Loading...

Layered Identity Proofing: Fighting Unemployment Insurance Theft

by Eric Thompson 4 min read April 15, 2021

Recently, I wrote about how Experian is assisting NASWA (National Association of State Workforce Agencies) with identity verification to help mitigate the spike in fraudulent unemployment insurance claims. Because of this I was not all that surprised when I found a letter in my mailbox from the Texas Workforce Commission with a fraudulent claim using my identity, inspiring me to follow up on this topic with a focus on fraud prevention best practices.

Identity theft is on the rise

According to Experian data analysis and a recent study on unemployment insurance fraud, at least 25% of new claims are a result of identity theft. This is 50 times higher than what we have traditionally seen in the highest ID theft fraud use case, new credit card applications, which generally amounts to less than 0.5% of new applications.

Increasing digitization of the last few years—culminating in the huge leap forward in 2020—has resulted in a massive amount of information available online. Of that information, a reported 1.03 billion records were exposed between 2016 and 2020. There are currently approximately 330 million Americans, so on average more than three records per person have been exposed, creating an environment ripe for identity theft.

In fact, a complete identity consisting of name, address, date of birth, and Social Security number (SSN) can be purchased for as little as $8. This stolen data is then often leveraged by both criminal rings who are able to perpetrate fraud on a large scale and smaller scale opportunists – like the ones in Riverside, CA leveraging access to identities of prison inmates.

Fraud prevention through layered identity controls

In the 20 years that I have been combatting ID theft both in the private and public sectors, I’ve learned that the most effective identity proofing goes beyond traditional identity resolution, validation, and verification. To be successful, you must take advantage of all available data and incorporate it into a layered and risk-based approach that utilizes device details, user behavior, biometrics, and more. Below, I outline three key layers to design an effective process for ID proofing new unemployment insurance claims.

Layer 1: Resolve and Validate Identities

Traditional identity data consists of the same basic information—name, address, date of birth, telephone number, and SSN—which is now readily available to fraudsters. These have been the foundation for ID proofing in the past and are still critical to resolving the identity in question. The key is to also include additional identity elements like email address and phone number to gain a more holistic view of the applicant.

Layer 2: Assess Fraud Risk

Determining an identity belongs to a real-life subject is not sufficient to mitigate the risk of ID theft associated with a new unemployment insurance claim. You must go beyond identity validation to assess the risk associated with their claim. Risk assessment risk falls into two categories – identity and digital risk.

Identity Risk

When assessing a claim, it’s important to check the identity for:

Velocity: How often have you (or other states) seen the information being presented with this application? Has the information been associated with multiple identities?

Recency of change: How long has the identity been associated with the contact information (phone, email, address, etc.)?

Red flags: Has the subject been a recent victim of ID theft, or are they reported as deceased?

Synthetic Identity: Are there signs that the identity itself is fictitious or manipulated and does not belong to a real-life person?

Digital Risk

Similar to the identity risk layer above, the device itself and how the subject interacts with the device are significantly important in identifying the likelihood a new claim is fraudulent. Device risk can be assessed by utilizing geolocation and checking for inconsistent settings or high-risk browsers, while behavioral risk might check for mouse movement, typing speed, or screen pressure.

Layer 3: Verify Highest Risk Subjects

The final stage in this process is to require additional verification for the highest risk claims, which helps to balance the experience of your valid subjects while minimizing the impact of fraud. Additional steps might include:

Document verification: Scanning a government-issued ID (driver’s license, passport, or similar), which includes assessing for document security features and biometric comparison to the applicant.

One-time passcode (OTP): It is key to deploy this sparingly only to phone numbers that have been associated with the subject for a significant time frame and incorporate checks to determine if it is at high risk (e.g., recently ported or forwarded).

Knowledge-based verification (KBV): Leveraging non-public information from a variety of sources.

By adding additional, context-based identity elements, it becomes possible to improve the three main objectives of most agencies’ identity proofing process – get good constituents through the first time, protect the agency and citizens from fraud, and deliver a smooth and secure customer experience in online channels.

While there’s no quick fix to prevent unemployment insurance fraud, a layered identity strategy can help prevent it. Finding a partner that has a single, holistic solution empowers agencies to defend against unemployment insurance fraud while minimizing friction for the end-user, and preparing for future fraud schemes.

To learn more about how you can protect your constituents and your agency from unemployment insurance fraud request a call today.

