Synovate Tel 703 790 9099 

1650 Tysons Blvd Fax 703 790 9181 

Suite 110 www.synovate.com 

McLean VA 

22102 

 

 

Federal Trade Commission – 

2006 Identity Theft Survey Report 

Prepared for Federal Trade Commission

November, 2007 

Prepared by Synovate
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -2- 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ......................................................... Pages 3 – 7 

Comparison to the 2003 ID Theft Survey ....................... Pages 8 – 9 

Prevalence of Identity Theft ............................................ Pages 10 – 21 

Time Considerations........................................................ Pages 22 – 26 

Offenders’ Means of Access ........................................... Pages 27 – 31 

Toll of Victimization ......................................................... Pages 32 – 42 

Actions Taken................................................................... Pages 43 – 53 

Breach Notification .......................................................... Pages 54 – 57 

Free Credit Reports.......................................................... Pages 58 – 60 

Victims of Non-Account ID Theft ................................... Pages 61 – 65 

Appendix A – Methodology Report ................................ Pages 66 – 75 

Appendix B – Drop-Out and Refused Report ................ Pages 76 – 78 

Appendix C – Questionnaire ........................................... Pages 79 – 109 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -3- 

 Executive Summary 

Identity theft (ID theft) is an issue that continues to plague consumers, businesses, and law 

enforcement. To provide greater insight into the prevalence and cost of ID theft, the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) has sponsored its second ID theft survey of US adults. The specific objectives of 

the survey were to: 

• Estimate the prevalence of ID theft victimization

• Measure the impacts of ID theft on the victims

• Identify actions taken by victims

• Explore measures that may help victims of future cases of ID theft

The study was conducted through telephone interviews using a Random-Digit-Dialing (RDD) 

sampling methodology. This system was designed to obtain a random sample of U.S. adults age 18 

and older. A total of 4,917 interviews were conducted between March 27 and June 11, 2006. 

Table 1: Prevalence of ID Theft in 2005, by Category of Misuse 

Percent of 

Adult 

Population1

Number of 

Persons 

(millions)2

 New Accounts & Other Fraud 0.8 % 

(0.5 % - 1.2%) 

1.8 

(1.2 – 2.8) 

 Misuse of Existing Non-Credit Card Account or Account Number 1.5 % 

(1.1% - 2.1%) 

3.3 

(2.4 – 4.6) 

 Misuse of Existing Credit Card or Credit Card Number 1.4 % 

(1.0 % - 2.1%) 

3.2 

(2.1 – 4.6) 

 Total Victims in 2005 3.7 % 

(3.0% - 4.6%) 

8.3 

(6.6 – 10.3) 

 

1 Figures in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals.

2

 Based on U.S. population age 18 and over of 222.94 million as of July 1, 2005. 

(http://www.census.gov/popest/states/asrh/tables/SC-EST2005-01Res.xls (visited August 15, 2006)). 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -4- 

The Prevalence of ID Theft

• A total of 3.7 percent of survey participants indicated that they had discovered they were 

victims of ID theft in 2005. This result suggests that approximately 8.3 million U.S. adults 

discovered that they were victims of some form of ID theft in 2005.3

 (See Table 1.) 

• In this report, victims of ID theft are classified as belonging to one of three categories based on 

the most serious problem the victim reported. Each of these categories represents a form of 

identity theft as it is defined by federal law. The survey confirmed prior data indicating that the 

magnitude of harm to consumers, as a general matter, correlates with the kind of ID theft 

suffered by the victim. In order of the magnitude of harm, from least to most, the three 

categories are: “Existing Credit Card Only,” “Existing Non-Credit Card Account,” and “New 

Accounts & Other Frauds.” 

• For the calendar year 2005: 

o 1.4 percent of survey participants, representing 3.2 million American adults, reported that 

the misuse of their information was limited to the misuse of one or more of their existing 

credit card accounts in 2005.4

 These victims were placed in the “Existing Credit Cards 

Only” category because they did not report any more serious form of identity theft. 

o 1.5 percent of participants, representing 3.3 million American adults, reported discovering 

in 2005 the misuse of one or more of their existing accounts other than credit cards—for 

example, checking or savings accounts or telephone accounts—but not experiencing the 

most serious form of identity theft. These victims were placed in the “Existing Non-Credit 

Card Accounts” category. 

o 0.8 percent of survey participants, representing 1.8 million American adults, reported that in 

2005 they had discovered that their personal information had been misused to open new 

accounts or to engage in types of fraud other than the misuse of existing or new financial 

accounts in the victim’s name. These victims were placed in the “New Accounts & Other 

Fraud” category, whether or not they also experienced another type of identity theft. 

 

3

 The difference between the 3.7% overall prevalence figure found in this survey and the 4.6% rate in the FTC's 2003 

survey is not statistically significant using standard statistical analysis. 

4

 Identity theft is defined both by statute (ID Theft Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7), 1029(e)) and by FTC rule (16 C.F.R. § 

603.2), and includes the misuse or attempted misuse of any identifying information – such as the SSN, biometric data, or 

an existing credit card account number - to commit fraud. 

This consumer survey may not capture all types of identity theft or their associated 

costs. Situations in which someone creates a fictitious identity by combining personal 

information from one or more consumers with invented information, rather than using the 

identity of an existing individual, may not have been captured. This form of fraud, called 

synthetic ID theft, is not always detectable by the consumer(s) whose information was 

used. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -5- 

Table 2: Costs of ID Theft, Misuse Discovered Since 2001 

New 

Accounts & 

Other 

Frauds

Existing 

Non-Credit 

Card 

Accounts

Existing 

Credit 

Cards Only

All ID Theft

Value of Goods and 

Services Obtained by 

Identity Thieves

Median $1,350 $457 $350 $500

90th Percentile $15,000 $3,800 $4,000 $6,000

95th Percentile $30,000 $6,000 $7,000 $13,000

Victims’ Out-of-Pocket 

Expenses

Median $40 $0 $0 $0

90th Percentile $3,000 $900 $132 $1,200

95th Percentile $5,000 $1,200 $400 $2,000

Hours Victims Spent 

Resolving Their 

Problems

Median 10 4 2 4

90th Percentile 100 44 25 55

95th Percentile 1,200 96 60 130

Sample size n = 138 164 257 559 

• Table 2 presents various measures of the costs of ID theft. Rather than average values, the 

table uses median values (the point at which half the victims fell above the number and half 

below). A minority of ID thefts result in much greater harm than the typical case. Because 

these large values have a significant impact on the average value, the median better 

represents the typical experience. To capture the experiences of those who suffer the most 

serious harm, the table also reports values for the 90th percentile and 95th percentile of harms 

reported. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -6- 

Financial Value Obtained by Thief

• The median value of goods and services obtained by the identity thieves for all categories of ID 

theft was $500. Ten percent of victims reported that the thief obtained $6,000 or more, while 5 

percent reported that the thief obtained at least $13,000 in goods and services. (See Table 2.) 

• Where the identity thieves opened new accounts or committed other frauds (the “New 

Accounts & Other Frauds” category), the median value of goods and services obtained by the 

thieves was $1,350. Ten percent of these victims reported that the thief obtained $15,000 or 

more in goods and services; in the top 5 percent, the thief obtained at least $30,000 in goods 

and services. Victims in the New Accounts & Other Frauds category were three times as likely 

to report that the thieves obtained more than $5,000 as victims in the other two categories of 

ID theft (23% vs. 7%). 

• Where the ID theft was limited to the misuse of existing accounts – either credit card or noncredit card – the median value of goods and services obtained was less than $500. However, 

much higher amounts were obtained in some cases. Ten percent of victims in the “Existing 

Credit Card Only” category reported that the thief obtained $4,000 or more in goods and 

services. In the “Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts” category, the comparable figure was 

$3,800. 

The Costs of ID Theft to Victims

• In more than 50 percent of ID thefts, victims incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. (Out-ofpocket expenses include any lost wages, legal fees, any payment of fraudulent debts, and 

miscellaneous expenses such as notarization, copying, and postage.) 5 In the New Accounts 

& Other Frauds category, the median value of out-of-pocket expenses was $40. 

 

• However, some victims do incur substantial out-of-pocket expenses. Ten percent of all victims 

reported out-of-pocket expenses of $1,200 or more. For the New Accounts & Other Frauds 

category, the top 10 percent of the victims incurred expenses of at least $3,000, and the top 5 

percent incurred expenses of at least $5,000. One-quarter of victims in the New Accounts & 

Other Frauds category reported paying out-of-pocket expenses of at least $1,000. 

• Victims of all types of ID theft spent hours of their time resolving the various problems that 

result from ID theft. The median value for the number of hours spent resolving problems by all 

victims was 4. However, 10 percent of all victims spent at least 55 hours resolving their 

problems. The top 5 percent of victims spent at least 130 hours. 

5

 In most cases, victims are not legally responsible for the cost of fraudulent transaction by identity thieves using their 

personal information. A variety of laws limit consumers’ liability in these situations. Such laws include the Truth in 

Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., implemented by Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226; see especially 15 U.S.C. § 1643; 

12 C.F.R. § 226.12(b) (limits consumer liability for unauthorized credit card charges to a maximum of $50), and the 

Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693 et seq., implemented by Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. § 205; see especially 15 

U.S.C. § 1693g; 12 C.F.R. § 205.6(b) (limits consumer liability for unauthorized electronic fund transfers depending upon 

the timing of consumer notice to the applicable financial institution). Consumer liability for losses associated with 

checking account fraud and loan fraud are typically limited by state statute or common law, although consumers are 

sometimes held liable. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -7- 

• Victims in the New Accounts & Other Frauds category spent the greatest amount of time 

resolving problems. In the top 10 percent in this category, victims reported spending 100 

hours or more resolving problems. The top 5 percent reported spending at least 1,200 hours. 

• Almost one-quarter of all victims were able to resolve any problems experienced as a result of 

ID theft within one day of discovering that their personal information had been misused. This 

refers to the amount of time that passed from when they discovered the crime to when their 

problems where resolved, not to the number of hours spent resolving their problems.

• Thirty-seven percent of victims reported experiencing problems other than out-of-pocket 

expenses or the expenditure of time resolving issues as a result of having their personal 

information misused. The problems victims reported include, among other things, being 

harassed by collections agents, being denied new credit, being unable to use existing credit 

cards, being unable to obtain loans, having their utilities cut off, being subject to a criminal 

investigation or civil suit, being arrested, and having difficulties obtaining or accessing bank 

accounts. 

• Victims of New Accounts & Other Frauds were more than twice as likely to report having one 

or more of these other types of problems (68%) than were victims in the Existing Non-Credit 

Card Accounts category (32%,) and four times as likely as victims in the Existing Credit Cards 

Only category (17%). 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -8- 

 

Comparison to the 2003 ID theft survey 

The FTC conducted a similar telephone survey of consumers in 2003, the first national survey to 

measure the prevalence and cost of identity theft. Based on the knowledge gained from conducting 

and analyzing the 2003 survey, FTC staff changed certain elements of the survey methodology for 

the 2006 survey, to more accurately capture consumers’ identity theft experiences. Because of these 

methodological changes, estimates of the losses from ID theft in the two surveys cannot be directly 

compared. 

• Prevalence. The 2003 survey found that 4.6% of the survey population had experienced ID 

theft during the one year period before the survey was conducted. The 2006 survey found that 

3.7% of the survey population had experienced ID theft during 2005. The difference between 

the rates is not statistically significant.6

 Given the sample sizes and the variances within the 

samples, one cannot conclude that the apparent difference between the two figures is the 

result of a real decrease in ID theft rather than a result of random variation. 

• Average amount obtained by the thief. Both the 2003 and 2006 surveys asked victims for 

their best recollection of the amount of money obtained by the thief. In the 2006 survey, the 

average amount obtained by the thief was $1,882, whereas the average was $4,789 in the 

2003 survey. 

Although these results appear to show a dramatic change in the amount obtained by the thief, 

some of this difference may be explained by several changes in the survey methodology. 

First, in the 2003 survey, the amounts reported by victims were only recorded as falling within 

a specified range – e.g., between $100 and $499. In estimating the average amount obtained 

by thieves, each individual response was assumed to be equal to the mid-point of the specified 

range selected by that individual. For example, if the consumer chose the category “$100 - 

$499,” the value used in the estimate was $300. In contrast the 2006 survey recorded the 

actual values reported by victims. This difference between using actual values versus the 

mid-point of a range of values could lead to differences in the results.7

Second, the average value is highly influenced by a small number of “outlier” victims who 

claimed to have suffered exceptionally large losses. (See Table 2, above.) In estimating 

average and total amounts obtained by identity thieves, this report excludes the responses of 

two individuals whose extremely high estimates were suspect.8

 No such exclusions were 

made in the 2003 survey report. 

6

 It should also be noted that, prior to asking whether they had experienced ID theft, the 2006 survey asked participants 

whether they had been notified that a company, government agency, or other organization had lost their personal 

information. Questions about breach notices were not included in the 2003 survey, and this change may affect 

participants’ responses in unknown ways. 

7

 To test this proposition, the 2006 “actual value” responses were put into the ranges used in 2003. For most of the 

ranges, the average of “actual value” responses was lower than the midpoint of the range. 

 

8 In one instance, a person who was interviewed claimed to be a victim of ID theft and reported that the thief had obtained 

goods or services worth $999,999. However, a closer reading of the entire interview record indicated that this person was 

describing the theft of intellectual property, rather than ID theft. In the second instance, the person reported that the value 

obtained by the thief was $485,000. While this person did appear to be describing ID theft, the record seemed 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -9- 

 

Third, the 2006 report adopted a new way to account for instances where more than one 

individual may have been victimized by a single theft of personal information because the 

misuse involved accounts that were jointly held by two people. In the 2003 report, the total 

amount obtained by the thief was attributed to each of the victims, whereas in the 2006 report, 

the total was divided amongst the victims (e.g., attributing half of the loss to each of two joint 

victims). 

