such as social services?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t Know/Refused

Thanks. That is helpful. We have just a few more questions.

Q73 Considering all types of alcoholic beverages, how many times during the past month 

did you have [five or more drinks for men, four or more drinks for women] on a single 

occasion? (RECORD EXACT NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused)

Q74 Overall, how would you rate your health during the past month? Would you say it has 

been ... (READ LIST)

1 = Excellent

2 = Good

3 = Fair

4 = Poor

5 = Very poor

99 = Don’t know/refused

Q75 Are you now working full-time, working part-time, retired, or unemployed?

1 = Working full-time (go to Q75a)

2 = Working part-time (go to Q75a)

3 = Retired (go to Q76)

4 = Unemployed (go to Q76)

5 = Homemaker (go to Q76)

99 = Don’t know/Refused (go to Q76)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
183

Q75a All things considered, how satisfied are you with your current job? (READ 

OPTIONS)

1 = Very satisfied

2 = Satisfied

3 = Dissatisfied

4 = Very dissatisfied

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q76 Are you now married, widowed, divorced, separated, or have you never been married?

1 = Married (go to Q76a)

2 = Widowed (go to Q77)

3 = Divorced (go to Q77)

4 = Separated (go to Q77)

5 = Never Married (go to Q77)

99 = Don’t Know/Refused (go to Q77)

Q76a Overall, how happy do you feel about your marriage? Would you say that you 

are (READ OPTIONS)

1 = Extremely happy

2 = Fairly happy

3 = Fairly unhappy

4 = Extremely unhappy

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q77 How many children do you have? (RECORD EXACT NUMBER; -999 Don’t 

Know/Refused) (If ‘0’, go to Q78)

Q77a Overall, how happy do you feel about your relationship with your child(ren)? 

Would you say that you are (READ OPTIONS)

1 = Extremely happy

2 = Fairly happy

3 = Fairly unhappy

4 = Extremely unhappy

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q78 Including you, how many people live in your household? (RECORD EXACT 

NUMBER; -999 Don’t Know/Refused) (If ‘0’, go to Q79)

Q78a What is (are) their relationship to you? (Mark all that apply)

1 = Spouse

2 = Child(ren)

3 = Parent(s)

4 = Brother or sister

5 = Other relative (Specify)

6 = Nonrelative (Specify)

99 = Don’t know/Refused

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
184

Now, I have a few questions about you and your family to ensure that people from all walks of 

life are included in the study.

Q79 How would you describe the place you currently live? (Read if necessary)

1 = House

2 = A condominium

3 = Regular apartment

4 = A duplex

5 = A mobile home

6 = Retirement home

7 = Supervised apartment

8 = Assisted living facility

9 = Nursing or rest home

10 = Something else (Specify)

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q80 What was the last grade you completed in school? (DO NOT READ CATEGORIES)

1 = Some grade school (1-8)

2 = Some high school (9-12)

3 = High school graduate (or equivalency) (completed 12)

4 = Technical or Vocational School

5 = Some college (13-15)

6 = Graduated college (16)

7 = Graduate/professional school

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q81 Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q82 Which of the following racial categories best describes you? (READ OPTIONS; You 

may mark more than one)

1 = White

2 = Black or African American

3 = American Indian or Alaska Native

4 = Asian

5 = Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

6 = Other (Specify)

7 = Hispanic / Latino (Do Not Read)

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q83 In what year were you born? (RECORD YEAR; -999 Don’t Know/Refused)

Q84 Gender (BY OBSERVATION, BUT ASK EVERYONE)

1 = Male

0 = Female

99 =Don’t know/Refused

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
185

Q85 Have you ever served in the United States Military?

1 = Yes (go to Q85a)

0 = No (go to Q86)

99 =Don’t know/Refused

Q85a How many years did you serve? (RECORD EXACT NUMBER; -999 Don’t 

Know/Refused)

Q86 Do you own or have access to a motor vehicle?

1 = Yes

0 = No

99 = Don’t know/Refused

Q87 What is your 5-digit zip code? (RECORD CODE; -999 Don’t Know/Refused)

Thank you very much for participating in this study.

If you have any questions about the study or your participation in the study, please call Dr. 

Kristy Holtfreter at 602-496-2344.

If you have questions about your rights as a participant in this research, or if you feel you have 

been placed at risk, you can call the ASU Research Compliance Office at 480-965-6788.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.