Executive Summary
This report analyses community-submitted telecommunications safety data across South Australia between 1–30 April 2024. All classifications, trend observations, and regional patterns are derived from first-hand community intelligence aggregated through the Reverseau platform.
South Australia recorded 272 community reports across 164 unique phone numbers during the reporting period. Compared to March 2024, reporting volume showed relatively stable levels, while 164 numbers remained under active community monitoring throughout the month.
Scam remains the most frequently assigned community classification at 37% of categorised reports, with a scam classification ratio of 37% across all submissions. Scam maintained its position as the dominant classification in both periods, suggesting sustained targeting patterns rather than campaign rotation.
Geographically, reporting activity was concentrated in Adelaide, followed by Bunbury and Murray Bridge. Adelaide recorded more than double the reporting volume of the next most active locality (Bunbury), indicating concentrated campaign activity or higher community engagement within this area.
April coincides with peak tax scam season as the end of the Australian financial year approaches. ATO impersonation campaigns historically surge during this month.
Scam classifications account for 37% of reports, suggesting a mixed telecommunications activity landscape where non-scam reporting categories play a significant role in the overall safety picture. Residents are encouraged to report suspicious telecommunications activity and consult the SA data dashboard for real-time classification and trend data.
Why This Matters
The proportion of scam-classified reports at 37% indicates active but evolving targeting patterns across South Australia. Understanding these patterns at a community level enables faster identification of emerging campaign types and reduces the window between first contact and community-wide awareness. Sustained reporting activity across multiple localities strengthens the collective intelligence foundation, allowing classification convergence to accelerate as more residents contribute first-hand safety data to the SA reporting ecosystem.
Scam Category Breakdown
Community classification distribution across SA for the period 1–30 April 2024. Classifications are assigned by reporting users based on their direct experience with each number.
Scam accounted for 37% of categorised reports during April 2024. In March 2024, Scam held the top position with 33% of classifications. Scam maintained its position as the dominant classification in both periods, suggesting sustained targeting patterns rather than campaign rotation.
Most Affected Areas in South Australia
Localities with the highest concentration of community reports during 1–30 April 2024. Each locality links to its dedicated intelligence page with full classification breakdowns and number listings.
Adelaide recorded more than double the reporting volume of the next most active locality (Bunbury), indicating concentrated campaign activity or higher community engagement within this area. For detailed locality-level analysis, visit the individual area pages linked above or explore the SA data dashboard.
Month-to-Month Comparison
Compared to March 2024, South Australia experienced relatively stable levels in community reporting volume. Overall activity has remained stable, with substantial monitoring coverage across the state.
Seasonal Context
April coincides with peak tax scam season as the end of the Australian financial year approaches. ATO impersonation campaigns historically surge during this month. The relatively stable reporting volume suggests consistent campaign activity and community engagement levels between the two periods.
Classification Movement
Scam classifications accounted for 37% of categorised reports in April, with scam-specific reports representing 37% of all submissions. These shifts in community classification patterns may reflect evolving campaign tactics, changes in the types of numbers being reported, or natural variation in reporting behaviour between periods. Monitoring classification movement over consecutive months provides a more reliable indicator of genuine trend shifts than any single-month comparison.
Regional Variation
Reporting distribution across South Australia localities remained broadly consistent with prior periods, with Adelaide continuing as the primary reporting centre.
Service Type Distribution
Local Service numbers account for 100% of reported activity, reflecting the broader national pattern where mobile-originated calls dominate community safety reports. Residents should exercise particular caution with unsolicited calls from unfamiliar local service numbers.
Emerging Trends & Observations
Several numbers exhibited accelerated reporting velocity within compressed time windows, followed by classification convergence toward scam designation.
Rapid Accumulation Signals
10 numbers within SA accumulated multiple community reports within a compressed time window during 1–30 April 2024. This velocity pattern is consistent with active call campaigns or coordinated targeting activity. Numbers exhibiting rapid report accumulation frequently transition from initial “Unknown” or “Suspicious” classifications to confirmed “Scam” designation within days.
Numbers flagged for rapid accumulation averaged 6 reports each during the period, indicating sustained community engagement with these numbers rather than isolated encounters.
Several flagged numbers exhibited cross-locality reporting dispersion, with community submissions originating from multiple areas within SA. This pattern suggests broadcast-style outbound activity rather than localised outreach, consistent with automated dialling campaigns that target numbers across geographic boundaries.
Divergent Classification Signals
Several numbers display mixed community classifications — receiving both scam and non-scam reports during April 2024. This divergence may indicate numbers transitioning between legitimate and illegitimate use, caller ID spoofing of legitimate business numbers, or community uncertainty about the nature of calls received. Numbers with divergent classifications warrant continued monitoring as community consensus develops.
Community Safety Guidance
- Do not return missed calls from unknown 08 numbers without verification.
- Verify any government agency claims through official websites or published contact numbers — the ATO, Centrelink, and Medicare will never threaten immediate action via phone.
- Avoid clicking payment or delivery links received via SMS from unrecognised senders.
- Report suspicious telecommunications activity to help build community safety intelligence for South Australia.
- Check numbers on Reverseau before returning calls from unknown sources.
Data Methodology
This report is compiled from community-submitted telecommunications safety reports for the period 1–30 April 2024. All data is aggregated and anonymised before publication.
- Source: First-hand community reports submitted via Reverseau.
- Scope: Numbers with a registered allocation within South Australia (SA).
- Period: 1–30 April 2024 (calendar month).
- Classifications: Assigned by reporting users based on their direct experience.
- Limitations: Data reflects community perception, not verified telecommunications records. Reporting volumes are influenced by platform adoption and user engagement patterns.
For detailed methodology, see our methodology page. For the full analytical dataset, visit the SA data dashboard.