Although we believe that these methodological changes improve the reliability of the estimated 

values, they tend to cause lower estimates as compared to the 2003 survey. Thus, the 

differences in the estimates between 2003 and 2006 may, at least in part, be due to the 

changes in methodology as opposed to changes in consumers' actual experiences. We 

cannot, therefore, be confident that the difference between the 2003 and 2006 estimates 

represents an actual drop in the average amount obtained by identity thieves. 

• Total amount obtained by thieves.

Similarly, the estimate of total losses from ID theft in the 2006 survey - $15.6 billion - is 

considerably lower than the estimate of $47.6 billion in the 2003 survey. This reflects lower 

estimates of both the prevalence of ID theft and the average loss per incident. As discussed 

above, however, some of these differences result from the changes in survey methodology. 

Thus, we cannot determine whether total losses have actually dropped significantly between 

2003 and 2006.

• Average consumer out-of-pocket expenses.

The 2003 survey found that victims had, on average, out-of-pocket expenses of $500. In the 

2006 survey, the average victim loss was $371. The same methodological differences that 

pertain to the amount the thief obtained also apply to these average loss estimates, that is, 

measuring loss as a range versus actual amount and how we accounted for joint victims. 

inconsistent with the loss of this much money. If this value were to be included in the calculation, the estimated average 

loss per victim would be $3,370, and the estimated total loss would be $27.9 billion. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -10- 

Prevalence of Identity Theft 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -11- 

Figure 1 - Q1 / Q7 / Q8 / Q9 / Q15 - Prevalence of Identity Theft in 

20051

ictims in 2005.

 

0.8% 1.5% 1.4% 3.7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

New Accounts & Other

Frauds

Existing Non-Credit

Card Account

Existing Credit Card

Only

All ID Theft

s

• 3.7% of respondents (3.0% - 4.6%)2 said they became aware of being a victim of ID theft 

during 2005. This suggests that 8.3 million American adults (6.6 million – 10.3 million) 

discovered they were ID theft v 3

1 In computing prevalence figures for 2005, individuals who reported that they had discovered that their personal 

information was being misused since the beginning of 2006 were eliminated from the sample. While these people 

discovered that their information was being misused in 2006, there is no way to know whether or not they had 

discovered a separate incident of ID theft in 2005. 

See Appendix B for a discussion of the effect of consumers who declined to participate in or who began but did not 

complete the survey.

2

 Figures in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals. As with any survey, this study is subject to sampling error. 

While a survey of all adults in the U.S. might give results that differ somewhat from the figures reported here, there is a 

95% probability that the figure would lie within the range of values represented by the figures in parentheses. 

3

 In some cases, the misuse of an individual’s personal information included the misuse of jointly held accounts. In 

these cases, the estimates of the prevalence of ID theft may include both account holders as victims. This seems 

appropriate since both individuals are likely to have been negatively impacted by the misuse. In other places in the 

report, the experiences of both victims are combined as a single victim response. In particular, when asked about the 

out-of-pocket expenses incurred and the time spent resolving problems, interviewees were asked to include the total 

amount of money or time expended by both themselves and the other individual included on the joint account. 

In addition, because the data reported here are the results of a survey of consumers, the data may not capture 

situations in which someone creates a new identity, rather than using the identity of an existing individual, and uses 

that fictitious identity to obtain goods or services, i.e. synthetic identity fraud. Whether such instances of synthetic 

identity fraud will be captured in a consumer survey will depend on whether the actions have been attached to a real 

person – perhaps the individual whose Social Security number was used in creating the fictitious identity.
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -12- 

Categorizing ID Theft

• This report classifies ID theft victims in one of three categories: New Accounts and Other 

Frauds, Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts, and Existing Credit Cards Only. They are placed 

in the category that includes the most serious type of ID theft they reported. ID theft is 

considered more serious if it causes the victim more harm, measured by factors such as the 

amount of time it takes to recover, the out-of-pocket expenses incurred, and the additional 

problems they experience. 

• The “New Accounts & Other Frauds” category is considered to be the most serious, followed by 

the “Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts” category. “Existing Credit Cards Only” is considered 

the least serious type of victimization. Placing victims in only one category means that, for 

example, victims who reported that a new account had been opened using their information 

and also that one of their existing non-credit card accounts had been misused are placed in the 

“New Accounts & Other Frauds” category, not in the “Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts” 

category. 

• 1.4% of respondents (1.0% - 2.1%) fall into the category labeled “Existing Credit Cards Only.” 

This category includes victims who reported the misuse of only their existing credit cards and 

no other misuse of their personal information. 

• 1.5% of respondents (1.1% - 2.1%) fall into the category of ID theft that includes the misuse of 

existing accounts other than a credit card, “Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts.” 

• 0.8% of respondents (0.5% - 1.2%) fall into the category labeled “New Accounts & Other 

Frauds.” This category includes victims whose personal information had been used to open 

new accounts (for example, new credit card or bank accounts, telephone or wireless service, or 

loans) or commit other frauds (for example, the thief giving the victim’s name and identifying 

information when charged with a crime, renting an apartment or a house, or obtaining medical 

care).
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -13- 

Figure 2 - Display of 2005 ID Theft Victim Overlap Among 

Categories

• For most purposes, this report groups victims according to the most serious form of ID theft 

that they suffered. However, many victims suffer multiple types of ID theft, and this diagram 

illustrates the overlap in types. 

• 58.9% of all victims experienced the misuse of an existing credit card. 

• A total of 48.6% of victims experienced the misuse of existing accounts other than existing 

credit card accounts. 

• 21.9% of victims had their personal information used to open a new account or commit 

some other kind of fraud. 

• For 38.1% of all victims (1.4% of all respondents), the misuse of an existing credit card was 

the only form of ID theft suffered. 

o Approximately one-third of victims who experienced the misuse of an existing credit 

card also experienced another type of ID theft. Therefore, these victims are counted 

in one of the other two, more serious, categories of ID theft. 

 

New Accounts & 

Other Frauds, 21.9% 

8.3% 

6.4%

2.2%

26.5%

13.5% 5.0%

38.1%

Existing Non-Credit 

Card Accounts, 48.6% 

Existing Credit 

Cards, 58.9% 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -14- 

• Victims who experienced the misuse of existing accounts other than credit card accounts 

are included in the Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts category (1.5% of all respondents), 

unless new accounts were opened or other frauds were committed using their information. 

o 13.5% of victims experienced both the misuse of existing non-credit accounts and the 

misuse of existing credit accounts, but not new accounts or other frauds. 

• All victims whose personal information was used to open new accounts or commit other 

frauds are included in the New Accounts & Other Frauds category. That is, all of the 21.9% 

of victims in the yellow circle of the diagram (0.8% of all adult Americans) are included in 

this category. This category includes: 

o 6.4% of victims who, in addition to new accounts or other frauds, had existing noncredit card accounts, but not existing credit card accounts, misused. 

o 5.0% of victims who, in addition to new accounts or other frauds, had existing credit 

card accounts, but not existing non-credit card accounts, misused. 

o 2.2% of victims who had both existing credit and non-credit card accounts misused, 

in addition to new accounts and other frauds. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -15- 

Figure 3 - Display of Breakout of 2005 ID Theft Victims within 

Categories 

Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts

Only Other Existing 

Accounts, 66%

Existing Credit 

Cards & Other 

Existing Accounts, 

34%

New Accounts and Other Frauds

Other Existing 

Accounts & New 

Accounts & Other 

Frauds, 29%

Only New Accounts 

& Other Frauds, 

38%

Existing Credit 

Cards, Other 

Existing Accounts, 

& New Accounts & 

Other Frauds, 10%

Existing Credit 

Cards & New 

Accounts & 

Other Frauds, 23%

 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -16- 

• As mentioned above, each victim is classified as belonging to only one of the 

categories of ID Theft, based on the most serious problem the victim reported. Some 

victims in the two more serious categories have had their information misused in 

ways that relate to more than one category. 

• Approximately 34% of victims in the “Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts” category 

also experienced the misuse of an existing credit card account. 

• Similarly, 62% of those who discovered that they had experienced “New Accounts & 

Other Frauds” ID Theft in 2005 also experienced the misuse of an existing credit card 

or other account: 23% experienced the misuse of an existing credit card, 29% 

experienced the misuse of an existing non-credit card account, and 10% experienced 

both the misuse of existing credit cards and the misuse of existing non-credit card 

accounts. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -17- 

Figure 4 – Q1 / Q29 - Existing Accounts Misused4

The figures on this and the succeeding pages are based on the responses of all survey participants who 

reported discovering the misuse of their personal information between the beginning of 2001 and when 

they were interviewed—a total of 559 individuals. The data in Figures 1-3 are based only on those who 

discovered the misuse of their information in 2005.

• Eighty-five percent of all ID theft victims reported that one or more of their existing accounts 

had been misused.5

 This figure includes both credit card and non-credit card accounts. 

 

4

 The figures on this and the succeeding pages are based on the responses of all survey participants who reported 

discovering the misuse of their personal information between the beginning of 2001 and when they were interviewed—

a total of 559 individuals. The data in Figures 1-3 are based only on those who discovered the misuse of their 

information in 2005. 

 

5

 Victims were asked what types of existing accounts were misused by the thief. The percentages for each category of 

misuse reflect each discrete misuse reported by the victim. Unlike in Figure 1, victims can be counted in more than 

one response category in this graph. 

61%

33%

11%

4% 3% 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Credit card

Checking/savings

Telephone service

Internet payment accounts

E-mail and oth

r internet accounts

Medical insurance

Other accounts

5%

e
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -18- 

 

• Sometimes identity thieves take additional steps to facilitate their unauthorized use of the 

victim’s existing accounts. They may change the billing or mailing address in order to 

conceal their unauthorized use, or add their names as authorized users to obtain a card in 

their name from the card issuer. These types of actions are known as “account takeover.” 

o Account takeover was reported by 9% of victims who experienced existing credit card 

misuse and 11% of victims who experienced existing non-credit card account 

misuse.6

 Because new account fraud involves the creation of an entirely new 

account rather than the misuse of an existing one, account takeover does not apply 

to that type of identity theft. 

6

 The data on takeovers of existing credit card accounts is based on the responses to question 5a of 379 individuals 

who indicated that their existing credit card accounts had been misused between 2001 and the time they were 

interviewed. The data on takeovers of existing non-credit card accounts are based on the responses to question 5b of 

217 individuals who indicated that one or more of their existing non-credit card accounts had been misused. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -19- 

 

Figure 5 - Q32 / Q33 – New Accounts Opened By Identity Thieves7

• Seventeen percent of all ID theft victims said the thief used their personal information to 

open at least one new account.8

 

• The two most common type of accounts victims reported thieves opening were telephone 

service accounts (including both landline and wireless phone accounts) and credit card 

accounts (8% and 7% of all victims, respectively).

7 Overall figures are based on the responses of the 559 individuals surveyed who indicated that their personal 

information had been misused between 2001 and the date they were interviewed. 

8

 Victims were asked what types of accounts were opened. This graph shows several specific types of accounts they 

mentioned. The percentages reflect each time a victim mentioned that type, and, unlike in Figure 1, a victim can be 

counted more than once. 

8% 7%

3% 2% 2% 1% 0.4% 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Telephone

service

Credit cards Loans Checking /

savings

Internet

payment

accounts

Auto

insurance

Medical

insurance

Other

accounts
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -20- 

 

• Just over half of victims who reported that new accounts were opened said that a single 

new account was opened.9 

• One-quarter of victims who had new accounts opened reported that 3 or more accounts 

were opened. 

9

 These figures are based on the responses of 94 individuals who indicated that new accounts had been opened using 

their personal information. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -21- 

 

Figure 6 - Q34 – Other Misuses of Personal Information10

• Twelve percent of victims reported one or more misuse other than accessing new or existing 

financial accounts in the victim’s name, and specified what type(s) of fraudulent activities 

were committed. The most common forms of non-account misuse were: 

o Five percent of victims said that they were aware that their name and/or personal 

information were given to the police when the thief was stopped or charged with a 

crime. 

o Three percent of victims said the thief had obtained medical treatment, services, or 

supplies using their personal information. 

10 Based on the responses of the 559 individuals surveyed who indicated that their personal information had been 

misused between 2001 and the date they were interviewed.

5% 3%

1% 1% 1% 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Given to police Medical care Rent housing Obtaining gov't

benefits

Employment Other misuse
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -22- 

Time Considerations 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -23- 

Figure 7 - Q16 – Length of Time to Discover Misuse11

 

29%

9%

32%

44%

22%

29%

3%

43%

28%

22%

3%

24%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Less than 1 week 1 week to 1 month 1 - 5 months 6 months or more

New accounts & other frauds

Other existing accounts

Existing credit card only

• Nearly 40% of all ID theft victims discovered the misuse of their information within one week 

of the start of the misuse. 

• However, the discovery period was significantly different depending on the type of fraud 

experienced: 

o Victims in the Existing Credit Cards Only (22%) and the Existing Non-Credit Card 

Accounts (21%) categories were about twice as likely as those in the New Accounts 

& Other Frauds (10%) category to find out about the misuse the day it started. 

11 Overall figures are based on the responses of the 559 individuals surveyed who indicated that their personal 

information had been misused between 2001 and the date they were interviewed. Figures for Existing Credit Cards 

Only, Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts, and New Accounts & Other Frauds are based on the responses of the 257, 

164, and 138 individuals, respectively, who indicated that they had experienced these types of ID theft during this 

period of time. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -24- 

 

o Nearly one-quarter (24%) of New Accounts & Other Frauds victims did not find out 

about the misuse of their information until at least 6 months after it started – 

compared to just 3% of Existing Credit Cards Only and Existing Non-Credit Card 

Accounts victims. 

o In the Existing Credit Cards Only and Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts categories, 

the median amount of time that elapsed before victims discovered that their personal 

information was being misused was between 1 week and 1 month. For the New 

Accounts & Other Frauds category, the median value was between 1 and 2 months. 

• Where discovery of the misuse occurred more quickly, victims reported lower out-of-pocket 

losses and thieves obtained less:12 

o Thirty percent of those who discovered that their personal information was being 

misused 6 months or more after it started had to spend $1,000 or more, compared to 

10% of those who found the misuse within 6 months. 

o Sixty-nine percent of those who discovered the misuse within 6 months spent fewer 

than 10 hours compared to 32% of those who took 6 months or more to discover it. 

o Thirty-one percent of those who discovered the misuse of their information 6 months 

or more after it started reported that the thief obtained $5,000 or more, compared to 

10% of those who found out in less than 6 months. 

