Summary of ID Theft Stats
From Amanda Welsh, Author of "The Identity Theft Protection Guide"
Updated 10/14/04
amanda AT amandawelsh.com
	FTC survey	Gartner survey	Privacy and American Business survey	STAR Systems survey		FTC ID Theft Clearinghouse	ID Theft Resource Center	CALPIRG and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
METHODOLOGY
Date	Sep-03	May-03	May-03	Nov-02		2003	Summer 2003	May-00
Survey Method	RDD (four waves) by TeleNation	Mailed survey	Harris Interactive Online survey	RDD by TeleNation		Reports from victims for 2003 calendar year	Interviews with victims
Sample size	4057 US adults	2445 US Households	3462 US Households	2000 US adults			173 known victims	66 victims
FINDINGS
Number of victims	9.91M	7M	7M	11.8M		214,905	173
	from Sep 02-Sep 03	from June 02-May 03	in 2002	before 11/02
% of US Population	4.6%	3.4%	3.4%	5.5%
Growth from last study	41% increase of those reporting ID theft from last year vs. between 1 and 2 years ago	79% increase from 02 study	81% increase from 02 study			33% increase from 2002
Additional victim quantification	27M since 1999		13M since Jan 2001
			33.4M since 1990
Number of hours victims spent fixing problem	30 hours						600 hours	175 hours over two years
Cost to victim (aggregate)	$5B
Average cost to victim	$500		$740	$512				$808
Cost to business (aggregate)	$50B
Types of ID Theft
Misused existing credit accounts	67%		34%	14%		12%
Opened new credit account	8%		10%	29%		19%
Bank account takeover or creation	22%		7%			17%
Commit crime	4%					2%
Got fake gov't docs or benefits	5%					8%
How information was compromised
Stolen from mailbox	4%		7%	4%
Lost or stolen wallet, credit card, etc.	roughly 20%		16%	16%
Stolen by friend, relative, etc.	roughly 20%		16%					17%
Don't know	49%			35%
COMMENTS
	Population numbers are projected from sample. Telephone methodology creates quantifiable bias. Use of panel may have introduced other unquantified bias.	Population numbers are projected from sample. Sample incidence (i.e. what percent of mailed surveys were ignored) is unknown so potential bias unknown.	Population numbers are projected from sample. Online surveys have known bias toward more affluent and educated respondents.	Numbers are projected from sample. Telephone methodology creates quantifiable bias. Use of panel may have introduced other unquantified bias.		Report of behavioral data. Given low incidence of reporting suggested by surveys, results should not be projected to broader US population.	Report of behavioral data with strong indication of bias. Victims seeking assistance from consumer advocacy groups should be expected to represent more extreme cases.	Report of behavioral data with strong indication of bias. Victims seeking assistance from consumer advocacy groups should be expected to represent more extreme cases.