Who Does the Work? Disability and the Demands of Identity-Theft Protection

Identity-theft safeguards differ in the work they ask consumers to perform. This study examines disability differences in reported protective activities and their associations with theft using the 2018 ( n = 102,418) and 2021 ( n = 93,308) National Crime Victimization Survey Identity Theft Supplements. The administrations were analyzed separately because of a questionnaire redesign introduced in 2021. Four self-directed activities and two provider-based measures were compared; security software was examined separately. Respondents with disabilities reported lower adjusted self-directed adoption in both years, with a smaller disability difference for provider-based adoption. Higher provider use among hearing-only or vision-only respondents was not established. Direct comparisons did not support the expectation that disability differences in activity–theft associations were greater for self-directed activities. The findings identify differences in reported adoption but do not establish provider superiority or causal prevention.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Crime & Delinquency
Published
2026-09-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287261493936
Primary Topic
Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Who Does the Work? Disability and the Demands of Identity-Theft Protection

ryan alenzi, Lma Alenzi
Crime & Delinquency
Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
article

Who Does the Work? Disability and the Demands of Identity-Theft Protection

ryan alenzi, Lma Alenzi
article en

Abstract

Identity-theft safeguards differ in the work they ask consumers to perform. This study examines disability differences in reported protective activities and their associations with theft using the 2018 ( n = 102,418) and 2021 ( n = 93,308) National Crime Victimization Survey Identity Theft Supplements. The administrations were analyzed separately because of a questionnaire redesign introduced in 2021. Four self-directed activities and two provider-based measures were compared; security software was examined separately. Respondents with disabilities reported lower adjusted self-directed adoption in both years, with a smaller disability difference for provider-based adoption. Higher provider use among hearing-only or vision-only respondents was not established. Direct comparisons did not support the expectation that disability differences in activity–theft associations were greater for self-directed activities. The findings identify differences in reported adoption but do not establish provider superiority or causal prevention.

Crime & Delinquency
Taibah University (SA), Michigan State University (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Who Does the Work? Disability and the Demands of Identity-Theft Protection — ryan alenzi, Lma Alenzi · Crime & Delinquency (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS