Consequences of Identity Theft Victimization: Disabilities and Mental Distress

Abstract

This study contributes to the growing literature on consequences of identity theft victimization as well as the broader literature on disabilities and victimization by exploring the connection between mental distress and disability status of an identity theft victim. This study analyzes data from the 2018 iteration of the National Crime Victimization Survey Identity Theft Supplement. Specifically, through logistic regression analysis, this study examines if severe mental distress experienced by identity theft victims varies in relation to their disability status and disability type. Identity theft victims with physical disabilities and multiple forms of disabilities are more likely than individuals with no disabilities to experience severe mental distress after their identity theft victimization. Practice and research implications are discussed.

Keywords

identity theft disability distress mental health the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

Introduction

The intersection between disability and criminal justice topics has been less frequently studied in the fields of criminal justice and criminology in comparison to other fields of study (Hayes & Powers, 2022; Wallace, 2021). This is a concerning knowledge gap for the United States (US) because disabilities are very common among the general population and the incarcerated US population (Bronson et al., 2015; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2023; Zablotsky et al., 2019).

Still, the scant literature on the connection between disabilities and victimization has established that individuals with disabilities have higher odds of experiencing victimization and severe distress in the aftermath of victimization in comparison to individuals without disabilities (Brownridge, 2006; Dembo et al., 2018; Harrell, 2021; Tucker et al., 2017). A handful of studies in the past two decades on violent victimization and stalking have further demonstrated that victimization risk (Harrell, 2017, 2021; Rand & Harrell, 2009; Reyns & Scherer, 2018, 2019), consequences of victimization (Hayes & Powers, 2022), and reporting of victimization (Powers & Hayes, 2023) can vary across individuals with different disabilities.

These aforementioned studies underline the need for a disaggregated analysis of victimization outcomes across individuals with different forms of disability. The current study expands upon this scant literature by exploring mental distress experiences among identity theft victims with different forms of disability. Identity theft is a crime category that has not been considered in the existing literate on emotional outcomes of victimization for individuals with disabilities. This is a critical gap in the literature considering the alarming evidence on the adverse mental health outcomes of identity theft victimization including increasing suicidal ideation among identity theft victims in the past few years (Identity Theft Resource Center [ITRC], 2023).

Several factors such as increasing sophistication in identity theft incidents, the misconception of identity theft as a crime with only financial consequences or a crime that is not as serious as other crimes, the shame surrounding identity theft victimization because of the perceptions about the naiveness or technological incompetence of a person whose personal information is stolen, and the limitation of non-financial services for identity theft victims contribute to a ripe environment for aggravated mental health outcomes among identity theft victims (Irvin-Erickson & Ricks, 2019; ITRC, 2023).

Individuals with disabilities, one of the largest marginalized groups in the US, might be at heightened risk of experiencing the most severe mental distress outcomes of identity theft due to the barriers against help-seeking among individuals with disabilities and unique factors that can increase the risk of identity theft victimization and re-victimization among this marginalized group in the US. This study contributes to the growing literature on consequences of identity theft victimization as well as the broader literature on disabilities and victimization by exploring this potential connection between mental distress and disability status of an identity theft victim.

Background

Disabilities in the US

About one in four US adults have some form of disability (CDC, 2023) and one in six children in the US (Zablotsky et al., 2019) are reported to have some form of developmental disability. The Section 4302 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) provides guidance for data collection elements for capturing different forms of disabilities in the US. Based on the ACA guidance, national and state-based surveys in the US such as the American Community Survey (ACS), the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) consider six broad categories of disabilities to estimate the prevalence of disabilities among their samples: disabilities in relation to hearing, vision, cognition (i.e., difficulty in concentrating, remembering, or making decisions), mobility (i.e., difficulty of walking or climbing stairs), self-care (i.e., difficulty in getting dressed up or bathing), and independent living (i.e., difficulty in running errands such as shopping or going to the doctor). The NCVS, which is the data source for this study, specifically defines disabilities as “the product of interactions among individuals’ bodies; their physical, emotional, and mental health; and the physical and social environment in which they live, work, or play” and considers the limiting impact of these interactions in a person’s ability to participate in daily activities (Harrell, 2021, p. 3).

The CDC’s analysis of the BRFSS, a state-based phone survey of US adults aged 18 years and older, demonstrated that disabilities are very common among the non-institutionalized US population with about 25% of the BRFSS sample experiencing at least one form of disability (Okoro et al., 2018). This study further showcased the intersectionality of disabilities with other commonly studied indicators of marginalization in the US. In the 2016 BRFSS sample, disabilities were generally more common among women, older individuals, individuals who identify with minority racial/ethnic categories, adults with income below the federal poverty level (FPL), and persons in the South US Census region. Looking at specific forms of disability, with the exception of hearing, all other disabilities were more common among women. Again, with the exception of hearing, White individuals in the 2016 BRFSS sample were the least likely to have any other form of disabilities in comparison to individuals with other ethnic/racial identities.

Okoro et al. (2018) further demonstrated that there are differences in the prevalence of different forms of disabilities in the general population and certain demographics might be more likely to experience a particular form of disability. For instance, in the general population, disabilities in relation to mobility were the most common followed by disabilities in relation to cognition, independent living, hearing, vision, and self-care. According to the FPL classifications, all forms of disability were most prevalent in the poor income category. Lastly, all forms of disabilities considered in the BRFSS were more prevalent among individuals living in the South US Census region in comparison to other regions of the US.

Disabilities and Victimization Outcomes

Descriptive analyses of data from the NCVS, which is the primary data source on criminal victimization in the US, show that individuals with cognitive disabilities (Rand & Harrell, 2009) and individuals with multiple forms of disability (Harrell, 2017) have higher odds violent crime victimization. Another study by Reyns and Scherer (2018) based on the American College Health Association’s National College Health Assessment II survey found that college students with disabilities had significantly higher odds of stalking victimization than students who did not have a disability. The same study further found that students with mental disabilities had the highest risk of stalking victimization followed by students with physical disabilities and students with learning disabilities. Another study by Powers and Hayes (2023) found that victims with cognitive disabilities were less likely to self-report their victimization to the police. According to the same study, fear of reprisal was a significant correlate of not contacting the police among individuals with physical and cognitive disabilities. Among survivors of violent crime who are deaf or hard of hearing, blind or with severe visual impairment, or with physical disabilities, perceptions of inefficiency of the law enforcement was another significant correlate of not contacting the police.

