Home > Identity Theft > 6.5 Million Social Security Numbers Shouldn’t Exist

Comments 0 Comments

An audit of the Social Security Administration found that about 6.5 million Social Security numbers assigned to people who would be 112 years old (and are likely deceased) did not have a date of death on their records. Thousands of these numbers may have been used to commit identity theft or another form of fraud.

The purpose of this audit from the Office of the Inspector General was to assess whether the Social Security Administration had an adequate system for adding death information to the SSA’s Numerical Identification System (aka Numident) for “numberholders who exceeded maximum reasonable life expectancies and were likely deceased,” the report reads. The answer: No, it does not.

The Audit Details

Here’s how the report outlined the problem: While the Social Security Administration may have information indicating a numberholder is deceased — like record of a death benefit having been claimed or a date of death in SSA payment records — the lack of a date of death in the Numident creates a significant information gap. Many federal agencies rely on the Death Master File to know whether a numberholder is dead, but if a numberholder’s date of death is not noted in Numident, it doesn’t appear on the Death Master File.

Almost all of the 6.5 million records without a date of death were not receiving payments from the SSA at the time of the audit, indicating they were deceased. Of the 266 numberholders receiving payments, just 13 were actually 112 years or older, and various record discrepancies explain the remaining benefits payments.

People use Social Security numbers for much more than receiving Social Security benefits. They are used to secure employment, apply for credit and file taxes, potentially claiming a tax refund. To look into potential abuse, the auditors compared the 6.5 million Social Security numbers against the SSA’s Earnings Suspense File (a database of earnings tax forms where the names don’t match the Social Security numbers) and the E-Verify System, which is used to validate whether a numberholder is authorized to work in the U.S.

The result of those cross-checks was significant: SSA transferred $3.1 billion in wages from 66,920 of the numberholders to the Earnings Suspense File from tax years 2006 through 2011. Between fiscal years 2008 and 2011, “SSA received 4,024 E-Verify inquiries using the SSNs of 3,873 numberholders born before June 16, 1901,” the audit report says.

What It Means

The report indicates that, if death dates were systematically entered into Numident, therefore included on the Death Master File, tens of thousands of instances of Social Security number abuse or fraud could possibly be prevented.

Auditors made four recommendations to the Social Security Administration, two of which the administration agreed to. SSA will explore options and ramifications of implementing an automated process to update Numident records on numberholders, and it has agreed to complete this analysis by the end of fiscal 2015 (Sept. 30). SSA disagreed with recommendations that it use old payment record information to update Numident, saying it could result in inaccurate death information in the Death Master File and would require too much time and resources.

Identity theft after death is a legitimate concern for families of the deceased, particularly in the time immediately following a death, when accounts remain open and taxes have yet to be filed in the the person’s name. For this reason, it can be helpful to plan ahead and leave instructions in your will, listing your financial accounts and designating someone to handle them quickly following your death, minimizing the amount of time a potential identity thief has to misuse your information.

If you’re worried about the theft or misuse of your own Social Security number, you should monitor your credit regularly for new-account fraud. You can get free annual credit reports from AnnualCreditReport.com and you can check two of your credit scores for free every month on Credit.com.

More on Identity Theft:

Image: iStock

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team