12 Figures for those who discovered the misuse less than 6 months after it began are based on 485 observations; 

figures for those who discovered the misuse 6 or more months after the misuse began are based on 50 observations. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -25- 

 

Figure 8 - Q17 / Q19 / Q20 – Problem Resolution13

• Almost one-quarter of all victims (23%) said that either they had no problems or they were 

able to resolve any problems experienced as a result of being a victim of ID theft within one 

day of discovering that their personal information was being misused. 

o While 38% of victims in the Existing Credit Cards Only category either had no 

problems or were able to resolve any problems within one day, only 10% of victims in 

the New Accounts & Other Frauds category were able to do so. 

• Eleven percent of all victims said that it had taken 3 or more months to resolve their 

problems after they discovered that their information was being misused. 

13 Overall figures are based on the responses of the 559 individuals surveyed who indicated that their personal 

information had been misused between 2001 and the date they were interviewed. Figures for Existing Credit Cards 

Only, Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts, and New Accounts & Other Frauds are based on the responses of the 257, 

164, and 138 individuals, respectively, who indicated that they had experienced these types of ID theft during this 

period of time. 

10%

18%

38%

6% 6%

15%

10%

20%

17%

11%

17% 15% 14%

10% 8%

37%

26%

5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

New accounts & other frauds Other existing accounts Existing credit card only

No problems or resolved within 1 day

Resolved within 2 - 6 days

Resolved in 7 - 30 days

Resolved in 1 - 2 months

Resolved in 3+ months

Misuse/problems are ongoing
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -26- 

o While 15% of victims in the New Accounts & Other Frauds category took 3 months or 

longer to resolve the problems, only 8% of victims in the Existing Credit Cards Only 

category took this long to resolve problems. 

• Twenty-one percent of all victims indicated that they were either continuing to experience 

problems related to the misuse of their information or that the misuse was continuing. 

o This was the case for 37% of those who had experienced New Accounts & Other 

Frauds ID theft, as compared to only 5% of victims in the Existing Credit Card Only 

category. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -27- 

Offenders’ Means of Access 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -28- 

Figure 9 - Q23 – Personal Relationship with Thief14

 

Family member / 

relative, 6%

Co-worker, 2%

Friend, Neighbor, Inhome employee, 8%

Other, 16%

Don't personally 

know, 84%

• ID theft victims generally are either unaware of the identity of the thief or do not personally 

know the thief. Over three-quarters of all ID theft victims (84%) reported that he or she did 

not personally know the thief, regardless of whether they had information about the thief’s 

identity. 

• Sixteen percent of all victims said that they personally knew the thief: 

o Six percent of victims knew that a family member or relative was the thief. 

o Eight percent of victims knew that a friend, neighbor, or in-home employee was the 

thief. 

o Two percent of victims reported that someone known to the victim from the workplace 

was the thief. 

14 Overall figures are based on the responses of the 559 individuals surveyed who indicated that their personal 

information had been misused between 2001 and the date they were interviewed. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -29- 

 

• Victims in the New Accounts & Other Frauds (24%) and the Existing Non-Credit Card 

Account (21%) categories were nearly 5 times as likely to know the thief personally as 

victims in the Existing Credit Card Only category (5%).15

15 Figures for Existing Credit Cards Only, Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts, and New Accounts & Other Frauds are 

based on the responses of the 257, 164, and 138 individuals, respectively, who indicated that they had experienced 

these types of ID theft between 2001 and the date they were interviewed. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -30- 

 

Figure 10 - Q23 / Q25 / Q26 / Q27 – How Information Was Obtained16

• The majority of victims (56%) did not know how their information was stolen. Forty-three 

percent of victims were aware of who took their information or how it was taken.17 

• Among those who knew how their information was taken, the most common factor was that 

their information was stolen by someone they personally knew. Sixteen percent of all 

victims indicated that their information was taken by someone they personally knew. 

16 Based on the responses of the 559 individuals surveyed who indicated that their personal information had been 

misused between 2001 and the date they were interviewed. 

17 The remaining 1% of respondents either refused to answer or stated that they did not know whether they knew how 

their information was obtained. 

Don't know how info was 

taken, 56%

Know thief personally, 16%

Hacking into computer, 1%

Phishing, 1%

Some other way, 7%

From the mail, 2%

From wallet, 5%

Company that had 

information, 5%

Purchase or other 

transaction, 7%
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -31- 

• Seven percent of all victims reported that their personal information was stolen during a 

purchase or financial transaction, including transactions conducted in a store, online, and 

through the mail. 

• Five percent of all victims cited theft of a wallet or purse, and another 5% cited theft from a 

company that maintained their information. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -32- 

Toll of Victimization 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -33- 

Figure 11 - Q21 / Q21a – How Victims Discovered ID Theft18

 

Monitoring account, 

26%

Received bill, 18%

Company notification, 

15%

Some other way, 11%

Credit monitoring 

service, 11%

Debt collector, 9%

Reviewing credit 

report, 6%

Applying for 

job/credit/benefits, 5%

• The most common way victims discovered the misuse of their personal information was by 

monitoring the activity in their accounts (37% of all victims). 

o This includes victims using electronic means (12%), paper statements (6%), and 

those who could not recall whether they first found out electronically or by looking at 

a paper statement (8%). It also includes victims who used a credit monitoring service 

to detect unusual activity in their accounts (11%). 

• How a victim was most likely to discover the misuse of their information depended on the 

category of ID theft suffered by the victim. 

18 Overall figures are based on the responses of the 559 individuals surveyed who indicated that their personal 

information had been misused between 2001 and the date they were interviewed. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -34- 

 

o When the misuse was limited to Existing Credit Cards Only, victims most commonly 

discovered their information was being misused when they received a bill with 

fraudulent charges (25%), by monitoring their accounts (24%), or when they were 

notified of unusual account activity by the company affected (23%).19

o In the Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts category, 41% of victims said that they 

discovered the misuse by monitoring their accounts. 

o For New Accounts & Other Frauds victims, the most commonly mentioned means of 

discovery was being contacted by a debt collector (23%). 

o Account monitoring was significantly more likely to be the way the fraud was detected 

for victims in the Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts (41%) and the Existing Credit 

Cards Only (24%) categories than for those in the New Accounts & Other Frauds 

category (11%). 

19 Figures for Existing Credit Cards Only, Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts, and New Accounts & Other Frauds are 

based on the responses of the 257, 164, and 138 individuals, respectively, who indicated that they had experienced 

these types of ID theft. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -35- 

 

Figure 12 - Q36 / Q39 / Q40 – Value Thief Obtained20

• Victims were asked to estimate the value of the goods and services that the thief obtained 

from businesses, including financial institutions, using the victim’s personal information. 

These figures include amounts where the business assumed the loss and amounts where 

the victim actually paid the debt created by the thief. 

• The median value obtained by thieves was $500. 

• The median values of goods and services obtained by the thief varied with the category of 

the identity theft. 

20 Overall figures are based on the responses of the 559 individuals surveyed who indicated that their personal 

information had been misused between 2001 and the date they were interviewed. Figures for Existing Credit Cards 

Only, Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts, and New Accounts & Other Frauds are based on the responses of the 257, 

164, and 138 individuals, respectively, who indicated that they had experienced these types of ID theft during this 

period of time. 

14%

18%

12%

18%

32%

14%

28%

20%

14%

23%

31%

7%

23%

7%

27%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Less than $100 $100 - $499 $500 - $999 $1,000 - $4,999 $5,000 or more

New accounts & other frauds

Other existing accounts

Existing credit card only
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -36- 

o The median value obtained by thieves in the New Accounts & Other Frauds category 

was $1,350. 

o The median value in the Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts category was $457. 

o The median value in the Existing Credit Cards Only category was $350. 

• Eighteen percent of victims reported that the thieves obtained goods or services worth less 

than $100. 

• Twelve percent of victims reported that the thieves obtained goods or services valued at 

$5,000 or more. 

o Victims in the New Accounts & Other Frauds category were three times as likely to 

report that the thieves obtained more than $5,000 as victims in the other two 

categories of ID theft (23% vs. 7%). 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -37- 

 

Figure 13 - Q41 / Q44 / Q45 – Out-of-Pocket Payments by Victims21

• Survey participants were asked about their total out-of-pocket expenses, which include lost 

wages, legal fees, and payments of any fraudulent debts, as well as miscellaneous 

expenses such as postage and notarization fees. 

• The majority of victims (59%) incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. 

21 Overall figures are based on the responses of the 559 individuals surveyed who indicated that their personal 

information had been misused between 2001 and the date they were interviewed. Figures for Existing Credit Cards 

Only, Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts, and New Accounts & Other Frauds are based on the responses of the 257, 

164, and 138 individuals, respectively, who indicated that they had experienced these types of ID theft during this 

period of time. 

37%

15%

25%

54%

25%

10%

80%

10%

24%

11%

7%

3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

None Less than $100 $100 - $999 $1,000 or more

New accounts & other frauds

Other existing accounts

Existing credit card only
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -38- 

 

• More than three-quarters (80%) of victims in the Existing Credit Cards Only category paid 

no out-of-pocket expenses, compared to 37% for victims in the New Accounts & Other 

Frauds category and 54% for the Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts category. 

• One-quarter of victims in the New Accounts & Other Frauds category reported paying outof-pocket expenses of at least $1,000. They are two and one-half times as likely as Existing 

Non-Credit Card Accounts victims (10%) and eight times as likely as Existing Credit Cards 

Only victims (3%), to pay this amount. 

• Thirty percent of victims who had no out-of-pocket expenses nonetheless reported other 

types of costs in resolving their ID theft incident.22

o Nineteen percent said that they spent 10 or more hours resolving problems related to 

ID theft. 

o Nineteen percent said that they experienced one or more of the other types of 

problems included in Figure 15. 

o Eight percent reported both that they spent more than 10 hours resolving problems 

and they experienced one or more of the other problems. 

22 Figures for those who incurred no out-of-pocket expenses are based on the responses of 359 individuals. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -39- 

 

Figure 14 - Q48 / Q51 / Q52 – Time Spent Resolving Problems23

• This graph shows the estimated hours spent by victims in resolving problems stemming 

from ID theft. It does not refer to the amount of time that passed from when the victims 

discovered the crime to when their problems where resolved. 

• When asked about the amount of time spent resolving problems stemming from the misuse 

of personal information, the median amount of time reported for all victims was 4 hours. 

23 Overall figures are based on the responses of the 559 individuals surveyed who indicated that their personal 

information had been misused between 2001 and the date they were interviewed. Figures for Existing Credit Cards 

Only, Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts, and New Accounts & Other Frauds are based on the responses of the 257, 

164, and 138 individuals, respectively, who indicated that they had experienced these types of ID theft during this 

period of time. 

23%

29%

25%

48%

13% 12%

45%

36%

12%

8%

17%

31%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 hour or less 2 - 9 hours 10 - 39 hours 40 hours or more

New accounts & other frauds

Other existing accounts

Existing credit card only
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -40- 

• Thirty percent of victims reported that they spent one hour or less resolving problems that 

resulted from their ID theft. 

o Victims in the Existing Credit Cards Only category (45%) were most likely to report 

spending one hour or less resolving problems. Those in the Existing Non-Credit 

Card Accounts category (25%) and in the New Accounts & Other Frauds category 

(17%) were less likely to report one hour or less. 

• Sixty percent of New Accounts & Other Frauds victims reported spending 10 or more hours 

resolving problems resulting from their ID theft. They were more than twice as likely as 

Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts victims (25%), and three times as likely as Existing 

Credit Card Only victims (20%), to spend this much time. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -41- 

 

Figure 15 - Q67 – Problems Experienced24

• Victims were asked whether they had experienced various types of problems, other than 

dollars and time expended, as a result of having their personal information misused. These 

included having problems obtaining or using a credit card, being turned down for a loan, or 

having problems opening a bank account or cashing checks. 

o 16% of ID theft victims reported having credit problems, such as being rejected for 

credit or having a credit card refused by a merchant. 

24 Overall figures are based on the responses of the 559 individuals surveyed who indicated that their personal 

information had been misused between 2001 and the date they were interviewed. Figures for Existing Credit Cards 

Only, Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts, and New Accounts & Other Frauds are based on the responses of the 257, 

164, and 138 individuals, respectively, who indicated that they had experienced these types of ID theft during this 

period of time. 

48%

42%

37%

24%

19% 19%

25%

6%

12%

7%

2% 3% 1%

11% 10%

14%

8% 8% 7%

2% 1% 0% 2% 1% 1% 0%

5% 4% 5% 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Harrassed by collector

Repeated credit corrections

Credit problems

Loan rejection

Banking problems

Insuran

 problems

Utilities cut off

Criminal investigation

Civil suit filed

Other problems

ce

New accounts & other frauds

Other existing accounts

Existing credit card only
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -42- 

 

o 10% of ID theft victims reported suffering banking problems, such as being refused 

for a checking account or having checks rejected. 

o 7% of victims reported having insurance problems, such as having been turned down 

for insurance or having to pay higher rates. 

• A total of 37% of all ID theft victims reported having at least one of the problems identified; 

21% of victims reported having more than one of these problems. 

• Victims in the New Accounts & Other Frauds category were more than twice as likely to 

report having one or more of these problems (68%) as those in the Existing Non-Credit Card 

Accounts category (32%) and four times as likely as those in the Existing Credit Cards Only 

category (17%). 

• Victims who reported that they had experienced one or more of these problems tended also 

to report incurring greater out-of-pocket expenses and spending more time to resolve their 

problems.25

o Among victims who had experienced one or more of these problems, 26% said that 

they had out-of-pocket expenses of $1,000 or more. Only 3% of victims who did not 

experience these problems incurred out-of-pocket expenses of $1,000 or more. 

o Thirty-three percent of victims who had experienced one or more of these problems 

said that they had spent 40 hours or more resolving problems related to their ID theft. 

Only 6% of victims who did not experience these problems reported spending 40 

hours or more resolving problems. 

25 Figures for those who experienced one or more of the problems discussed here are based on 177 observations; 

figures for those experienced none of the problems are based on 382 observations. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -43- 

Actions Taken
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -44- 

Figure 16 - Q53 / Q53a/ Q54 / Q60 – Victim Contacts with Selected 

Parties26 

 

43%

26%

21%

7% 6% 5% 5% 4% 4% 2% 2%

38%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Company

Local police

Credit reporting agency

Lawyer

DMV

Better Business Bureau

State age

y

Ins

ance company

FTC

Consumer group

Other

Did not contact anyone

nc

ur

• Forty-three percent of victims said that they contacted or were contacted by a company 

where an account was opened in their name or where an existing account was misused.27

26 Overall figures are based on the responses of the 559 individuals surveyed who indicated that their personal 

information had been misused between 2001 and the date they were interviewed. 

27 This figure may not include all respondents who had contact with the company where an account was opened or 

misused. The 43% figure includes victims who indicated such contact in Q54, or who in answer to Q53, indicated that 

they had not contacted anyone, but whose verbatim responses when asked why they had not contacted anyone 

(Q53a) indicated that there had, in fact, been contact with a company or credit card company. However, many victims 

who said they had not contacted anyone were not asked Q53a and therefore remain in the "Did not contact anyone" 

group. Therefore, the survey is likely to underestimate the number of consumers who had contact with the company. 

For the same reason, the number of consumers who did not contact anyone is likely to be overstated. In addition, the 

“Did not contact anyone” figure includes a significant number of people who in response to Q53 indicated that they had 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -45- 

 

• Twenty-six percent of victims said that they had contacted the police. 

• While only 9% victims in the Existing Credit Cards Only category contacted the 

police, 44% of victims in the New Accounts & Other Frauds category did so.28

• Twenty-one percent of victims reported contacting one or more credit reporting agencies. 

o While only 15% of victims in the Existing Credit Cards Only category and 12% of the 

Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts category contacted a credit reporting agency, 

41% of those in the New Accounts & Other Frauds category made such contact. 

o Victims were more likely to contact a credit reporting agency when the thief obtained 

a higher dollar amount. Twenty-nine percent of victims contacted at least one credit 

reporting agency when the value was over $1,000, compared to 16% when the value 

was less than $1,000.29

contacted someone, but then in response to Q54 indicated that they had not contacted any of the identified entities, 

including “someone else.”

28 Figures for Existing Credit Cards Only, Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts, and New Accounts & Other Frauds are 

based on the responses of the 257, 164, and 138 individuals, respectively, who indicated that they had experienced 

these types of ID theft between 2001 and the date they were interviewed. 

29 Figures for instances where the thief obtained goods and services with a value of less than $1,000 are based on 329 

observations and where the value was $1,000 or more are based on 201 observations. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -46- 

 

Figure 17 - Q54 / Q63 –Initial 90-day Fraud Alert Placed30

 Since December 2004, the Fair Credit Reporting Act has allowed consumers who have a 

good faith suspicion that they have been or are about to become victims of ID theft to place an 

initial “fraud alert” on their credit file that will appear on credit reports issued to potential users of 

the report. The initial fraud alert remains in place for 90 days and notifies potential users that the 

consumer may be a victim of ID theft. A potential creditor that receives a credit report containing a 

fraud alert is required to take reasonable steps to verify the identity of the person applying for 

credit.31

• Fourteen percent of victims said they placed an initial 90-day fraud alert on their credit 

reports following the discovery of the misuse of their information.32

30 Overall figures are based on the responses of the 559 individuals surveyed who indicated that their personal 

information had been misused between 2001 and the date they were interviewed. 

31 See Fair Credit Reporting Act, § 605A(h); 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-1(h). 

32 Figures for Existing Credit Cards Only, Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts, and New Accounts & Other Frauds are 

based on the responses of the 257, 164, and 138 individuals, respectively, who indicated that they had experienced 

these types of ID theft between 2001 and the date they were interviewed. 

Placed alert, 14%

Contacted agency,

unsure if 

alert was placed,

 3%

No alert placed, 5%

Did not contact 

agency, 79%
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -47- 

o Twenty-nine percent of victims in the New Accounts & Other Frauds category placed 

such alerts on their credit reports.

o Six percent of victims in the Existing Credit Cards Only category reported placing 

initial fraud alerts on their credit reports. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -48- 

 

Figure 18 - Q66 / Q61 – Further Measures Taken By Victims33

 If a consumer has become an ID Theft victim, the Fair Credit Reporting Act since December 

2004 has allowed the victim to place an extended, seven-year fraud alert on his or her credit file. 

The extended alert appears on all credit reports about the victim, notifying any potential user that 

the consumer has been a victim of ID theft. The extended alert also contains a telephone number 

at which the consumer may be reached, and any potential creditor is required to contact the 

consumer either at this number or in person before extending any additional credit in the 

consumer’s name.34 To get an extended alert, the consumer must provide the credit reporting 

agencies with an “Identity Theft Report,” which is a detailed report that has been filed with a law 

enforcement agency. 

33 Overall figures are based on the responses of the 559 individuals surveyed who indicated that their personal 

information had been misused between 2001 and the date they were interviewed. 

34 See Fair Credit Reporting Act § 605A(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-1(b). 

7% 7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Placed 7-year alert Placed freeze
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -49- 

 

In addition, some states allow ID theft victims to request a “credit freeze,” which prevents 

their credit reports from being accessed without their express consent.35 Because most 

companies obtain a credit report from a consumer before extending credit to a consumer, a credit 

freeze generally prevents the creation of new credit accounts in a consumer’s name without the 

consumer’s express permission. At the time this survey was conducted, credit freezes were 

available to consumers in 10 states.36 As of the date of publication, most states have enacted 

credit freeze laws. Also, the three nationwide credit reporting agencies have offered freezes to 

consumers, even in states without specific credit freeze laws. 

• Relatively few ID Theft victims took advantage of either extended alerts or credit freezes: 

o Seven percent of ID Theft victims placed extended alerts on their credit reports. 

o Seven percent of ID Theft victims placed a freeze on their credit reports. 

o Each of these actions was taken by 15% of those in the New Accounts & Other 

Frauds category, but only by 3% to 4% of those in the Existing Accounts categories.37

35 Some states permit all consumers to obtain credit freezes, regardless of whether they are identity theft victims. 

36 See, e.g. California Civil Code § 1785.11.2, Connecticut General Statutes § 36a-701a; Louisiana Statutes Annotated 

§ 9.3571(H) to (Y); North Carolina General Statutes §75-63. 

37 Figures for Existing Credit Cards Only, Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts, and New Accounts & Other Frauds are 

based on the responses of the 257, 164, and 138 individuals, respectively, who indicated that they had experienced 

these types of ID theft between 2001 and the date they were interviewed. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -50- 

 

Figure 19 - Q54 / Q55 / Q56 – Contact with Local Law Enforcement38

• A total of 26% of all victims contacted a local law enforcement agency. 

• Although only 9% of victims in the Existing Credit Card Only category contacted the police, 

the police were contacted by 44% of those in the New Accounts & Other Frauds category.39

• Eighty-one percent of victims who contacted a local law enforcement agency reported that 

the police took a report (21% of all victims).40

• The police did not take a report from 19% of victims who contacted them (5% of all victims). 

• Where the local police took a report, 60% of victims reported receiving a copy of the report 

(13% of all victims). However, 40% of victims did not get a copy or could not recall if they 

got a copy (7% of all victims, and 1% of all victims, respectively). 

38 Overall figures are based on the responses of the 559 individuals surveyed who indicated that their personal 

information had been misused between 2001 and the date they were interviewed. 

39 Figures for Existing Credit Cards Only, Existing Non-Credit Card Accounts, and New Accounts & Other Frauds are 

based on the responses of the 257, 164, and 138 individuals, respectively, who indicated that they had experienced 

these types of ID theft between 2001 and the date they were interviewed. 

40 Figures on the experiences of victims who contacted a local police department are based on 127 observations, while 

those where a police report was taken are based on 107 victims. 

Did not contact police, 

74%

Report taken,

 unsure whether 

copy received, 4%

No report taken, 19%

Report taken, copy 

received, 50%

Report taken, no copy 

received, 27%

Contacted

the police, 

26%

All ID Theft Victims Those Who Contacted the Police
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -51- 

 

Figure 20 - Q57 – Satisfaction with Local Law Enforcement 

Response41

31%

24%

11%

30%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied

• Of the victims who contacted local law enforcement, 55% said they were “very” or 

“somewhat” satisfied, whereas, 41% of the victims who contacted local law enforcement 

were either “very” or “somewhat” dissatisfied with the response of local law enforcement.42

41 These figures are based on the responses of 127 participants who said that they had contacted a local police 

department. 

42 These figures do not total 100% because some victims indicated either that they did not know whether they were 

satisfied with the response of the police or refused to answer the question. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -52- 

 

Figure 21 - Q68 – Biggest Challenges of Experience43

100%

38%

34%

26%

8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Dispute resolution

process

Consequences Emotional impact Other

• Respondents who had spent 10 or more hours resolving problems were asked to describe 

in their own words the most difficult part of their experience. These respondents represent 

31% of all ID Theft victims. 

• Nearly 4-in-10 of these victims (38%) said that going through the dispute resolution process, 

itself, was the most difficult part. The dispute resolution process involves communicating 

with consumer reporting agencies and the companies where the thief committed the fraud to 

have the debts absolved and the credit reports corrected. It also involves the procedure of 

replacing credit cards and other key documents. Respondents also mentioned the sheer 

amount of time the dispute resolution process took. 

43 These figures are based on 172 responses of victims who said that they spent 10 hours or more resolving problems 

associated with being a victim of ID theft. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -53- 

• About one-third (34%) of these victims mentioned dealing with the practical consequences 

of the thief’s actions, rather than the process of resolving disputes, as the most difficult part 

of their experience. Victims must cope with losing money, being unable to use their credit 

and bank accounts, or having their utilities shut off. Victims also reported being unable to 

open new accounts and other consequences flowing from the damage to their credit 

reports. 

• Twenty-six percent of these victims said they were most affected by the emotional impact of 

the ID theft including the effects of stress on their lives and their health or the emotional toll 

resulting from the realization that they were vulnerable or had been betrayed. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -54- 

Breach Notification 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -55- 

Figure 22 - Q10 / Q10aa – Breach Notification Since 200144

SSN 

included

in breach, 

3%

SSN not 

included

in breach, 

5%

No breach notification, 

90%

Unsure if 

SSN included,

 1%

Notified

of a

breach, 

9%

• All survey participants, including those who were not identity theft victims, were asked if they 

had received notice of a breach of their personal information. A breach notification involves 

a company, agency, or some other organization notifying consumers that there has been a 

breach of the security of their data files, and that the consumer’s personal information is 

among the information that has been compromised. It does not demonstrate any misuse of 

the information, just that the information has been compromised.45

 

44 Percentage of people receiving a breach notification is based on 1,496 observations. Based on the survey design, 

demographic characteristics were only collected for 1,496 of the 4,916 people interviewed, including all of those who 

reported being a victim of ID theft and a random sample of those who were not victims. Weights could only be 

computed for these observations with weights adjusted to reflect the fact that only a sample of non-victims would be 

included in weighted calculations. (See Methodological Appendix.) 

45 The practice of notifying consumers of data breaches is a relatively recent development. In 2003, California passed 

a law (Civil Code § 1798.92) requiring any business that stores data concerning California residents to notify those 

residents in the event of any actual or suspected data breach. Since the passage of the California statute, over 30 

other states have passed some form of breach notice law. As a result of these laws, breach notices, and the resulting 

publicity regarding breaches, have become more common. Because breach notices were not a common occurrence 

prior to the passage of the California law, the 2003 FTC Survey did not include questions about them. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -56- 

 

• Nine percent of all respondents indicated they had been notified about a breach of their 

personal information since 2001. 46

46 This figure may overstate slightly the share of survey participants who received breach notices. Respondents who 

were contacted by a credit card or other company about actual misuse of their individual accounts may have answered 

that they had received a “breach notice,” even though breach notices are not generally considered to include this type 

of contact. In addition, recent testing of a similar survey question suggests that some respondents who experienced 

ID theft may mistakenly have answered “yes” to the question because they discovered that their “information had been 

lost or stolen,” even though they had not “been notified by a company, government agency, or other organization” of 

this fact. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -57- 

 

Figure 23 - Q12 / Q13 – Actions Taken Following Breach 

Notification47

• Most people (55%) who received a notice about a breach of their information took action to 

understand or proactively address the situation.48 Note that respondents could mention 

more than one action, so the sum of the specific steps taken displayed in the graph above 

will be greater than 55%. 

• Most of those who were notified of a breach and did take action either called the company 

or agency that sent the notice (36% of those who received a breach notice) or closed an 

affected account or placed a password on it (37%). 

47 Based on responses of 187 individuals who said that they had received a breach notification since 2001. 48 The figures for those that took some sort of action in response to a breach notice (55%) and those that took no 

action (44%) do not total 100%. This is because 1% of respondents refused to answer or stated that they did not know 

whether they took any action. 

44%

37% 36%

23%

13% 12%

8% 6%

12%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Did nothing about notice

d or placed passwords on accounts

Contacted company or agency

Placed fraud alert

Contacted agency that issued ID

Contacted state/local government

Contacted FTC, Other federal agency

Contacted local police

Other

Close
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -58- 

Free Credit Reports
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -59- 

Figure 24 - Q13a/Q13b – Free Credit Reports Since 200449

 

One free report, 14%

More than one free 

report, 7%

Unsure, 3%

ve

otten

free

edit

eport, 

22%

Unsure how

many, 

1%

No free credit reports, 

76%

Ha

g

cr

r

All consumers are entitled to receive a free copy of their credit report from each of the three 

nationwide credit reporting agencies (“CRAs”) (Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion), as well as 

from various nationwide specialty CRAs, every twelve months.50 Additionally, placing a fraud 

alert entitles consumers to immediately request free copies of their credit reports regardless of 

the timing of their previous requests.51 Consumers who have had an extended fraud alert 

placed on their credit reports are entitled to request two free copies of their credit report from 

each of the CRAs in the twelve months following the date the extended alert was placed.52

49 Based on 1,496 observations. Demographic characteristics were only collected for 1,496 of the 4,916 people 

interviewed, including all of those who reported being a victim of ID theft and a random sample of those who were not 

victims. Weights could only be computed for these observations with weights adjusted to reflect the fact that only a 

sample of non-victims would be included in weighted calculations. (See Methodological Appendix.) 

50 FCRA § 612(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1681j(1). 

51 FCRA § 605A(a)(2), 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-1(a)(2). 

52 FCRA § 605A(b)(2)(A), 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-1(b)(2)(A). 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -60- 

• Just over 1-in-5 respondents in the overall sample (22%) said they had availed themselves 

of a free credit report since the annual free credit reports began to become available in parts 

of the country on December 1, 2004.53 Annual free credit reports became available 

nationwide on September 1, 2005. 

• Those with more than a high school education were nearly twice as likely as those with a 

high school education or less to request a free credit report (27% vs. 14%).54

• Respondents between the ages of 25 and 44 were most likely to request a free credit report 

(29%), while those age 65 and over were least likely to do so (13%).55

 

53 Although respondents were asked whether they had received any “free annual credit reports,” some respondents 

may have answered “yes” for credit reports received through other means, such as reports received as a result of 

placing a fraud alert. 

54 Based on responses of 453 individuals who were high school graduates or had not completed high school and 993 

individuals who had attended at least some college. 

55 Based on responses of 428 individuals between 25 and 44 years of age and 309 individuals age 65 or over. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -61- 

Victims of Non-Account ID Theft 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -62- 

Figure 25 - Q9 / Q34 – Non-Account ID Theft 

 

Non-Account ID Theft 

Only, 25%

Non-Account plus 

Existing Account 

Fraud, 42%

on-Account plus 

New Account Fraud, 

10%

Non-Account plus 

Both Existing Account 

Fraud and New 

Account Fraud, 23%

N

• Overall, the experiences of 20% of ID theft victims included having their personal 

information used in “Non-Account ID Theft,” which is fraud that does not involve accessing 

the victim’s existing accounts or creating new financial accounts in the victim’s name.56 For 

example, the thief might provide the victim’s name and information to employers for 

employment purposes, to the government to obtain disaster relief or benefits, or to police 

when being charged with a crime. 

• Among Non-Account ID Theft victims, 61% reported a specific way that their information had 

been misused – Figure 6 describes their responses. The remaining 39% indicated that their 

information had been misused to commit this type of fraud, but did not indicate the specific 

56 This figure cannot be compared directly with those in Figure 2 on page 14. As noted in footnote 11, Figures 1 – 3 

are based on responses of people who discovered that their information was being misused in 2005, while the rest of 

the report is based on the responses of people who discovered that their information was being misused between the 

beginning of 2001 and the time they were interviewed. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -63- 

 

way it had been misused. Among the specific offenses committed by thieves using their 

information:

o Twenty-seven percent had their name given to law enforcement when the perpetrator 

was stopped or charged with a crime.

o Eighteen percent had their information used by the thief to obtain medical treatment, 

services, or supplies.

o Renting housing and obtaining government benefits were each reported by 6% of 

these victims, and obtaining employment was reported by 5%.

• Many Non-Account ID Theft victims also experienced types of ID theft that involve financial 

accounts: 65% experienced the misuse of existing accounts, and 33% had one or more new 

accounts opened in their name.57

o Forty-three percent had an existing checking or savings account misused.

o Thirty-four percent had an existing credit card misused.

o Twenty-five percent had existing telephone (cellular or conventional) accounts 

misused and 18% had new telephone accounts opened in their name.

o Fourteen percent had new credit card accounts opened in their name.

57 Based on the responses of 84 survey participants who indicated that they had experienced non-account ID theft. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -64- 

Figure 26 - Q67 – Non-Account ID Theft Victim Experience 

• Approximately two-thirds (70%) of all ID Theft victims whose experiences included NonAccount ID theft encountered one or more of the problems in the above graph. This is 

nearly two and one-half times the rate for those whose experiences did not include NonAccount ID Theft (29%).

• The most frequently reported problems were:

o Forty-eight percent of Non-Account ID Theft victims reported being harassed by a 

debt collector.

o Forty-four percent said they needed to repeatedly correct information on their credit 

report.

o Thirty-six percent said they experienced credit problems. 

o Thirty percent had been turned down for a loan. 

o Twenty-nine percent reported having banking problems. 

48%

44%

36%

30% 29%

25% 24%

17%

10%

6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

arassed debt collector

Repeated credit corrections

Credit problems

Loan rejection

Banking problems

Insurance problems

Utilities cut off

Criminal investigation

Civil suit filed

Other problems

H

 by
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -65- 

Figure 27 - Q36 / Q41 / Q48 – Costs of Non-Account ID Theft 

21%

70%

36%

9%

34%

11%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Value obtained by thief was

$5,000 or more

Paid any out-of-pocket

expenses

Spent 40 hours or more

resolving problems

Other Fraud victims

Remaining victims

• Where the victim’s experience included Non-Account ID Theft, the value obtained by the 

thief was more than twice as likely to be $5,000 or more (21%) than for cases that did not 

involve this kind of misuse (9%).

• Victims whose experiences included Non-Account ID Theft were more likely than the 

remaining ID Theft victims to suffer costs associated with their experience.

o Non-Account ID Theft victims were more than twice as likely to have actual, out-ofpocket expenses associated with their experience (70% of Non-Account ID Theft 

victims had to pay out of pocket expenses vs. 34% of the remaining victims).

o Victims of Non-Account ID Theft were over three times more likely than the remaining 

victims to spend 40 hours or more resolving their problems (36% vs. 11%).
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -66- 

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY REPORT
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -67- 

FTC Identity Theft 2006 

Methodology Report 

Contract: FTC-04-Z-0004 

Prepared for: 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20500 

Prepared by: 

1650 Tysons Blvd. Suite 110 

McLean, VA 22102-3915

September 28, 2006 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -68- 

d in 2005. 

 

I. Background and Objectives 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioned a study to gather information on consumer 

experiences with Identity Theft building upon similar research conducted in 2003. Since that time, 

more has become known about Identity Theft, the ways people are victimized, the costs, and the 

toll taken on its victims. The previous survey instrument was updated based on a review of 2003 

results and the updated information will help policymakers, organizations, and citizens combat 

Identity Theft. 

The survey was conducted through telephone interviews using a Random-Digit-Dialing (RDD) 

sampling methodology. The sampling scheme was designed to obtain a random sample of U.S. 

adults age 18 and older. A total of 4,917 interviews were conducted between March 27 and June 

11, 2006. 

The results contained in this report are based generally on the responses of those people who 

discovered that their personal information was being misused—that is, that they were victims of ID 

theft—between the beginning of 2001 and when they were interviewed. The data on the number 

of people who discovered they were victims of ID theft in 2005 and the data in the sections on 

breach notification and free credit reports are based on the responses of all survey participants 

from whom demographics were collected.1

 The data in Figure 2 and 3 are based on the 

responses of those who discovered that their personal information was being misuse

For many of the survey questions, there were a few respondents who either did not know the 

answer to the question or who refused to answer the question. In computing the figures in the 

report, those who answered “don’t know” or refused to answer have not been eliminated. Rather, 

they are included and simply recorded as not giving any of the indicated responses to a particular 

question. As a result, the responses to a question may total to less than 100 percent even where 

the question called for each participant to give only one response. 

II. Methodology 

A. Sampling Frame 

The sampling frame consisted of all blocks of telephone numbers with at least one listed residential 

telephone number. A block of telephone numbers consisted of 100 numbers having the same first 

eight digits. The survey employed the GENESYS sampling system which randomly generates 

representative single-stage samples of telephone numbers. It generates each telephone number 

by randomly selecting a block known to contain at least one listed residential telephone number 

and then randomly generating the two final digits to complete the number. The advantage of 

beginning with blocks containing a known residential number is that it avoids generating numbers 

in blocks that are assigned exclusively to businesses or are unassigned. The resulting sample of 

telephone numbers represents all households in the U.S. with telephones, both listed and unlisted, 

without bias and with the efficiency of a single-stage sample. 

1

 See Section II.I, below for a discussion of the collection of demographic data and the weighting of the resulting 

responses to ensure that the resulting analysis was representative of the population of U.S. adults as a whole. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -69- 

The sampling frame was stratified to meet the goals of the sampling plan. The strata were 

constructed such that the resulting sample would provide a nationally representative statistical 

sample of US households in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

Eight strata were defined and compiled by Census Region and urban/non-urban requirements. 

The top three classes of Metropolitan Statistical Areas as defined by the Census Bureau were 

categorized as urban, while the bottom two classes were categorized as non-urban. 

The strata and the number of sample records dialed in each stratum are listed in the table below: 

Identity Theft Study 2006 

Starting Sample Distribution 

Region Sample records 

Northeast / urban 6,228 

Northeast / non-urban 1,854 

Midwest / urban 6,498 

Midwest / non-urban 2,224 

South / urban 16,136 

South / non-urban 2,952 

West / urban 10,986 

West / non-urban 2,222 

TOTAL 49,100 

B. Questionnaire Design 

The initial draft questionnaire was designed by the Federal Trade Commission, and subsequent 

drafts were developed collaboratively by the FTC and Synovate. 

To ensure that all aspects of the survey instrument and protocol were working as designed, pilot 

testing was performed early in the field period with a limited number of interviewers dialing 

households. The pilot testing involved trained interviewers and the fully developed survey 

instrument programmed into the Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system. The 

survey was deemed to be working as intended from a substantive and technical perspective, and 

the fieldwork continued. 

A copy of the final questionnaire appears in Appendix C. 

C. Telephone Data Collection 

Interviewing began on March 27, 2006 and continued through June 11, 2006. Interviews were 

conducted between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. on 

Saturdays, and between 11 a.m. and 8 p.m. on Sundays (all times local to the households being 

called). 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -70- 

Interviewers were monitored for quality and provided with guidance and correction when 

necessary. In addition, project management reports were generated by computer on a daily basis 

in order to track sample disposition and production rates. 

Synovate’s CATI system was used for data collection. The questionnaire was programmed into 

the system, and telephone interviewers read questions as they were logically fed in predetermined 

order from the computer to a viewing screen. Answers were sent back to the computer through the 

keyboard. This system reduced interviewer (non-random) error, such as not adhering to skip 

patterns, thus enhancing the quality of the data. 

 

D. Respondent Eligibility 

To be eligible to participate in the study the respondent had to be age 18 or older. The person who 

answered the telephone was asked to identify the household member, age 18 or older, with the 

most recent birthday, who then served as the randomly selected respondent.

E. Procedures to Maximize Response Rates 

Several procedures were undertaken in order to maximize the response rates and to reduce the 

chance of interpretive error or bias associated with low response rates. The procedures were: 

• Experienced interviewers were assigned to the project. 

• Telephone interviews were conducted at different times of the day and days of the week 

in order to increase the likelihood of locating available respondents at times convenient 

for them. When possible, callbacks were scheduled at specific times requested by 

respondents. 

• Every telephone number that did not result in contact with a respondent (this excludes 

business numbers, disconnects, faxes and modems) was dialed up to 7 times in order to 

increase the chances of finding a potential respondent. 

• Production rates, interview length, and sample dispositions were monitored closely every 

other day. 

• Project management personnel received weekly reports containing the number of 

refusals received and hours dialed by each interviewer. These reports were closely 

monitored and interviewers with a high refusal to hours-dialed ratio were removed from 

dialing. Those interviewers who had a ratio above the average were provided corrective 

feedback and monitored more closely by quality control supervisors. In addition, those 

who demonstrated the lowest refusal to hours-dialed ratio were selected for conversion 

dialing. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -71- 

F. Non-Response Follow-up Results 

All people who declined to take the survey were re-contacted by telephone one to two weeks 

following the initial contact in order to secure their cooperation. The contact was made by more 

experienced interviewers, specially trained in refusal avoidance techniques. Those respondents 

who requested they not be contacted again were omitted from these dialing efforts. 

In order to assess the extent of any bias due to non-response, a random subset of those who 

refused for a second time during the conversion attempt answered a few key questions. The 

results of this interviewing are discussed in Appendix B. 

G. Final Sample Dispositions and Response Rates 

The table below shows the final dispositions for the entire random digit dial (RDD) sample 

generated by GENESYS for the FTC Identity Theft Survey. The classification of each sample 

piece was based on the most significant attempt. For example, if a respondent was not available 

on the first attempt and subsequent attempts resulted in a no answer, the final disposition was 

Respondent Not Available. If a respondent refused to participate during the first phase of dialing 

and the number was found to be an answering machine on a subsequent conversion attempt, it 

was categorized as a Refusal. Interviews completed during the conversion phase of the study 

were included in the calculation of the final response rates. 

The response rate was computed using the AAPOR Outcome Rate Calculator Version 2.1, formula 

AAPOR RR3. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -72- 

Identity Theft Study 2006 

Final Overall Sample Disposition 

 Total 

 Frequency Percent 

Interview - Category 1

 Completed screening interviews 4,917 10.01 

 Partial interviews 353 0.72 

 Total 5,270 10.73 

 

Eligible, non-interview, Category 2

 Refusal and break off 3,801 7.74 

 Total 3,801 7.74 

Unknown Eligibility, non-interview, 

Category 3

 Always busy 533 1.09 

 No answer 12,417 25.29 

 Answering machine-don’t know if household 2,998 6.11 

 Call blocking 595 1.21 

 No screener completed 8,980 18.29 

 Total 25,523 51.98 

 

No Eligible, Category 4 

 Fax/data line 2,296 4.68 

 Disconnected number 5,780 11.77 

 Non-working number 1,620 3.30 

 Temporarily out of service 150 0.31 

 Number changed 60 0.12 

 Cell phone 30 0.06 

 Business, govt. office, other organization 3,744 7.63 

 No eligible respondent 826 1.68 

 Total 14,506 29.54 

TOTAL PHONE NUMBERS USED 49,100 100.0 

AAPOR Response Rate 

 Response Rate 3 26% 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -73- 

H. Data Preparation and Processing 

Data cleaning and quality control checks were automatically performed during the interviewing 

process on the CATI system. Final cleaning runs checked all questionnaire logic and relationships 

among items. 