Another seminal study on the relationship between disabilities and victimization by Hayes and Powers (2022) examined the physical and emotional consequences of violent victimization using data from the NCVS and found that there are also differences among victims with disabilities with regards to the consequences experienced by the victims in the aftermath of their victimization. Specifically, Hayes and Powers (2022) demonstrated that in comparison to individuals with no disability, individuals with physical disabilities had higher odds of experiencing any type of injury and individuals with cognitive disabilities had higher odds of severe injury. Hayes and Powers (2022) further found that in comparison to victims with no disabilities, victims who are deaf or hard of hearing were less likely to experience distress.

Due to the limited number of research studies in the field of criminology on the connection between disabilities and victimization, the criminological theory development on this connection has been limited. However, the existing literature on interpersonal violence and disabilities suggest that routine activities and lifestyles of individuals with disabilities can affect their victimization risk and their likelihood of experiencing more serious outcomes in the aftermath of victimization. Specifically, studies on interpersonal violence suggest that individuals with disabilities can be more attractive for crimes and aggravated outcomes of victimization due to their perceived vulnerability by likely offenders and perceived unreliability in describing their victimization experiences (Hayes & Powers, 2022; Reyns & Scherer, 2018, 2019). Among individuals with disabilities, individuals with cognitive disabilities might be particularly prone to higher odds of victimization due to issues in relation to processing the victimization event and barriers against seeking help and describing the incident (Hayes & Powers, 2022). The broader practitioner discussions on fraud support some of these assertions. Experts on fraud and abuse of older individuals argue that individuals with cognitive issues and isolated individuals can be perceived more attractive for frauds (Karp & Kirkman, 2016; National Center for Victims of Crime and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Investor Education Foundation, 2013) and individuals who have cognitive disabilities can have a hard time understanding or remembering a fraud experience and therefore be less likely to report their victimization and receive support in the aftermath of their victimization (Deem, 2018; Irvin-Erickson & Ricks, 2019).

Mental Distress and Utilization of Health Resources Among Individuals With Disabilities

Frequent and intense mental distress can have severe consequences for individuals including development of mental health disorders and increased use of health services. Individuals with disabilities have a higher risk for these adverse outcomes. Individuals with disabilities are 4.6 times more likely than individuals without disabilities to experience frequent mental distress and individuals with disabilities have been shown to have reduced access to healthcare in comparison to individuals without disabilities (Cree et al., 2020).

Studies have shown that there are also disparities among individuals with disabilities with regards to their experiences of mental distress and health care access. For instance, according to the 2018 iteration of the BRFSS, individuals with mobility or cognitive disabilities had higher prevalence of frequent mental distress in comparison to individuals without disabilities. These higher odds were especially pronounced for individuals with cognitive disabilities and individuals with concurrent cognitive and mobility disabilities (Cree et al., 2020). Another study on health care access among adults with disabilities by age group (i.e., 18–44, 45–64, 65 years old, or older) showed that among US adults with disabilities, older individuals had more positive indicators of health care access such as higher prevalence of having a health insurance or a health care provider, higher prevalence of receiving a check-up in the past year, and lower prevalence of unmet health care needs because of cost of care (Okoro et al., 2018). According to the same study, while cost of care was a bigger obstacle to receiving care among younger adults with an independent living disability and middle-aged adults with a vision disability, this obstacle was less prevalent among younger and middle-aged adults who are deaf or hard of hearing. Considering the aforementioned health disparities between individuals with and without disability and among individuals with different forms of disability, it is logical to assume that individuals with disabilities in general and individuals with certain forms of disabilities or multiple forms of disabilities in particular might experience more severe mental distress in the aftermath of an adverse event such as victimization.

Emotional Consequences of Identity Theft Victimization

The opportunity structure for identity theft is quite different from violent and property crimes due to the increasingly technological nature of identity theft (Pascual et al., 2018) and the associated unknowns about the identity theft incidents such as when, where, how, and by whom the personal information were stolen (Harrell, 2017, 2019, 2021). The growing evidence base on the consequences of identity theft victimization has identified several incident-specific and demographic correlates of negative consequences of identity theft victimization.

Identity theft victims, similar to victims of other crimes, can experience a diverse array of harms in the aftermath of their victimization including economic harms, emotional harms, legal issues, and problems with their family, friends, school, and work (Green et al., 2020; Harrell, 2017, 2019, 2021; Harrell & Langton, 2013; ITRC, 2018; Langton & Planty, 2010; Ponemon Institute, 2013; Synovate, 2007). Fraud trauma syndrome is a term developed by researchers to emphasize the strong negative emotional states experienced by fraud victims such as anger, fear, hopelessness, lack of trust, and paranoia all of which resemble the mental and emotional experiences of violent crime victims (see Glodstein et al., 2010). Research utilizing data from NCVS’s Identity Theft Supplement (ITS; see Golladay & Holtfreter, 2017; Harrell, 2017, 2019, 2021; Langton & Planty, 2010; Randa & Reyns, 2019), surveys with identity theft victims conducted by ITRC (see ITRC, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018a, 2018b), and interviews with identity theft victims (Betz, 2012; Green et al., 2020) demonstrate that identity theft victims experience a plethora of emotional consequences.

Correlates of Negative Emotional Outcomes Among Identity Theft Victims

Three inferential studies to date examined the correlates of negative emotional consequences among identity theft victims. Collectively, these studies suggest that emotional consequences experienced in the aftermath of the identity theft victimization (i.e., level of mental distress and number of emotional consequences experienced by the victim) can be correlated with victim, victimization incident, and past victimization related factors (DeLiema et al., 2021; Golladay & Holtfreter, 2017; Randa & Reyns, 2019).

From these three studies, two of them focused on the mental distress reported by identity theft victims. Randa and Reyns (2019), utilizing data from the 2012 iteration of the ITS and with a situational lens informed by prior analyses of victimization outcomes (see Bouffard & Koeppel, 2014; Britt, 2001; DeLisi et al., 2014; Johnson & Kercher, 2009), examined the impact of specific features of an identity theft incident (and specifically the impact of reporting of victimization to authorities) on non-financial consequences of identity theft. This study found that, demographically, being older and being a female were risk factors for experiencing moderate or severe mental distress whereas having a higher education provided a protection effect against moderate and severe mental distress. Randa and Reyns (2019) further found that victimization incident specific characteristics such as taking a longer time to clear problems in relation to an identity theft incident and near and relatively more distant past identity theft experiences such as non-zero monetary loss associated with identity theft experiences in the past year and identity theft experiences beyond the past year were associated with higher odds of experiencing severe and moderate stress in the aftermath of identity theft victimization.