Contact us

Related Posts

For many banks, first-party fraud has become a silent drain on profitability. On paper, it often looks like classic credit risk: an account books, goes delinquent, and ultimately charges off. But a growing share of those early charge-offs is driven by something else entirely: customers who never intended to pay you back. That distinction matters. When first-party fraud is misclassified as credit risk, banks risk overstating credit loss, understating fraud exposure, and missing opportunities to intervene earlier.  In our recent Consumer Banker Association (CBA) partner webinar, “Fraud or Financial Distress? How to Differentiate Fraud and Credit Risk Early,” Experian shared new data and analytics to help fraud, risk and collections leaders see this problem more clearly. This post summarizes key themes from the webinar and points you to the full report and on-demand webinar for deeper insight. Why first-party fraud is a growing issue for banks  Banks are seeing rising early losses, especially in digital channels. But those losses do not always behave like traditional credit deterioration. Several trends are contributing:  More accounts opened and funded digitally  Increased use of synthetic or manipulated identities  Economic pressure on consumers and small businesses  More sophisticated misuse of legitimate credentials  When these patterns are lumped into credit risk, banks can experience:  Inflation of credit loss estimates and reserves  Underinvestment in fraud controls and analytics  Blurred visibility into what is truly driving performance   Treating first-party fraud as a distinct problem is the first step toward solving it.  First-payment default: a clearer view of intent  Traditional credit models are designed to answer, “Can this customer pay?” and “How likely are they to roll into delinquency over time?” They are not designed to answer, “Did this customer ever intend to pay?” To help banks get closer to that question, Experian uses first-payment default (FPD) as a key indicator. At a high level, FPD focuses on accounts that become seriously delinquent early in their lifecycle and do not meaningfully recover.  The principle is straightforward:  A legitimate borrower under stress is more likely to miss payments later, with periods of cure and relapse.  A first-party fraudster is more likely to default quickly and never get back on track.  By focusing on FPD patterns, banks can start to separate cases that look like genuine financial distress from those that are more consistent with deceptive intent.  The full report explains how FPD is defined, how it varies by product, and how it can be used to sharpen bank fraud and credit strategies. Beyond FPD: building a richer fraud signal  FPD alone is not enough to classify first-party fraud. In practice, leading banks are layering FPD with behavioral, application and identity indicators to build a more reliable picture. At a conceptual level, these indicators can include:  Early delinquency and straight-roll behavior  Utilization and credit mix that do not align with stated profile  Unusual income, employment, or application characteristics High-risk channels, devices, or locations at application Patterns of disputes or behaviors that suggest abuse  The power comes from how these signals interact, not from any one data point. The report and webinar walk through how these indicators can be combined into fraud analytics and how they perform across key banking products.  Why it matters across fraud, credit and collections Getting first-party fraud right is not just about fraud loss. It impacts multiple parts of the bank. Fraud strategy Well-defined quantification of first-party fraud helps fraud leaders make the case for investments in identity verification, device intelligence, and other early lifecycle controls, especially in digital account opening and digital lending. Credit risk and capital planning When fraud and credit losses are blended, credit models and reserves can be distorted. Separating first-party fraud provides risk teams a cleaner view of true credit performance and supports better capital planning.  Collections and customer treatment Customers in genuine financial distress need different treatment paths than those who never intended to pay. Better segmentation supports more appropriate outreach, hardship programs, and collections strategies, while reserving firmer actions for abuse.  Executive and board reporting Leadership teams increasingly want to understand what portion of loss is being driven by fraud versus credit. Credible data improves discussions around risk appetite and return on capital.  What leading banks are doing differently  In our work with financial institutions, several common practices have emerged among banks that are getting ahead of first-party fraud: 1. Defining first-party fraud explicitly They establish clear definitions and tracking for first-party fraud across key products instead of leaving it buried in credit loss categories.  2. Embedding FPD segmentation into analytics They use FPD-based views in their monitoring and reporting, particularly in the first 6–12 months on book, to better understand early loss behavior.  3. Unifying fraud and credit decisioning Rather than separate strategies that may conflict, they adopt a more unified decisioning framework that considers both fraud and credit risk when approving accounts, setting limits and managing exposure.  4. Leveraging identity and device data They bring in noncredit data — identity risk, device intelligence, application behavior — to complement traditional credit information and strengthen models.  5. Benchmarking performance against peers They use external benchmarks for first-party fraud loss rates and incident sizes to calibrate their risk posture and investment decisions.  The post is meant as a high-level overview. The real value for your teams will be in the detailed benchmarks, charts and examples in the full report and the discussion in the webinar.  If your teams are asking whether rising early losses are driven by fraud or financial distress, this is the moment to look deeper at first-party fraud.  Download the report: “First-party fraud: The most common culprit”  Explore detailed benchmarks for first-party fraud across banking products, see how first-payment default and other indicators are defined and applied, and review examples you can bring into your own internal discussions.  Download the report Watch the on-demand CBA webinar: “Fraud or Financial Distress? How to Differentiate Fraud and Credit Risk Early”  Hear Experian experts walk through real bank scenarios, FPD analytics and practical steps for integrating first-party fraud intelligence into your fraud, credit, and collections strategies.  Watch the webinar First-party fraud is likely already embedded in your early credit losses. With the right analytics and definitions, banks can uncover the true drivers, reduce hidden fraud exposure, and better support customers facing genuine financial hardship.

by Brittany Ennis 4 min read February 12, 2026

Discover why Experian’s unified fraud prevention platform, backed by decades of data stewardship and AI innovation, is the trusted choice for enterprises seeking scalable, compliant, and transparent identity verification solutions.

by Laura Davis 4 min read December 8, 2025

Learn how you can mitigate e-commerce fraud with identity verification and fraud prevention best practices.

by Theresa Nguyen 4 min read December 3, 2025

Subscribe to our blog

Enter your name and email for the latest updates.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Subscribe to our Experian Insights blog

Don't miss out on the latest industry trends and insights!
Subscribe