I. Weighting

The basic survey design for the FTC Identity Theft Study consisted of the following: The study 

sampled U.S. adults, 18 years or older, by calling a random sample of U.S. telephone households. 

Through a series of screening questions, the respondent was identified as either a victim of identity 

theft or not. If the respondent was a victim, he or she completed an extensive interview. A random 

portion of respondents who were not victims were asked a series of demographic questions. 

Those that were not asked these questions were thanked and no further questions were asked. 

Sample weights were constructed based on the survey design to provide unbiased estimates for 

total national demographics and for victims of identity theft. The sample weights include a design 

weight – the correction for the random selection of non-victims to be asked demographic questions 

and a post-stratified adjustment weight to correct for different rates of contact and cooperation 

among different age groups, genders, educational groups, race/ethnicity groups and regions. 

The design weights were calculated using the information in the following table. The goal is to 

recreate an unbiased national sample representative of the U.S. population. The total sample of 

4,916 respondents would be an unbiased national sample. By including the design weights, the 

1,496 respondents for whom demographic information was collected are also an unbiased national 

sample. 

Sample Subgroups Number in Sample2

Number in Sample with 

Demographic 

Information 

Design Weight to 

adjust for subsampling 

Identity Theft Victims 

(including minor victims) 915 915 915/915 = 1.000000 

Non-identity Theft 

Victims 4,001 581 4001/581=6.886403 

Total 4,916 1,496 -- 

The next step is to produce a final weight using post-stratified adjustments to account for different 

contact and cooperation rates among different demographic groups. The post-stratified 

adjustment used iterative proportional fitting to marginal population distributions for Gender, Age, 

Race, Region, and Hispanic Ethnicity within Region. This methodology is also referred to as 

sample balancing, raking or rim weighting. For this study, the estimates from the March 2005 

Supplement of the Current Population Survey were used as the population marginal distribution. 

 

2

 In total, 4,917 individuals were contacted and completed the screening portion of the survey. In retrospect, one 

respondent did not answer appropriately, so they were subsequently dropped. This reduced the total sample to 4,916 

completed screens with 915 respondents reporting Identity Theft for themselves or a minor child in the household. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -74- 

The target population percentages for Gender, Age, Race, Region, and Hispanic Ethnicity within 

Region are summarized in the following table. 

Region 

Population 

Percentage Age 

Population 

Percentage 

1 Northeast 18.89 1 18 to 24 12.86 

2 Midwest 22.34 2 25 to 34 18.09 

3 South 36.03 3 35 to 44 19.95 

4 West 22.74 4 45 to 54 19.31 

5 55 to 64 13.59 

6 65 plus 16.20 

Gender 

Population 

Percentage Region 

Hispanic 

Origin 

Population 

Percentage 

1 Male 48.29 1 Northeast Yes 1.96 

2 Female 51.71 2 No 16.59 

3 Midwest Yes 1.20 

4 No 21.08 

African-American 

Population 

Percentage 5 South Yes 5.03 

1 Yes 11.88 6 No 31.06 

0 No 88.12 7 West Yes 6.18 

Asian 

Population 

Percentage 

8 No 16.90 

1 Yes 4.54 

0 No 95.46 

White 

Population 

Percentage 

Native American 

Population 

Percentage 1 Yes 82.03 

1 Yes 1.69 0 No 17.97 

0 No 98.31 

An additional marginal was set based on an interim review of the data. This review revealed that 

some respondents were considering credit card fraud as identity theft. The questionnaire was 

adjusted to isolate credit card fraud only and this adjusted questionnaire was fielded using 

nationally representative replicates. Based on these interviews, a marginal distribution of credit 

card only victims, other victims and non-victims was created, summarized as: 

• 7.1% - Existing Credit Card only victims, 

• 10.7% - All other victims, and 

• 82.2% - Non-victims 

These percentages were used as the targets for the final marginal in the post-stratification 

adjustments to the weights. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -75- 

The distribution of the final weights is summarized in this table. 

N Mean Sum 

Standard 

deviation Minimum Maximum 

1,496 3.2861 I I 4,916 4.57382 0.03103 55.4446 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -76- 

APPENDIX B: DROP-OUT AND REFUSED REPORT
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -77- 

 As with any survey of a sample of a population, the results of this survey may differ from 

what one would find if all adult Americans – the population covered by this survey – were 

interviewed. There are a number of reasons for this. First, uncertainty is introduced because only 

a sample of the population was interviewed and their experiences may differ somewhat from those 

of others in the relevant population. Perhaps a smaller or larger percentage of this particular group 

of individuals experienced ID theft than was true of the population as a whole. The degree of 

uncertainty resulting from the use of a sample rather than a census is a function of the number of 

people who were asked a particular set of questions and is captured by standard statistical 

methods in standard errors of the estimates which are included in the figures on the prevalence of 

the various types of ID theft. 

 However, additional problems can arise because not everyone who was asked to participate 

in the survey agreed to do so. In addition, some of those who began the survey failed to complete 

it. The results reported in the body of this study are based on the responses of those who 

participated in and completed the survey. Therefore, if the experiences of either those who 

refused to participate in the survey or those who failed to complete the survey differ from the 

experiences of those who completed the survey, the results will not be completely representative 

of the population as a whole in ways that are not captured in the number of interviews completed 

and the standard errors of the estimates. This appendix preliminarily considers how the inability to 

include these two groups in the survey may have affected the results – particularly the estimates of 

the prevalence of ID theft. 

Incomplete Interviews

 

As shown in the Methodology Report in Appendix A, 5,270 interviews were begun, and of 

these, 353 were not completed. Of these 353 people, 79 completed enough of the interview to 

allow determination of whether they had ever been a victim of ID theft and, if so, the type of ID theft 

they experienced – that is, they participated at least through Q9; 274 did not complete enough of 

the survey to be able to determine whether or not they had ever been victims of ID theft. By 

comparing the prevalence figures based on only the 4,916 completed interviews with the figures 

based on both complete interviews and the 79 interviews that were incomplete but provide enough 

information to determine whether the person had ever experienced ID theft, one can get some idea 

of how the failure to complete the interview affected the results This assumes that those who quit 

after Q9 also are representative of those who quit prior to Q9. 

As shown in Table 1, inclusion of these incomplete interviews does result in a slightly higher 

measure of the percentage of people who have experienced some form of ID theft at some point in 

their lives – 19.5 percent with the incomplete interviews included compared to 18.5 percent 

including only the completed interviews.1

 Similar increases – a few tenths of a percentage point – 

are found for each of the three types of ID theft. 

Refused to Participate

 

1

 The figures in this appendix cannot be compared with the figures in the body of the report. There are at least two 

reasons for this. First, these data measure the percentage of people whose survey answers indicated that they had 

been a victim of ID theft at some point in their lives, not just in 2005. Second, the data here are not weighted to adjust 

for differences between those who were interviewed and the population at large. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -78- 

 A second problem that can cause the results of a survey to differ from the actual 

experiences of the population being surveyed is the fact that not everyone who is asked to 

participate agrees to do so. Indeed, as shown in the Methodological Report, the response rate for 

this survey was 26 percent. While steps, including the use of random digit dialing to locate survey 

participants, were used to ensure that the sample was as random as possible, if those who did not 

agree to participate differ in some relevant way from those who were actually interviewed, the 

survey results may not reflect the actual experiences of the population as a whole. 

 In order to get some idea of possible differences between those who refused to participate 

in the survey and those who did participate, the contractor persuaded a sample of 100 people who 

were unwilling to participate in the survey to answer a few questions – including the questions 

about whether the person had ever been a victim of ID theft. (This sample is referred to as the 

“Conversion Sample.”) Comparing the prevalence figures for these 100 people to those of the 

people who did agree to participate in the survey can provide some measure of any possible bias 

introduced by the fact that not everyone was willing to participate in the survey. 

 Table 1 contains the relevant figures for the Conversion Sample as well as for the complete 

and incomplete interviews. In general, the responses of the Conversion Sample suggest that 

those who refused to participate in the survey may be somewhat more likely to have experienced 

ID theft than those who agreed to participate in the survey.2

 However, one must be careful in 

drawing conclusions from these data. The Conversion Sample consists of only 100 observations 

and the observed differences are not statistically significant. 

Table 1: Comparison of Prevalence of ID Theft, Complete Interviews Only, Complete and Incomplete Interviews, and 

Conversion Partial Interviews, Ever a Victim 

Complete 

Interviews 

Only 

Complete & 

Incomplete 

Interviews 

Conversion 

Sample 

Victim of Any Kind of ID Theft 18.5% 19.5% 25.0% 

Only Misuse of an Existing Credit Card 8.9% 9.2% 11.0% 

Misuse of Other Existing Accounts 5.1% 5.6% 6.0% 

New Accounts & Other Frauds 4.5% 4.8% 8.0% 

n = 4,916 4,995 100 

Note. The data in this table cannot be compared with the data in the body of the report for at least two 

reasons. First, these data measure the percentage of people who indicate that they have been a victim of 

ID theft at some point in their lives, not in 2005. Second, the data here are not weighted to adjust for 

differences between those who were interviewed and the population at large. 

 

2

 Again, these figures are unweighted and reflect whether the person had ever experienced ID theft. Therefore, they 

cannot be compared directly with the figures in the body of the report. 
2006 Identity Theft Survey Report Page -79- 

APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE 
Identity Theft Study Report 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

INCIDENCE OF IDENTITY THEFT STUDY 

2006 Identity Theft Survey InstrumentHello, I’m ................... of Synovate. I am calling on behalf of the FederCommission, a U.S. government agency that enforces a number of consumer protecticonducting a research survey today. We are not selling anything, and no sales cmade. The survey is anonymous and you will not be asked for any personal inform(READ ONLY IF NECESSARY:) For your information, under the Paperwork Reduction Acagency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. For this sis 3084 - 0124. 

A. In order to interview the right person, I need to speak with the membe

household who is aged 18 or over and has had the most recent birthday. Would th

1. YES (CONTINUE TO QUESTION 1) 2. NO 

IF QA:2 (NO) THEN ASK: 

May I please speak to the person in your household who is 18 years of age or oldmost recent birthday? 

IF THAT PERSON IS NOT HOME, THEN ASK: 

When would be a convenient time for me to call him or her back? 

(REPEAT INTRODUCTION AND QUESTION A WITH NEW RESPONDENT)
Identity Theft Study Report 

10. Have you ever been notified by a company, government agency, or other 

it had lost your personal information, such as an account number or yonumber, or that the information had been stolen or hacked? 1. Yes 2. No – SKIP TO Q13a 3. Don’t Know – SKIP TO Q13a4. Refused – SKIP TO Q13aIf Q10:1, Read: IF YOU RECEIVED MORE THAN ONE NOTIFICATION ABOUT THE L

YOUR INFORMATION, PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE MOST RECENT NOTIFICATION YOU RECEIVED INEXT FIVE QUESTIONS. 

10a. When did you receive that notification? 

1. Since the beginning of 2006 2. In the last 6 months of 2005 3. In the first 6 months of 2005 4. In 2004 5. In 2003 6. In 2002 7. In 2001 8. Before 20019. Don't know 10. Refused 

10aa. Did the notification indicate that your Social Security Number wa

information that was lost or stolen? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t Know 4. Refused 
Identity Theft Study Report 

12. After receiving this notification, did you do anything about the loss 

information?  1. Yes  2. No – SKIP TO Q11 3. Don’t Know – SKIP TO Q11 4. Refused – SKIP TO Q11

13. What did you do about the loss or theft of your information after rece

notification? Did you (INSERT AND RANDOMIZE) (CAN BE MULTIPLES.) 1. Consult a lawyer or other professional 2. Contact the company or agency that sent the notification 3. Place a fraud alert on your credit report 4. Close or put a password on your affected accounts 5. Contact the State Attorney General or a state or local consumer a6. Contact your local police or the local police in another jurisdic7. Contact the government agency that issued the identification numb

or stolen, such as contacting the DMV if your drivers license numstolen (ALWAYS ASK IN THIS ORDER) 

9. Contact the Federal Trade Commission 10. Contact another federal agency (SPECIFY)______ (CAN BE MULTIPLES)11. (ASK LAST) Or contact someone else (SPECIFY)______. 12. Don't Know 13. Refused 

11. Did you discover that someone had misused your information after you r

notification? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t Know 4. Refused 
Identity Theft Study Report 

13a. Have you gotten any free annual credit reports since December 1, 2004? 

1. Yes 2. No – SKIP TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q13. Don’t Know – SKIP TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q14. Refused – SKIP TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q1

13b. How many free annual credit reports did you get? 

1. One 2. Two 3. Three 4. More than three 5. Don’t know 

 6. Refused 

 (IF “YES ” ON Q10, READ: “Now I would like to learn about any actual misuse of whether in connection with the data breach we discussed earlier or as a separate 

1. Has anyone ever placed charges on you existing credit card account wit

your permission? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know 4. Refused 

2. (THERE IS NO Q2)3. (THERE IS NO Q3)4. (THERE IS NO Q4) 6. (THERE IS NO Q6) 
Identity Theft Study Report 

7. Has anyone ever placed charges on or taken money from any of your exis

OTHER THAN a credit card account without your permission? This could iexisting wireless telephone account or an ATM or check card to take mobanking account. 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know 4. Refused

 (ASK IF Q1 = 1 OR IF Q7 = 1; ELSE GO TO Q8) 5. Did someone change the billing address or have themselves added as an 

of . . . ? (READ. ENTER SINGLE RESPONSE FOR EACH TYPE OF ACCOUNT.)1. (READ IF Q1 = 1) any of the credit card account(s) that were mis2. (READ IF Q7 = 1) any of the existing account(s) that were misuse

credit card accounts 

8. Has anyone ever opened NEW credit card accounts, bank accounts, or oth

your personal information such as your Social Security number or date your permission? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t Know 4. Refused 

9. Has anyone ever used your personal information without your permission for some other fraudu

giving your information to the police when they were cited for a traffic violation or charged with a government benefits, medical care, or a job; or renting an apartment or house?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t Know 4. Refused 

IF “YES” ON Q1, Q7, Q8, OR Q9, ASK Q14; OTHERWISE GO TO QD5 BEFORE Q69

14. I would like to learn some more about the misuse of your personal informati

include the misuse of any of your existing accounts, the opening of new acc
Identity Theft Study Report 

other fraud committed using your personal information. First of all, has yinformation been MISUSED within the last five years? 