Another study by DeLiema et al. (2021), based on two pooled iterations of the ITS and focusing solely on identity theft victims aged 65 years and older, found that female identity theft victims (in comparison to males) and individuals who identify as Black, Asian, Indigenous, Pacific Islander, or another racial/ethnic category other than Hispanic were more likely to experience moderate or severe distress (in comparison to non-Hispanic Whites). The authors further found that individuals who experience a theft of $101 or more (in comparison to identity theft attempts in which no money is successfully stolen); individuals who discover the victimization incident 2 days to 6 months after the incident (in comparison to individuals who discover the incident within 1 day following the incident); victims who experience out-of-pocket losses after the incident, victims who spend more hours resolving the incident, victims who experience financial and credit problems, and problems with family and friends in the aftermath of the incident were more likely to experience moderate or severe distress. This study also found a significant relationship between experience of multiple identity theft incidents within the past year and experiencing moderate or severe distress. DeLiema et al. (2021) further found that individuals who experienced only existing credit card account frauds in the past year were significantly less likely to experience moderate or severe distress in comparison to individuals who experienced other forms of existing account frauds and new account frauds in the past year.

Although these two studies by Randa and Reyns (2019) and DeLiema et al. (2021) did not report on the magnitude of the aforementioned effects, the reported odds ratios of the tested relationships suggest small effect sizes for majority of the variables (with odds ratios less than 2) with non-zero net dollar loss in the past year in relation to identity theft experiences (Randa & Reyns, 2019), the total money lost in relation to the incident (DeLiema et al., 2021), and problems experienced with family and friends and at work and school in the aftermath of the incident (DeLiema et al., 2021)¹ being the comparatively stronger correlates of experiencing moderate or severe distress among identity theft victims with odds ratios corresponding to medium to large effect sizes.

Expectations on Distress Experiences Among Identity Theft Victims With Disabilities

Although there is very little knowledge on the risk, reporting, and potential consequences of identity theft victimization among individuals with disabilities, the broader literature on disabilities and victimization suggests several structural, interpersonal, and individual-level risk factors that can put individuals with disabilities at heightened risk of victimization and reduce their chances of seeking help from formal and informal resources which can in turn increase the odds that individuals with disabilities experience higher levels of mental distress.

As discussed in earlier sections, individuals with disabilities in general, and individuals with particular forms of disability, are at an increased risk for experiencing more frequent mental distress and more adverse outcomes as a result of frequent mental distress. Furthermore, victims with disabilities can experience aggravated emotional consequences as a response to victimization in comparison to victims with no disability (Dembo et al., 2018). Studies further show that these experiences are not homogeneous across individuals with different forms of disability (Hayes & Powers, 2022; Reyns & Scherer, 2018).

The aforementioned aggravated harms experienced by crime victims with disabilities and unique experiences of victims from different disability groups can affect these victims’ willingness to report their victimization to the police and other organizations who can provide critical support for their recovery. Some of these unique barriers against help-seeking among individuals with disabilities might include reliance on others for care and decision-making; difficulties individuals might experience in understanding appropriateness of situations and discerning between trusted individuals and others; barriers individuals might experience in communication including communication with trusted individuals, law enforcement, and other entities; a culture of compliance for individuals in care settings and in communication with authority figures, failure in understanding signs of victimization among caregivers, and failure to believe or acknowledge victim and third-party reports of abuse (OVC, 2012; Petersilia, 2001; Powers & Hayes, 2023).

Some of the aforementioned barriers individuals with disabilities will face in reporting their victimization are expected to be similar with the help-seeking barriers faced by other vulnerable demographic groups. However, in the case of identity theft victimization, it is also reasonable to argue that individuals with disabilities might face unique challenges in their efforts to contact law enforcement entities and other entities including financial institutions that are key to resolving financial and other issues in the aftermath of identity theft victimization. Individuals with cognitive disabilities might face barriers in verbal and written communication with law enforcement and financial institutions. There have been many improvements in the past decade to make physical spaces accessible and websites of organizations inclusive for individuals with different forms of disabilities. Still, individuals who prefer in-person reporting of their victimization might face barriers to find reliable and accessible transportation. In the case of reporting of victimization to financial institutions, online banking has alleviated some of the barriers of in-person banking. However, banking and credit card institutions’ websites might not be in full compliance with the American Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines which might make reporting of identity theft victimization to financial institutions challenging for individuals with different forms of disabilities. Individuals with disabilities might also have more fear of reaching out to law enforcement and other authorities with fear of being institutionalized or their credibility being questioned (Powers & Hayes, 2023). All of these barriers can increase the chances that individuals with disabilities will face more problems in the aftermath of their victimization, spend more time trying to resolve any outstanding issues, and experience more costs including out-of-pocket costs as a result of identity theft victimization, all of which have been identified by the existing literature to increase odds of mental distress among identity theft victims. Based on the aforementioned literature, this study posits that an identity theft victim’s disability status and the form(s) of disability experienced by an identity theft victim might affect the severity of mental distress experienced by identity theft victims net of the effects of other known correlates of mental distress among identity theft victims.

Methodology

Definition of Identity Theft

The current study, consistent with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC, 2004) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) definitions, uses the term “identity theft” to refer to the unauthorized use or attempted use of an existing account, the unauthorized use or attempted use of personal information to open a new account, and the attempted misuse or misuse of personal information for a fraudulent purpose. The current study focuses on actual identity theft victimization incidents. The ITS asks identity theft victims how long their information was used before they discovered the incidents. Responses in which the victim indicated that the incident was an attempt were not included in the study sample.

Data Source and Sample

The current study used data from the 2018 iteration of the ITS which was downloaded from the website of the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (BJS, 2021a). The ITS targets individuals 16 years or older and it excludes individuals living in institutional and transient settings (such as individuals who are homeless, in care settings, in prison, in military barracks, and crews of vessels) because it is an extension of the NCVS (BJS, 2021b). Accordingly, although this study focuses on individuals with disabilities, some of these individuals might not be well represented in the study sample.

The BJS conducted a nonresponse bias analysis for the nonresponse to the NCVS and the ITS which showed no significant bias risk (Harrell, 2021). Among the 102,418 respondents to the 2018 iteration of the ITS, 10,068 respondents indicated that they have been a victim of one or more types of identity theft in the past year. Among these individuals, 140 indicated that the incident they experienced was an attempt and these observations were excluded from the analysis. There were 1,023 respondents (approximately 10% of all identity theft victims) who did not provide an answer for one or more questions that were used to construct the variables for this study. Considering the low proportion of missing data and the large sample size, listwise deletion method was used to deal with the missing data problem to not introduce bias with maximum likelihood or multiple imputation methods (Allison, 2002). The final sample size was 8,905.

Dependent Variable: Severe Mental Distress

Severe mental distress is a binary variable which captures if identity theft victims experienced a significant amount of distress as a result of their most recent victimization. In the ITS, individuals are asked to rate the distress associated with their most recent identity theft victimization as “not at all distressing,” “mildly distressing,” “moderately distressing,” and “severely distressing.” In this study, responses in which victims answered, “not at all distressing,” “mildly distressing,” or “moderately distressing” were recoded as “not severely distressed” and responses in which individuals answered or “severely distressing” were recoded as “severely distressed.” In the study sample, approximately 7.6% of victims experienced severe distress (see Table 1). This variable was operationalized as a binary variable because services for fraud victims, including services for identity theft victims, mainly focus on remediating financial harms and there are limited services and funding for addressing mental health needs of fraud victims (Irvin-Erickson & Ricks, 2019; ITRC, 2021). Identification of risk factors for severe distress can help targeting of scarce programing opportunities for a smaller group of victims who are likely to need longer term services including counseling services.

Table 1.

Unweighted Descriptive Characteristics of the Sample (n = 8,905).

Variable	n (%)/mean (SD)	Variable	n (%
Dependent variable		Incident characteristics
Not at all distressing	1,738 (19.5%)	Know offender	8,424 (94.6%)
Mildly distressing	4,371 (49.1%)	Out-of-pocket loss: $0	8,391 (94.2%)
Moderately distressing	2,115 (23.8%)	Out-of-pocket loss: $1–$32	120 (1.3%)
Severely distressing	681 (7.6%)	Out-of-pocket loss: $33–$708	304 (3.4%)
Independent variable		Out-of-pocket loss: $709 or more	90 (1.0%)
No disability	7,792 (87.5%)	Time to discover: less than 24 hours	4,802 (53.9%)
Deaf or hard of hearing	234 (2.6%)	Time to discover: 25 hours to 6 days	1,846 (20.7%)
Blind or visual impairment	51 (.6%)	Time to discover: 7 days to 30 days	1,080 (12.1%)
Physical disability	420 (4.7%)	Time to discover: 1 month to less than 3 months	434 (4.9%)
Cognitive disability	110 (1.2%)	Time to discover: 3 months to less than 6 months	115 (1.3%)
Two or more disabilities	298 (3.3%)	Time to discover: 6 months to less than a year	54 (0.6%)
Victim characteristics		Time to discover: 1 year or more	51 (0.6%)
Age	48.9 (15.9)	Time to discover: unknown	523 (5.9%)
Female	4,730 (53.1%)	Time to resolve: less than 24 hours	5,167 (58.0%)
Male	4,175 (46.9%)	Time to resolve: 25 hours to 6 days	1,663 (18.7%)
White, NH	6,943 (78%)	Time to resolve: 7 days to 30 days	1,303 (14.6%)
Not “White, NH”	1,962 (22.0%)	Time to resolve: 1 month to less than 3 months	561 (6.3%)
Not married	3,461 (38.9%)	Time to resolve: 3 months to less than 6 months	131 (1.5%)
Married	5,444 (61.1%)	Time to resolve: 6 months to less than a year	62 (0.7%)
Less than Bachelor’s	4,510 (50.6%)	Time to resolve: 1 year or more	18 (0.2%)
Bachelor’s or more	4,395 (49.4%)
US-born citizen	8,146 (91.5%)	Other identity theft experiences
Naturalized citizen	496 (5.6%)	Only ID theft involving existing accounts	8,038 (90.3%)
Non-citizen	263 (3.0%)	Only ID theft involving new accounts	287 (3.2%)
Household income: $0–$24,999	925 (10.4%)	Only instrumental identity theft	211 (2.4%)
Household income: $25,000–$49,999	1,612 (18.1%)	Multiple types of ID theft	369 (4.1%)
Household income: $50,000–$74,999	1,641 (18.4%)	Multiple ID theft incidents in the past year	2,146 (24.1%)
Household income: $75,000 or more	4,727 (53.1%)	Experienced ID theft beyond past year	2,214 (24.9%)
Region: Northeast	1,114 (12.5%)	No ID theft beyond past year	6,691 (75.1%)
Region: Midwest	2,705 (30.4%)
Region: South	2,912 (32.7%)
Region: East	2,174 (24.4%)

Independent Variable: Disability

Disability is a nominal variable which captures if victims fall into one of the six categories: victims with no disability (reference group), victims who are blind or have serious difficulty seeing, victims who are deaf or hard of hearing, victims who have serious physical difficulty that impairs their daily activities; victims who have cognitive disabilities; and victims with multiple disabilities who identify with two or more of the above disability categories.

Control Variables

Several demographic/structural and victimization incident specific factors that have been identified by the literature (see DeLiema et al., 2021; Golladay & Holtfreter, 2017; Randa & Reyns, 2019) on emotional consequences of identity theft victimization were included as control variables. As discussed earlier, several demographic characteristics of identity theft victims have been considered to understand the relationship between demographics and odds of experiencing more serious consequences in the aftermath of identity theft victimization. This study included the following demographic variables to control for these effects: age (continuous), sex allocated by the NCVS (male, female), racial/ethnic identity (White, non-Hispanic (NH); not “White, NH”), educational attainment (less than Bachelor’s degree, Bachelor’s degree or above), marital status (not married, married), household income (less than $25,000; $25,000 to $49,999; $50,000 to $74,999; and $75,000 or more), and Region which captured the region in which the respondent lives: Northeast, Midwest, South, or West. This study additionally included a control variable to capture the immigration status of identity theft victims (US-citizen, naturalized citizen, or non-citizen) which was not captured in the previous iterations of the ITS.

Four identity theft incident related variables were included as control variables in this analysis. Time to resolve incident is a nominal variable with seven categories that captures how long it took for the identity theft victim to resolve any financial and credit related problems in relation to the most recent identity theft victimization they experienced (i.e., less than 24 hours, 25 hours to 6 days, 7 days to 30 days, 1 month to less than 3 months, 3 months to less than 6 months, 6 months to less than a year, and 1 year or more). Offender known is a binary variable which captures if the victim knew anything about the offender or not. Out-of-pocket loss is a standardized categorical variable which captures how much out-of-pocket money the victim lost as a result of their most recent identity theft victimization. This variable was standardized by calculating the mean ($32) and the standard deviation ($338) $ amount loss among identity theft victims. This variable was coded as “0” if the respondent lost no money out-of-pocket, was coded as “1” if the respondent lost between $1 and $32 (minimum loss to mean) out-of-pocket, was coded as “2” if the respondent lost between $22 and $708 (mean to +2SD) out-of-pocket, was coded as “3” if the respondent lost $709 or more (+2SD to maximum) out-of-pocket. Lastly, time to discover is a nominal variable with eight categories which captures how long after the most recent identity theft victimization the victim discovered the incident (less than 24 hours, 25 hours to 6 days, 7 days to 30 days, 1 month to less than 3 months, 3 months to less than 6 months, 6 months to less than a year, 1 year or more, and unknown).

Three variables were created to study the relationship between repeat identity victimization and severe mental distress. Multiple incidents binary variable captured if the respondent has been a victim of identity theft once or multiple times in the past 12 months. The ITS also asks respondents if they had been a victim of one or more of the five subcategories of identity theft in their lifetime excluding the past 12 months. Multiple type identity theft victimization captured if the respondent had been a victim of a specific type of identity theft victimization (i.e., existing account frauds, new account frauds, and other instrumental frauds) or multiple types of identity theft victimization. Identity theft beyond past year binary variable was created to capture if the respondents have been identity theft victims beyond the past year.

Modeling

This study used Firth logistic regression analysis to examine the impact of identity theft victims’ disability status on severe mental distress experienced after the respondent’s most recent identity theft victimization. Logistic regression with Firth bias reduction was preferred over maximum likelihood estimation to account for the rare nature of reporting severe distress in the overall sample and within categories of the main dependent variables (see Allison, 2012 for a detailed discussion). Analyses presented in this paper was completed in STATA. ITS sample weights were not included in the analysis due to Firth logistic regression not supporting these weights but sensitivity analyses were conducted with weights using logistic regression with maximum likelihood estimation and these models produced similar results with regards to the independent variable. Collinearity tests revealed no issues of multicollinearity. Model fit estimates including pseudo McFadden R² values were produced with the firthfit command in STATA.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics and nature of identity theft victimization of individuals who indicated they had been victims of identity theft in the past year in the study sample. As can be seen in Table 1, majority of the identity theft victims captured in the 2018 ITS sample were older, female, White, married, with less than a Bachelor’s degree, in higher income categories, US-born citizens, and living in states in the South, Midwest, and West. Looking at this study’s independent variable, the majority of the identity theft victims in the sample did not report any disability (87%), and from all disabilities considered in this survey, physical disabilities were the most commonly observed (4%), followed by being deaf or hard of hearing (3%), having a cognitive disability (1%), and being blind or having severe visual impairment (1%). Approximately, 3% of identity theft victims indicated that they have two or more of the aforementioned disabilities.

Looking at the characteristics of the most recent identity theft victimization experienced by the victims, a very small number of the victims knew anything about the offender (5.4%). Furthermore, majority of the victims did not lose any money out-of-pocket as a result of the incident (94%), discovered the incident in less than a day (53%) and resolved the incident in less than a day (58%). However, approximately 1% of the identity theft victims discovered their victimization 6 months or more after the incident, had out-of-pocket losses that were significantly higher than the average victim (more than 2SD), and resolved issues in relation to their victimization in 6 months or more. Additionally, majority of the victims experienced only existing account frauds (90%) and a single incident of identity theft victimization in the past year. The prevalence of multiple identity theft victimization in the past year and identity theft victimization beyond the past year in the study sample was each 24%.

As shown in Table 1, while very small proportions of victims in the sample expressed that they experienced severe distress (8%) as a result of their identity theft victimization, a closer look at the differences in severe distress reporting among victims across different disability statuses suggest that there are differences within these groups (see Table 2). Individuals with no disability had generally lower prevalence of severe distress than individuals with disabilities. Among identity theft victims who self-reported disability, the proportion of victims who reported severe distress was the highest for individuals with two or more disabilities and individuals with physical disabilities (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Prevalence of Severe Mental Distress Across Identity Theft Victims from Different Disability Groups.

	Severely distressed
	n (%)
Disability
No disability	500 (6.4)
Deaf or hard of hearing	22 (9.4)
Blind or visual impairment	4 (7.8)
Physical disabilities	81 (19.2)
Cognitive disabilities	12 (10.9)
Two or more disabilities	62 (20.8)

Severe Distress Reports Across Identity Theft Victims With Different Forms of Disability

The results from the logistic regression analysis on reporting of severe distress among identity theft victims are presented in Table 3. Due to the large sample size of this study, only results that have a p-value of .001 or less are reported as significant findings. Findings suggest that severe mental distress experienced by identity theft victims is not uniform across disability groups. Specifically, while identity theft victims with only physical disabilities (OR = 2.058, p < .001) and with two or more disabilities (OR = 1.779, p = .001) were more likely than victims with no disabilities to experience severe distress, there were no significant differences between victims with no disabilities, victims who only identify as deaf or hard of hearing, and victims who only identify as blind or to have severe visual impairment in their odds of experiencing severe distress. As evidenced by the odds ratios, the magnitude of these effects were small.

Table 3.

Firth Logistic Regression Model of Reporting Severe Mental Distress Among Identity Theft Victims (n = 8,905).