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't Know 4. Refused 

15. Can you tell me when you DISCOVERED that your personal information had 

(READ LIST IF NECESSARY. ENTER SINGLE RESPONSE.) (INTERVIEWER NOTE: IOR “REFUSED, ” PROBE: Please give me your best estimate.) 1. Since the beginning of 2006 2. In the last 6 months of 2005 3. In the first 6 months of 2005 4. In 2004 5. In 2003 6. In 2002 7. In 2001 8. Before 2001 – SKIP TO QD5 BEFORE Q69 

9. Don't know - SKIP TO QD5 BEFORE Q69 10. Refused - SKIP TO QD5 BEFORE Q69 

16. From the time the misuse of your information first began, how long did 

discover it was being misused? (READ LIST IF NECESSARY. ENTER SINGLE 1. One day or less 2. More than a day but less than a week 3. At least a week, but less than one month 4. 1 to 2 months 5. 3 to 5 months 6. 6 to 11 months, 7. 1 year to less than 2 years 8. 2 years to less than 3 years 9. Or, 3 years or more 10. Don't know 11. Refused 
Identity Theft Study Report 

17. Has the misuse of your personal information stopped, or is someone sti

personal information? 1. Misuse has stopped 2. Still Misusing information – SKIP TO Q213. Don’t Know – SKIP TO Q214. Refused – SKIP TO Q21

18. (THERE IS NO Q18)19. Is the misuse of your personal information still causing you problems? 

you still spending time clearing up your accounts or your credit repormanaged to resolve all of the problems caused by the misuse of your in1. Still experiencing problems – SKIP TO Q212. All problems resolved 3. Did not experience any problems – SKIP TO Q214. Don’t know – SKIP TO Q215. Refused – SKIP TO Q21

20. Can you tell me how long it took you to 

resolve the problems after you discovered that your information was be(READ LIST IF NECESSARY. ENTER SINGLE RESPONSE.) 1. One day or less 2. More than a day but less than a week 3. At least a week, but less than one month 4. 1 to 2 months 5. 3 to 5 months 6. 6 to 11 months 7. 1 year to less than 2 years 8. 2 years to less than 3 years 9. Or, 3 years or more 10. Don’t know 11. Refused 
Identity Theft Study Report 

21. How did you first find out someone had misused your personal informati

Was it...(READ AND RANDOMIZE)? (ENTER SINGLE RESPONSE.) 1. By monitoring your accounts 2. When notified by your credit monitoring service 3. When notified of unusual account activity (PROG NOTE: ALWAYS ASK 4. When contacted by a debt collector 5. When you received a bill you did not owe 6. When you applied for credit, employment, or other services or ben7. When you reviewed your credit report 8. (ASK LAST AND ONLY IF PERSON DOES NOT SELECT ONE OF RESPONSES 1 – 

find out some other way? (SPECIFY) _____________ 

9. Don't know 10. Refused 
Identity Theft Study Report 

IF Q21:1 – “By monitoring your accounts” – ask Q21a; ELSE GO TO Q2321a. You said that you first discovered someone had misused your perso

monitoring your accounts. Was that through: (READ AND RANDOMIZE. ENTER SINGLE RESPONSE.)? 1. Paper statements 2. The Internet, an ATM, or other electronic means 3. Don't know 4. Refused 

22. (THERE IS NO Q22) 23. Was the person who misused your personal information...

(READ AND RANDOMIZE LIST UNTIL AN ANSWER IS GIVEN. ENTER SINGLE RESPO1. Someone you don’t personally know (ALWAYS READ FIRST; PAUSE BEF2. A Family Member or Relative (IF YOU ARE ASKED, THE DEFINITION INC

FORMER FAMILY MEMBERS, INCLUDING IN-LAWS AND STEP-FAMILY MEMBERS)

3. A co-worker who you know 4. A Friend, Neighbor or In Home Employee 5. (ASK LAST AND ONLY IF THE PERSON DOES NOT SELECT ONE OF RESPONSES 

someone else (SPECIFY)_____________ 

6. Don’t know 7. Refused 

IF Q23: 1, 5, 6, or 7, ASK Q25; OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q2425. Do you know anything about HOW your personal information was obtained? 

1. Yes 2. No – GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q293. Don’t know – GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q294. Refused – GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q29
Identity Theft Study Report 

26. How was your personal information obtained? Was it stolen (READ AND R

(ENTER SINGLE RESPONSE.) 1. From your wallet or checkbook 2. From your postal mail 3. As a result of a fraudulent change of address 4. From your garbage 5. During a purchase or other transaction 6. From your employer 7. From someone hacking into your computer 8. As a result of a scam e-mail that you responded to 9. From an office or company that had your personal information in i10. (ASK LAST AND ONLY IF PERSON DOES NOT SELECT ONE OF RESPONES 1-9) 

obtained some other way (SPECIFY)_____ 

11. I don’t know how my information was obtained 12. Refused 
Identity Theft Study Report 

24. Did any police or government official inform you that the person who s

information was . . .? (READ ITEMS A – B IN ORDER. READ ITEM B, “CONVICTED, ” WHETHER THE PEOR “NO ” TO ITEM A, “CAUGHT ”. READ ITEM C ONLY IF THE ANSWER TO ITETHE ANSWER TO ITEM B = “ NO ” RECORD YES/NO FOR EACH ITEM A – C THAT I Yes No DK Ref A. Caught B. Convicted C. Not prosecuted 

IF Q23 = 2,3,4, ASK Q26a AND POP-IN RESPONSE FROM Q23, THEN GO TO INSTRUCTIIF Q23 = 1,5,6 OR 7, AND Q26 = 1 THROUGH 10, READ Q26b, AND POP-IN RESPONSE IF Q26 = 11 OR 12, SKIP TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q29 26a. Can you briefly explain how you know that [READ RESPONSE TO Q23] 

personal information? (RECORD RESPONSE VERBATIM) 

26b. Can you briefly explain how you know that your personal informati

[READ RESPONSE TO Q26] [IFQ26 = 10, READ “in the way you described]? VERBATIM) 

IF Q26:5 – “During a purchase or other transaction ” – ASK Q27. ELSE GO TO BEFORE Q29 27. You indicated that your information was obtained during a purchase or 

transaction. Was the transaction (READ AND RANDOMIZE)? (ENTER SINGLE R1. An Online purchase 2. An In store purchase 3. A Mail Order or telephone purchase 4. An Online financial transaction such as checking your account 

balances or paying bills 

5. (ASK LAST AND ONLY IF PERSON DOES NOT SELECT ONE OF RESPONSES 1-4

Or, Some other type of transaction (SPECIFY) _____________ 

6. Don’t know 7. Refused 
Identity Theft Study Report 

 IF Q26:9 – “From an office or company that had your personal information iASK Q27a. ELSE GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q2927a. You indicated that your information was obtained from an office or com

personal information in its files. Was the person who stole the inforhad been employed by that office or company? 1. Yes 

 2. No 

3. Other (Specify) __________ (DO NOT READ) 4. Don’t know 5. Refused 

28. (THERE IS NO Q28) ASK Q29 - Q31 IF “YES ” TO Q7; OTHERWISE GO TO INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE Q3229. You said that one or more of your existing accounts, other than credit 

accounts, had been misused. Did the person run up charges on, take mootherwise misuse, any of the following accounts? (READ AND RANDOMIZE) RESPONSE FOR EACH ACCOUNT.) ACCOUNTS: Checking or Savings Accounts, including misuse of an ATM or debit card Medical Insurance Accounts Internet or Email Accounts Telephone Accounts, Whether Conventional or Cell Phone Email Payments Accounts, such as Paypal or Bidpay Other accounts (SPECIFY)____________ 

30. (THERE IS NO Q30)
Identity Theft Study Report 

31. ASK IF YES TO CHECKING OR SAVINGS ACCOUNT ON Q29. ELSE, SKIP TO INSTR

You said that one or more of your checking or savings accounts had beedid the person take money from, make payments from, or otherwise misusor savings accounts? Was it ...? (READ AND RANDOMIZE) (CAN BE MULTIPL1. By paper transactions, such as checks 2. By card-based transactions, such as an ATM or payment card 3. By electronic transactions, such as an electronic transfer or ACH 4. Don’t know 5. Refused 

(Read: Now I would like to learn more about any NEW accounts that may have rather than existing accounts that you already had that were misused.) 32. Did the person use your personal information to obtain any (INSERT AND 

ACCOUNTS) 1. New Credit Card Accounts 2. New Checking or Savings Accounts 3. New Loans 4. New Medical Insurance Policies 5. New Automobile Insurance Policies 6. New Email payments Accounts, such as Paypal or Bidpay 7. New Telephone Accounts, Whether Conventional or Cell Phone 8. (ASK LAST) Other new accounts (SPECIFY)____________ 

(FOR EACH TYPE OF ACCOUNT FOR WHICH THE PERSON ANSWERS “ YES ” ON Q32, ASK Q33. How many (INSERT ACCOUNT) were obtained using your information? 

1. #_________ (VALID RANGE 1 TO 25) 2. Don’t know 3. Refused 

IF Q1 is NOT EQUAL TO YES AND Q7 IS NOT EQUAL TO YES AND Q8 IS NOT EQUAL TO YES AANY YES RESPONSES TO Q32, SKIP TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q34. 
Identity Theft Study Report 

35. Were any of the existing accounts that were misused or new accounts th

joint accounts with your spouse or another adult? 1. Yes (GO TO Q35a)

2. No (GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q33a)3. Don’t know (GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q33a)

4. Refused (GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q33a) 

35a. Do you know whose name was used when the joint account or accounts were misused? Was it: 

1. Only your name that was used 2. Only the name of the other person on the account that was used 3. The names of both persons were used 4. Someone else's name was used 8. Don’t know 9. Refused 

IF “Yes” on any of the accounts identified in Q32 and Q8:2, 3, or 4, ASK; INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q34:33a. I notice that you just said that [INSERT RESPONSE(S) TO Q32 TO WHICH T

“ YES ”] had been opened using your personal information. However, whe

earlier if someone had used your personal information to obtain NEW craccounts, loans or other accounts, you answered [INSERT RESPONSE TO Q8briefly explain why you answered these two questions in this way? (REVERBATIM) 

IF “YES” to Q7, Q8, OR Q9, ASK Q34; ELSE GO TO Q36.
Identity Theft Study Report 

34. As far as you know, did the person use your information in any of the 

Did the person (INSERT AND RANDOMIZE) (CAN BE MULTIPLES)? 1. File a fraudulent tax return 2. Obtain medical treatment, services, or supplies 3. Obtain employment 4. Provide your identifying information to law enforcement when they 

charged with a crime 

5. RENT an apartment or house 6. Obtain government benefits, such as Social Security, Medicare, Di

Food Stamps, etc. 

7. (ASK LAST) Use your information in any other way (SPECIFY)_______8. Don't Know 9. Refused 

(IF “Yes ” on any of the fraudulent uses identified in Q34 and Q9:2, 3, or GO TO Q36:34a. I notice that you just said that your personal information had been us

RESPONSE(S) TO Q34 TO WHICH THE PERSON ANSWERED “ YES ”]. However, whesomeone had used your personal information for some other fraudulent purpose, such as to obtdocuments, medical care, or a job, you answered [INSERT RESPONSE TO Q9]. Can you why you answered these two questions in this way? (RECORD RESPONSE VE

36. What is the approximate total dollar value of what the person 

obtained while misusing your information? In answering this question, include the value of credit, loans, cash, services, and anything else e obtained. 1. RECORD EXACT AMOUNT. __________. (IF OVER $1,000, PROBE: I just 

that the total amount is (INSERT AMOUNT RESPONDENT INDICATED) 
Identity Theft Study Report 

IF PERSON SAYS DON’T KNOW OR DECLINES TO PROVIDE AN AMOUNT ON Q36, ASK Q37; INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q67: 37. Can you tell me whether (READ RESPONSES 1-3 IN ORDER. ENTER SINGLE RE

1. The thief got $1,000 or more – GO TO Q402. The thief got less than $1,000, or – GO TO Q39 3. You don’t know if the thief got more or less than $1,000 – GO TO 

Q67

4. Refused – GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q67

38. DELETE Q38 39. Was the value 

1. Less than $100 2. $100 - $499 3. $500 - $999 4. Don’t know 5. Refused 

GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q6740. Was the value 

1. $1,000 - $4,999 2. $5,000 - $9,999 3. $10,000 - $24,999 4. $25,000 - $49,999 5. $50,000 - $99,999 6. $100,000 or more 7. Don’t know 8. Refused 

IF “YES” ON Q35, THEN READ: You indicated that one or more of the accounts misused or opened were joint accounts with another adult. In answering the questions, please consider both actions taken or amounts paid by yourself awith whom you held the joint accounts. 67. What other types of problems, IF ANY, have you experienced as a result 

of your personal information? Have you (INSERT AND RANDOMIZE)? 
Identity Theft Study Report 

1. Been turned down for a loan 2. Had banking problems, such as being turned down for a checking ac

checks rejected 

3. Had credit problems, such as being turned down for a credit card, 

rejected 

4. Had phone or utilities cut off, or been denied new service 5. Been turned down for insurance or had to pay higher rates 6. Been harassed by a debt collector or collections department 7. Had a lawsuit filed or a judgment entered against you 8. Been the subject of a criminal proceeding 9. Had to repeatedly correct the same information on your credit rep10. (ASK LAST) Had any other types of problems (SPECIFY) ____________11. Don't know 12. Refused 