Variables	OR [95% CI]	Variables	OR [95% CI]
Independent variable		Incident characteristics
Deaf or hard of hearing	1.326 [0.82, 2.14]	Know offender	2.029 [1.56, 2.64]***
Blind or visual impairment	1.006 [0.36, 2.80]	Time to discover: 25 hours to 6 days	1.268 [1.01, 1.58]
Physical disabilities	2.058 [1.54, 2.74]***	Time to discover: 7 days to 30 days	1.259 [1.97, 1.62]
Cognitive disabilities	1.172 [0.61, 2.22]	Time to discover: 1 month to less than 3 months	1.474 [1.06, 2.04]
Two or more disabilities	1.779 [1.26, 2.51]***	Time to discover: 3 months to less than 6 months	1.425 [0.81, 2.48]
		Time to discover: 6 months to less than a year	1.154 [0.55, 2.40]
Victim characteristics		Time to discover: 1 year or more	2.384 [1.20, 4.70]
Age	1.010 [1.00, 1.01]	Time to discover: unknown	1.043 [.73, 1.48]
Sex: female	1.902 [1.59, 2.27]***
Race/ethnicity: non-white	1.505 [1.23, 1.84]***	Time to resolve: 25 hours to 6 days	1.473 [1.16, 1.86]***
Marital status: married	0.805 [0.67, 0.96]	Time to resolve: 7–30 days	2.186 [1.74, 2.74]***
Education: bachelor’s degree or above	0.658 [0.54, 0.79]***	Time to resolve: 1 month to less than 3 months	2.968 [2.25, 3.91]***
HH income: $25,000–$49,999	0.982 [0.74, 1.28]	Time to resolve: 3 months to less than 6 months	4.502 [2.87, 7.06]***
HH income: $50,000–$74,999	1.021 [0.76, 1.35]	Time to resolve: 6 months to less than a year	4.284 [2.35, 7.78]***
HH income: $75,000 or more	0.765 [0.57, 1.01]	Time to resolve: 1 year or more	1.936 [.58, 6.40]
US-born citizen	0.730 [0.45, 1.16]
Naturalized citizen	0.874 [0.50, 1.51]	Other identity theft experiences
Region: MW	0.826 [0.62, 1.09]	In the past 12 months
Region: S	0.986 [0.75, 1.29]	Only ID theft involving new accounts	2.480 [1.74, 3.52]***
Region: W	0.754 [0.56, 1.00]	Only instrumental ID theft	2.324 [1.51, 3.55]***
		Experienced multiple types of ID theft	2.456 [1.80, 3.34]***
Incident characteristics		Multiple incidents of ID theft	1.245 [1.03, 1.50]
Out-of-pocket loss : $1-mean	0.316 [0.10, 0.94]
Out-of-pocket loss: mean to +2SD	1.757 [1.25, 2.45]***	Beyond past 12 months
Out-of-pocket loss: 2SD to max.	1.615 [0.92, 2.83]	Experienced ID theft beyond past year	0.989 [0.81, 1.20]

Note. McFadden R²: .146, Log-likelihood—Intercept only: −2,331.080, Log-likelihood—Full model: −1,989.915. ID theft = identity theft; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.

***

p ≤ .001.

Several victim, incident, and other identity theft experience related factors were significant correlates of experiencing severe mental distress among identity theft victims. Although, results from this study are not directly comparable to the aforementioned studies on emotional consequences due to differences in study designs, some similar results were observed. In line with the findings by DeLiema et al. (2021), identity theft victims who identify as not “White, NH” were observed to have higher odds of experiencing severe distress than “White, NH” victims (OR = 1.505, p < .001). Similar to the findings from studies by Randa and Reyns (2019) and DeLiema et al. (2021), female identity theft victims were observed to higher odds of experiencing severe mental distress in comparison to men (OR = 1.902, p < .001). This study further found that, similar to the study findings by Randa and Reyns (2019), identity theft victims who have a Bachelor’s degree or more had lower odds of experiencing severe mental distress in comparison to victims with less education (OR = 0.658, p < .001). Lastly, older identity theft victims had higher odds of experiencing severe mental distress (OR = 1.010, p < .001).

This study found no significant relationship between the time to discover the identity theft incident and the severe mental distress experienced by victims. In their studies, DeLiema et al. (2021) and Randa and Reyns (2019) found that individuals who spent more time resolving issues in relation to their identity theft victimization were more likely to report moderate or severe distress. The current study also found that victims who spent a day to 1 year to resolve the issues were more likely to experience severe mental distress than victims who spent less than a day to resolve the issues. Although more than average out-of-pocket losses were associated with higher odds experiencing severe mental distress, this difference reached statistical significance only for the average $ loss to +2SD loss category (OR = 1.757, p = .001).

Identity theft victims who knew the perpetrator had significantly higher odds of reporting severe distress (OR = 2.029, p < .001). None of the past identity theft experience variables were significant correlates of severe distress reporting among identity theft victims. However, victims who experienced only new account frauds (OR = 2.480, p < .001), only instrumental frauds (OR = 2.324, p < .001), or multiple types of frauds (OR = 2.456, p < .001) were more likely than victims who experienced only existing account frauds to report severe mental distress (see Table 3).

Across all demographic correlates considered for this study, disability experienced by the victim was among the strongest demographic correlates of severe mental distress among identity theft victims. Despite the general small effect sizes of significant observations in general, disability status was among the comparatively strongest correlates of severe mental distress among variables considered for this study along with experiencing multiple types of identity theft experiences in the near past and knowing the offender.

Discussion

The current study explored the severe mental distress outcomes associated with identity theft victimization for a marginalized group that has not been studied in the identity theft literature: individuals with disabilities. The study showed that the severe mental distress experienced in the aftermath of identity theft victimization is correlated with the disability status of the victim and there are differences among individuals with different forms of disabilities in their mental distress experiences. Specifically, identity theft victims with physical disabilities and two or more forms of disability were observed to be more likely than individuals with no disabilities to experience severe mental distress in the aftermath of their victimization.

The lack of significant differences between victims with no disability and victims who have hearing difficulties and vision impairments was not totally surprising as recent literature suggests that this is also the case for mental health outcomes in violent victimization cases for individuals who are deaf/hard of hearing or blind/have visual impairment (see Hayes & Powers, 2022). Although, there is still so much that can be done to improve services for victims of crimes who have disabilities, including crime victims who are deaf or blind, it might be the case that with the general advancements in communication tools for individuals with varying levels of hearing difficulties and vision impairments and the closer knit community of individuals who have serious visual and hearing impairments (Hayes & Powers, 2022; Padden, 1980), these victims might have a better support system than victims who have physical disabilities and multiple disabilities.

Identity theft victims who suffer severe mental distress in the aftermath of their victimization, and victims with physical or multiple disabilities who are at heightened risk of experiencing these outcomes might have strained relationships in their homes, work, school, and social lives which might in turn impact their overall well-being. In cases when identity theft victims with serious physical and multiple disabilities need to rely more on these relationships, estrangement following a victimization experience can significantly impact the day-to-day activities and general quality of life of these individuals contributing to a cycle of distress.

The observed aggravated mental distress outcomes of identity theft victimization for individuals with physical disabilities and multiple forms of disabilities necessitate the screening of these vulnerable groups for not only potential identity theft victimization experiences but also for emotional health issues if they become victims. As suggested by Hayes and Powers (2022), this practice has been incorporated into general health care settings (such as hospitals and health clinics) to identify victims of intimate partner violence and to provide services for victims who exhibit emotional health issues including depressive symptoms. This kind of a screening for identity theft victimization can be helpful for proper response to emotional health issues experienced by identity theft victims with disabilities. This can be especially the case for identifying identity theft victims with disabilities who are at an elevated risk of experiencing negative emotional consequences because of the additional structural barriers they have in their daily lives in accessing healthcare such as individuals who are ethnic/racial minorities, undocumented individuals, and older individuals who are dependent on others for care (especially in cases where the perpetrator of identity theft is a caregiver).

There have not been any studies to date examining the reporting of identity theft victimization among identity theft victims with disabilities. However, data from the ITS suggest that identity theft incidents are mostly reported to financial institutions and reporting of identity theft victimization to law enforcement and organizations serving victims is very low (Harrell, 2021). Assuming this is also the case among identity theft victims with disabilities, trainings for law enforcement and victim service providers focusing on high-risk groups for identity theft and its harmful consequences might be helpful in increasing reporting of these victimizations by individuals with disabilities and to provide timely services for identity theft victims including identity theft victims with disabilities.

The findings in this study are subject to some limitations. First, due to the sampling methodology of the ITS, this study did not capture the experiences of individuals in institutional settings. Second, due to the nature of questions asked in the ITS, this study was not able to control for other potential correlates of severe mental distress among individuals with disabilities such as the onset age of disabilities and other objective measures of severeness of disability. Third, mental health issues can be underreported in survey data collection efforts and individuals with more severe forms of cognitive disability will be underrepresented in a data collection effort like the ITS. Future studies can expand upon this study’s findings by addressing some of these limitations.

In conclusion, this study showcased the heterogeneous odds of severe mental distress among identity theft victims by disability status, forms of disabilities, and several victim and incident specific correlates. Considering the misperceptions surrounding identity theft victimization, public health officials, policymakers, victim service providers, health care professionals, and financial institutions can work together to increase awareness about identity theft victimization as well as working on strategies to remove barriers to help-seeking among identity theft victims with disabilities. Considering the higher prevalence of mental distress among individuals with disabilities and especially among individuals with physical, cognitive, and multiple forms of disabilities, increasing awareness among victim service providers and health care providers about the differential harmful emotional impact of identity theft on individuals with disabilities, can further help with better screening for mental distress and linking individuals who are at high risk of mental distress and other adverse health outcomes with quality mental care.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Yasemin Irvin-Erickson

Notes

Author Biography

Yasemin Irvin-Erickson is an Assistant Professor of Criminology, Law and Society at George Mason University. She primarily conducts research in the areas of victimization and violence and service needs of crime victims.

References

Allison

P. D.

(2002). Quantitative applications in the social sciences: Missing data. Sage.

Allison

P. D.

(2012). Logistic regression for rare events. https://statisticalhorizons.com/logistic-regression-for-rare-events/

Betz

A. E.

(2012). The experiences of adult/child identity theft victims [Doctoral dissertation]. Iowa State University.

Bouffard

L. A.

Koeppel

M. D.

(2014). Understanding the potential long-term physical and mental health consequences of early experiences of victimization. Justice Quarterly, 31(3), 568–587.

Britt

C. L.

(2001). Health consequences of criminal victimization. International Review of Victimology, 8(1), 63–73.

Bronson

Maruschak

L. M.

Berzofsky

(2015). Disabilities among prison and jail inmates, 2011–12. US Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Brownridge

D. A.

(2006). Partner violence against women with disabilities: Prevalence, risk, and explanations. Violence Against Women, 12(9), 805–822.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Crime Victimization Survey: Identity Theft Supplement, [United States], 2018. (2021a). Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37923.v1

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2021b). Identity theft. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=42

10.

Centers for Disease Control. (2023). Disability impacts all of US. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/infographic-disability-impacts-all.html

11.

Cree

R. A.

Okoro

C. A.

Zack

M. M.

Carbone

(2020). Frequent mental distress among adults, by disability status, disability type, and selected characteristics—United States, 2018. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 69(36), 1238.

12.

Deem

(2018). International financial crimes: How do we turn the tide and help older victims? Federal Bureau of Investigations.

13.

DeLiema

Burnes

Langton

(2021). The financial and psychological impact of identity theft among older adults. Innovation in Aging, 5(4), igab043.

14.

DeLisi

Jones-Johnson

Johnson

W. R.

Hochstetler

(2014). The aftermath of criminal victimization: Race, self-esteem, and self-efficacy. Crime & Delinquency, 60(1), 85–105.

15.

Dembo

R. S.

Mitra

McKee

(2018). The psychological consequences of violence against people with disabilities. Disability and Health Journal, 11(3), 390–397.

16.

Federal Trade Commission. (2004). FTC issues final rules on FACTA identity theft definitions, active duty alert duration, and appropriate proof of identity. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2004/10/ftc-issues-final-rules-facta-identity-theft-definitions-active

17.

Glodstein

S. L.

Fornaro

(2010). Fraud trauma syndrome: The victims of the Bernard Madoff scandal. Journal of Forensic Studies in Accounting & Business, 2(1), 1–9.

18.

Golladay

Holtfreter

(2017). The consequences of identity theft victimization: An examination of emotional and physical health outcomes. Victims & Offenders, 12(5), 741–760.

19.

Green

Gies

Bobnis

Piquero

N. L.

Piquero

A. R.

Velasquez

(2020). The role of victim services for individuals who have experienced serious identity-based crime. Victims & offenders, 15(6), 720–743.

20.

Harrell

(2017). Victims of identity theft, 2014. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vit14.pdf

21.