41. How much money did you pay out of your pocket as a result of the misus

information? In thinking about this answer, include costs for things wages, legal fees, or payment of any fraudulent debts. Also include mexpenses such as postage, and notarizing documents. 1. RECORD EXACT AMOUNT. __________. (IF OVER $1,000, PROBE: I just 

that the total amount is (INSERT AMOUNT RESPONDENT INDICATED) 

IF RESPONSE IS $0, GO TO Q48 IF PERSON GIVES AN AMOUNT GREATER THAN $0, GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q46 IF PERSON SAYS DON’T KNOW OR DECLINES TO PROVIDE AN AMOUNT ON Q41, ASK Q42: 42. Would you say out of your own pocket you had to pay... (READ RESPONSES 1 

ENTER SINGLE RESPONSE.) 1. $500 or more – GO TO Q452. Less than $500, or – GO TO Q44 3. You don’t know if you had to pay more or less than $500 – GO TO I

Q46

4. Refused – GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q46

43. DELETE Q43 
Identity Theft Study Report 

44. Was the amount 

1. $0 – (GO TO Q48)2. Less than $50 (GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q46)3. $50 - $99 (GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q46)4. $100 - $499 (GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q46)5. Don’t know (GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q46)6. Refused (GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q46)

45. Was the amount 

1. $500 - $999 2. $1,000 - $4,999 3. $5,000 - $9,999 4. $10,000 or more 5. Don’t know 6. Refused 

IF Q1 = 1, ASK Q46; ELSE GO TO Q47 46. How much, if any, did your credit card company require you to pay in c

the unauthorized purchases on your card? (READ LIST IF NECESSARY. ENTE(IF OVER $1,000, PROBE: I just want to verify that the total amount is RESPONDENT INDICATED)? 1. Nothing 2. $1 to $49 3. $51 - $99 4. $100 - $249 5. $250 - $499 6. $500 - $999 7. $1,000 or more 8. Don’t know 9. Refused 

47. Did you pay any money to a debt collection agency to resolve 

any unauthorized purchases or expenditures? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. Refused 
Identity Theft Study Report 

48. How many hours of your own time have you spent resolving credit, finan

problems caused by the theft of your information? In estimating the aspent, please include any time that you spent at work and any time spefrom work. (INTERVIEWER: CODE ANYTHING LESS THAN ONE HOUR AS “ 1 ” )1. RECORD EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS. __________. (IF OVER 80 HOURS, PRO

verify that the total amount is (INSERT NUMBER OF HOURS RESPONDEN

IF PERSON SAYS DON’T KNOW OR DECLINES TO PROVIDE A NUMBER OF HOURS ON Q48, TO Q53: 49. To resolve any problems you had, would you say that you had to spend. 

IN ORDER; RECORD SINGLE RESPONSE) 1. 40 hours or more – GO TO Q522. Less than 40 hours, or – GO TO Q513. You don’t know if it took more or less than 40 hours to resolve t

TO Q53

4. Refused – GO TO Q53

50. DELETE Q50 51. Was the number of hours (READ CODES 1 – 3; RECORD SINGLE RESPONSE)

1. 1 hour or less 2. 2 to 9 hours 3. 10 to 39 hours 4. Don’t know 5. Refused 

GO TO Q5352. Was the number of hours (READ CODES 1 – 4; RECORD SINGLE RESPONSE)

1. 40 to 79 hours 2. 80 to 159 hours 3. 160 to 239 hours 4. 240 hours or more 5. Don’t know 6. Refused 
Identity Theft Study Report 

53. Did you contact anyone – such as a credit card company, a local police 

credit bureau, or a lawyer– in attempting to report the theft or misusinformation or resolve the problems caused by the misuse of your infor1. Yes - GO TO Q54

2. No – GO TO INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE Q53a3. Don't know – GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q684. Refused – GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q68

IF Q7 = 1 OR Q8 = 1, OR Q9 = 1, ASK Q53a; IF Q41 IS $1 OR MORE AND Q46 = CODES 2 – 7, ASK Q53a; IF Q48 = 2 OR MORE, ASK Q53a. ELSE GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q6853a. Can you briefly explain why you did not contact anyone to report the m

personal information or resolve any problems that it caused? I am parinterested in why you did not contact your local police department or reporting agencies. (RECORD RESPONSE VERBATIM) 

GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q68
Identity Theft Study Report 

54. Did you contact (INSERT AND RANDOMIZE)? (CAN BE MULTIPLES)

1. A lawyer or other professional 2. One or more Credit Reporting Agencies 3. The Department of Motor Vehicles 4. The Better Business Bureau 5. A consumer group, such as National Consumers League or Call for A6. One or more companies where an account was opened or misused, 

including a credit card issuer 

7. The State Attorney General or a state or local consumer agency 8. Your local police or the local police in another jurisdiction9. The insurance company where you have identity theft insurance 

(ALWAYS ASK IN THIS ORDER): 

10. The Federal Trade Commission 11. Another federal agency (SPECIFY)______. 12. (ASK LAST) Someone else (SPECIFY)______. 13. Don't Know 14. Refused 

IF Q54:8 – “Notify your local police or the local police in another jurisdi

“ YES, ” GO TO Q55. ELSE GO TO NEXT INSTRUCTION. 

IF Q7 = 1 OR Q8 = 1, OR Q9 = 1, ASK Q54a; IF Q41 IS $1 OR MORE AND Q46 = CODES 2 – 7, ASK Q54a; IF Q48 = 2 OR MORE, ASK Q54a. 

 ELSE GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q58 

Q54a: I’d like to learn more about why identity theft victims do not re

police. Can you briefly explain why you did not contact your local popolice in another jurisdiction? (RECORD RESPONSE VERBATIM) 

GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q58.55. Did the police take a police report from you about the misuse of your 

1. Yes 2. No – GO TO 573. Don't know – GO TO 574. Refused – GO TO 57
Identity Theft Study Report 

56. Did you get a copy of the report? 

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know 4. Refused 

57. How satisfied were you with the response of your local police when you 

your personal information had been misused? (READ LIST. ENTER SINGLE R4. Very Satisfied 3. Somewhat Satisfied 2. Somewhat Dissatisfied, or 1. Very Dissatisfied 5. Don’t Know 6. Refused 

IF Q57:1 OR 2; ASK Q57a; OTHERWISE GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q5857a. Can you briefly explain why you were [INSERT RESPONSE TO Q57] with the 

local police? (RECORD RESPONSE VERBATIM) 
Identity Theft Study Report 

IF Q54:3 – “Notify the Department of Motor Vehicles, Q54:7 – “ Notify the SGeneral or a state or local consumer agency, ” OR Q54:10 – “Notify another ASK Q58; OTHERWISE GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q6058. Did the [POP-IN “ Department of Motor Vehicles if Q54:3, “State Attorn

state or local consumer agency ” if Q54:7 or “Federal agency ” if Q54:take a report about the misuse of your personal information? 1. Yes 2. No – GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q603. Don't know – GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q604. Refused – GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q60

59. Did you get a copy of the report? 

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know 4. Refused (ASK Q60 IF Q54:2 – “Notify one or more credit reporting agencies; ” I:2, ASK 66a)

60. You indicated that you notified one or more credit reporting agencies. 

many credit reporting agencies did you contact? (ENTER SINGLE RESPONSE1. One 2. Two 3. Three, or 4. More than three 5. Don’t know 6. Refused IF Q60 = 1, ASK Q62; ELSE GO TO Q63. 
Identity Theft Study Report 

62. How many, if any, additional credit reporting agencies contacted you a

the one agency? (ENTER SINGLE RESPONSE.) 1. None 2. One 3. Two 4. Three, or 5. More than three 6. Don’t know 7. Refused 

63. Were “temporary” or initial 90-day fraud alerts placed on your credit 

credit reporting agencies you contacted or that contacted you? (DO NOT READ LIST. ENTER SINGLE RESPONSE.) (IF CLARIFICATION NEEDED, FRAUD ALERTS MIGHT HAVE BEEN CALLED “TEMPORARY” FRAUD ALERTS AND MIGHMORE THAN 90 DAYS PRIOR TO 2005.) 1. Yes 2. No – GO TO Q663. Don't Know – GO TO Q664. Refused – GO TO Q66

64. (THERE IS NO Q64) 65. Were any new accounts opened after the initial 90-day fraud alerts wer

on your credit reports? (DO NOT READ ANSWER LIST. ENTER SINGLE RESPON1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know 4. Refused 
Identity Theft Study Report 

66. Have you placed 7-year or permanent fraud alerts on your credit report

CLARIFICATION NEEDED, “ 7-YEAR ” FRAUD ALERTS MAY ALSO BE CALLED “PERMALERTS) 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't Know 4. Refused 

61. Did you place a freeze on your credit reports at the credit reporting 

contacted? That is, did you tell any of the credit reporting agencies credit report with anyone, such as a potential creditor, unless you “uthat specific purpose? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t Know 4. Refused 

 IF Q53 does not :2 “No, did not contact anyone, ” and Q54 DOES NOT :2 – “ Notify one or more credit reporting agencies;” ask Q66a Q66a: I would like to know more about why identity theft victims do not not

reporting agencies. Can you briefly explain why you did not contact areporting agencies? (RECORD RESPONSE VERBATIM) 

ASK Q68 IF Q48 is 10 HOURS OR GREATER OR IF Q50:1 OR Q51:3 68. What was the hardest part of your experience with the misuse of your p

information? (RECORD VERBATIM. PROBE FOR CLARIFICATION. IF RESPONDENT ENCOURAGE BEST GUESS) 
Identity Theft Study Report 

ASK IF Q1 = 1 AND Q7 IS NOT EQUAL TO YES AND Q8 IS NOT EQUAL TO YES AND Q9 YES.Q68b. Which of the following best describes the misuse of your existing credit card? (READ, RANDOM

ACCEPT ONE MENTION ONLY)

1. A company I had given my card or card number to charged me for a product that I 

purchase 

2. A company I had given my card or card number to charged me more or for someth

I had agreed to purchase 

3. I gave my card number to someone who claimed to be with a company where I ha

used it to obtain cash, goods, or services for themselves 

4. Someone took my card or card number and used it to obtain cash, goods, or servi5. Other (SPECIFY) 6. Don't know 7. Refused 

QD5. How many people in your household are: 

1. Under 18 years old. Record exact number _____ (IF 0, GO TO INSTRU

QD1.) 

2. Between 13 and 17. Record exact number ______ 3. Refused 

IF ANSWER TO QD5 IS “ONE ” OR MORE, ASK Q69. ELSE, GO TO INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE QD

69. Has any member of your household who is currently under the age of 18 

form of misuse of their personal information? 1. Yes 2. No -GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE QD13. Don’t Know - GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE QD14 .Refused - GO TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE QD1
Identity Theft Study Report 

69a. How many members of your household currently under the age of 18 have 

form of misuse of their personal information? 1. #________________ (VALID RANGE 1 - 6) 

IF 69a: ONE, READ Q70; IF 69a: TWO OR MORE, READ Q70a IF Q69A IS DON’T KNOW OR REFUSED, READ Q70A70. How long ago was it first discovered that the minor’s personal informa

misused? 

70a. For the minor who most recently discovered that their personal informa

misused, how long ago was the misuse first discovered? (USE ANSWERS BQUESTION IS ASKED)1. Since the beginning of 2006 2. In the last 6 months of 2005 3. In the first 6 months of 2005 4. In 2004 5. In 2003 6. In 2002 7. In 2001 8. Before 2001 9. Don’t Know 10. Refused 

71. (THERE IS NO Q71) ASK QD1 – QD9 if Q1=1, Q7=1, Q8=1, Q9=1, OR Q69=1. ASK QD1 – QD9 OF A RANDOM SAMPLE OF 600 OTHER SURVEY PARTICIPANTS. IF Q1 NOT EQUAL TO YES, AND Q7 NOT EQUAL TO YES AND Q8 NOT EQUAL TO YES AND YES AND Q69 NOT EQUAL TO YES, AND NOT SELECTED FOR DEMOGRAPHICS, THANK AND 
Identity Theft Study Report 

Now, for statistical purposes only QD1. May I please have your age as of your last birthday? (DO NOT READ LIS

RESPONDENT HESITATES) 1. Under 25 2. 25 to 34 3. 35 to 44 4. 45 to 49 5. 50 to 54 6. 55 to 59 7. 60 to 64 8. 65 to 69 9. 70 to 74 10. 75 to 84 11. 85 or older 12. Refused 

QD2. What was the last grade of school you completed? (DO NOT READ) 

1. Completed grade school or less 2. Some high school, not completed 3. Completed high school 4. Some college, not completed 5. Completed college 6. Post graduate work (such as a masters degree, PhD, MD or law degr

started or completed) 

7. Refused 

QD3. Are you married? 

1. Yes 2. No 3. Refused 

QD4. How many people live in your household at the present time? Please in

any children. 1. Record exact number ______ 2. Refused 

QD6. Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin? 
Identity Theft Study Report 

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. Refused 

QD7. I am going to read a list of racial categories. Please choose one or m

that best indicates your race. Are you? (READ AND RANDOMIZE 1 – 5. ENEACH. IF PERSON REFUSES TO ANSWER ON FIRST TWO RACES READ, CODE “ REFUSRACES AND SKIP TO QD8)1. White 2. Black or African American 3. American Indian or Alaska Native 4. Asian 5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 6. Some other race (ASK ONLY IF NO OR DK OR REF TO ALL PARTS 1 - 5)7. Don’t Know 8. Refused 

QD8. Now I would like to read a series of income groups. Please stop me wh

group which describes your total household income, from all sources, o1. Under $15,000 2. $15,000 to less than $20,000 3. $20,000 to less than $25,000 4. $25,000 to less than $30,000 5. $30,000 to less than $40,000 6. $40,000 to less than $50,000 7. $50,000 to less than $75,000 8. $75,000 to less than $100,000 9. $100,000 or more 10. Don’t know 11. Refused 

QD9. What is your gender? (By Observation) 

1. Male 2. Female 

THANK THE PERSON FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION AND TERMINATE