Harrell

(2019). Victims of identity theft, 2016. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vit16.pdf

22.

Harrell

(2021). Victims of identity theft, 2018. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vit18.pdf

23.

Harrell

Langton

(2013). Victims of identity theft, 2012. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vit12.pdf

24.

Hayes

B. E.

Powers

R. A.

(2022). Heterogeneity of disabilities and the consequences of victimization: Findings from a nationally representative sample. Justice Quarterly, 39(5), 1059–1078.

25.

Identity Theft Resource Center. (2003). Identity theft: The aftermath 2003. https://www.idtheftcenter.org/images/page-docs/IdentityTheftTheAftermath2003.pdf

26.

Identity Theft Resource Center. (2005). Identity theft: The aftermath 2004. https://www.idtheftcenter.org/images/surveys_studies/Aftermath2004.pdf

27.

Identity Theft Resource Center. (2007). Identity theft: The aftermath 2006. https://www.idtheftcenter.org/images/surveys_studies/Aftermath2006.pdf

28.

Identity Theft Resource Center. (2008). Identity theft: The aftermath 2007. https://www.idtheftcenter.org/images/surveys_studies/Aftermath2007.pdf

29.

Identity Theft Resource Center. (2009). Identity theft: The aftermath 2008. https://www.idtheftcenter.org/images/surveys_studies/Aftermath2008.pdf

30.

Identity Theft Resource Center. (2010). Identity theft: The aftermath 2009. https://www.idtheftcenter.org/images/surveys_studies/Aftermath2009.pdf

31.

Identity Theft Resource Center. (2014). Identity theft: The aftermath 2013. https://www.idtheftcenter.org/images/surveys_studies/Aftermath2013.pdf

32.

Identity Theft Resource Center. (2015). Identity theft: The aftermath 2014. https://www.idtheftcenter.org/images/surveys_studies/Aftermath2014FINAL.pdf

33.

Identity Theft Resource Center. (2017). Identity theft: The aftermath 2016. https://www.idtheftcenter.org/images/page-docs/AftermathFinal_2016.pdf

34.

Identity Theft Resource Center. (2018a). Identity theft: The aftermath 2017. https://www.idtheftcenter.org/images/page-docs/Aftermath_2017.pdf

35.

Identity Theft Resource Center. (2018b). The aftermath: The non-economic impacts of identity theft. https://www.idtheftcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ITRC_Aftermath-2018_Web_FINAL.pdf

36.

Identity Theft Resource Center. (2021). ITRC 2021 consumer aftermath report. https://www.idtheftcenter.org/publication/identity-theft-the-aftermath-study

37.

Identity Theft Resource Center. (2023). Taking identity crime victimization seriously. https://www.idtheftcenter.org/post/taking-identity-crime-victimization-seriously-call-for-comprehensive-support/

38.

Irvin-Erickson

Ricks

(2019). Identity theft and fraud victimization: What we know about identity theft and fraud victims from research-and practice-based evidence. https://victimresearch.org/research/research-syntheses/

39.

Johnson

M. C.

Kercher

G. A.

(2009). Identifying predictors of negative psychological reactions to stalking victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(5), 866–882.

40.

Karp

Kirkman

(2016). Financial frauds and scams against elders: Government responses and resources. National Consumer Law Center. Retrieved from https://www.nclc.org/national-elder-rights-training-project/consumer-fraud-scams/financial-frauds-scams-against-elders.html

41.

Langton

Planty

(2010). Victims of identity theft, 2008. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vit08.pdf

42.

National Center for Victims of Crime and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Investor Education Foundation. (2013). Taking action: An advocate’s guide to assisting victims of financial fraud.

43.

Okoro

C. A.

Hollis

N. D.

Cyrus

A. C.

Griffin-Blake

(2018). Prevalence of disabilities and health care access by disability status and type among adults—United States, 2016. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 67(32), 882.

44.

OVC. (2012). Multidisciplinary response to crime victims with disabilities. https://ovc.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh226/files/pubs/victimswithdisabilities/stateguide/overview.html

45.

Padden

(1980). The deaf community and the culture of deaf people. In Baker

Pattison

(Eds.), Sign language and the deaf community (pp. 89–103). National Association of the Deaf.

46.

Pascual

Marchini

Miller

(2018). 2018 identity fraud: Fraud enters a new era of complexity. https://javelinstrategy.com/research/2018-identity-fraud-fraud-enters-new-era-complexity

47.

Petersilia

J. R.

(2001). Crime victims with developmental disabilities: A review essay. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(6), 655–694.

48.

Ponemon Institute. (2013). 2013 survey on medical identity theft. https://www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/2013MedicalIdentityTheftReportFINAL11.pdf

49.

Powers

R. A.

Hayes

B. E.

(2023). Victim and third-party reporting of violent victimization to the police in incidents involving victims with disabilities. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(23–24), 12135–12160.

50.

Rand

M. R.

Harrell

(2009). Crime against people with disabilities, 2007: National Crime Victimization Survey. U.S. Department of Justice.

51.

Randa

Reyns

B. W.

(2019). The physical and emotional toll of identity theft victimization: A situational and demographic analysis of the National Crime Victimization Survey. Deviant Behavior, 41(10), 1290–1304.

52.

Reyns

B. W.

Scherer

(2018). Stalking victimization among college students: The role of disability within a lifestyle-routine activity framework. Crime & Delinquency, 64(5), 650–673.

53.

Reyns

B. W.

Scherer

(2019). Disability type and risk of sexual and stalking victimization in a national sample: A lifestyle-routine activity approach. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(4), 628–647.

54.

Synovate. (2007). Federal trade commission – 2006 identity theft survey report. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/federal-tradecommission-2006-identity-theft-survey-report-preparedcommission-synovate/synovatereport.pdf

55.

Tucker

C. J.

Finkelhor

Turner

(2017). Victimization by siblings in children with disability or weight problems. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 38(6), 378–384.

56.

Wallace

(2021). Criminology, criminal justice, and 30 years of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Where is the research from our field? The Criminologist, 46(2), 1–6.

57.

Zablotsky

Black

L. I.

Maenner

M. J.

Schieve

L. A.

Danielson

M. L.

Bitsko

R. H.

Blumberg

S. J.

Kogan

M. D.

Boyle

C. A.

(2019). Prevalence and trends of developmental disabilities among children in the United States: 2009–2017. Pediatrics, 144(4), e20190811.