U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

Image of United States Department of Justice seal
Community Oriented Policing Services logo
Image of The National Center for Victims of Crime logo
Image of Police Foundation logo

Creating an Effective 
Stalking Protocol 


Creating an Effective 
Stalking Protocol 

Submitted by the 
National Center for Victims of Crime 

April 2002 

This publication was supported through Grant #98CKWXK052 
from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 
U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions expressed herein are 
the author's and do not necessarily represent the official position 
of the U.S. Department of Justice. 



Table of Contents 

Section Page 

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter 1
: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Major Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Time Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Chapter 2
: The Meaning of Stalking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Defining Stalking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
State and Federal Anti-Stalking Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Prevalence and Nature of Stalking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Stalking Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Stalkers and Stalker Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Impact of Stalking on Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Chapter 3
: Community Policing, Problem-Solving, and Stalking Response . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
The Challenges of Policing Stalking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Stalking and Community Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Translating Theory into Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Community Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Examples of Community Involvement in Anti-Stalking Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Police Leadership and Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Community Policing and Stalking: Potential Rewards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Chapter 4
: A Model Stalking Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Chapter 5
: Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
The Philadelphia Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
Why Philadelphia? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
Getting Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
Building the Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
Training . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
Keys to Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73


Appendix I
: Summary of Evaluation of the Implementation in Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
Appendix II
: Principal Findings and Recommendations: 
Adapting and Implementing the Model Stalking Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99
Appendix III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
Appendix IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107
Appendix V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109


Executive Summary 

This Monograph is about ways to enhance police responses to 
stalking. Its focus is collaborative community partnerships and 
protocols to help police departments address stalking more effectively 
and appropriately. 

Stalking is not a new phenomenon, but has only recently been 
recognized as a significant and widespread problem. It differs from 
many other crimes in at least two respects. By definition, it is a form 
of repeat victimizationbehavior constituting a series of incidents 
rather than a single criminal act. It is also a crime that is defined, in 
part, by its impact on the victimby the fear it induces. 

Individual stalking incidents looked at in isolation often appear 
innocuous. But once identified as part of a pattern of behavior of 
unwanted contact imposed on the victim by the perpetrator, it's 
another story. Whether they are linked to domestic violence or involve 
perpetrators who are acquaintances or strangers, stalking incidents 
become threatening and sinister, even in the absence of any overt 
threats to harm the victim. In a significant number of cases, stalking is 
in fact, a precursor to lethal violence. 

The fear induced by stalking, the drastic way it disrupts victims' lives, 
and the real dangers faced by many victims all demand effective 
intervention by law enforcement. Yet, stalking is exceptionally difficult 
to policedifficult to investigate, prosecute, and preventand the 
majority of police departments in the United States lack clearly 
defined policies to deal with it. 

Traditional "reactive" policing is ill-suited to the challenges because it 
means waiting for something to happen and then responding. Where 
there is an ever-present risk that stalking will cross over into physical 
violence and victim safety and prevention are the priorities, such an 
approach inevitably falls short. Stalking by its nature calls for early 
intervention, preventive action, and proactive problem-solving. These 
are the hallmarks of community policing. 

An important component of a community oriented approach is 
implementation of a protocol or written policy directive that sets out 
appropriate responses by police officers in stalking cases. Following a 
review of current promising practices, the National Center for Victims 
of Crime ("the National Center") developed a Model Stalking 
Protocol to promote more effective anti-stalking policies by police 
departments across the nation. The Model Protocol was subsequently 
adapted and field-tested by the Philadelphia Police Department with 
assistance from the National Center. 


The Introductory chapter of the Monograph provides a synopsis of 
the project and describes its origins. Chapter 2 looks in detail at the 
meaning of stalking. It offers a broad overview of the nature and 
prevalence of stalking, summarizes different stalking behaviors and 
different types of stalkers, and looks at the crime of stalking from the 
perspective of its victims. Chapter 3 explores why stalking is so 
difficult to identify and investigate and why conventional policing 
techniques are inadequate in responding to the needs of stalking 
victims. It lays out the rationale for adopting a community-oriented 
policing approach and summarizes its essential elements. Chapter 4 
reproduces the Model Protocol developed by the National Center. 
Chapter 5 describes the process of adapting and implementing the 
protocol in Philadelphia. Appendix I contains the summary of the 
independent evaluation of the implementation process in Philadelphia. 
Appendix II sets out conclusions and recommendations, emphasizing 
the critical role of leadership, the potential for community 
stakeholders to participate in almost every aspect of the planning and 
implementation process, and the key importance of training and 
technical support. Summaries of current promising practices in the 
field are included in the Appendices at the end of the Monograph. 


Introduction 

Chapter 1: Introduction 

It is estimated that nearly one in twelve women and one in forty-five 
men are stalked at least once in their lifetime.1 Increasing awareness 
about the impact of stalking has caused legislatures around the 
country to pass a multitude of anti-stalking laws since the first state 
law was passed in California in 1990. However, while enacting 
legislation is a critical step, laws alone accomplish little without clear 
anti-stalking policies and effective enforcement on the ground. Yet, 
most law enforcement agencies across the country have not adopted 
distinct protocols and procedures for intervention in stalking cases. It 
is therefore not surprising that nearly twenty percent of the stalking 
victims say that police departments did absolutely nothing in response 
to their complaints.2 

Against this background, the National Center for Victims of Crime 
received funding from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of 
Community Oriented Policing Services for a project to develop and 
test a model protocol to guide law enforcement responses to stalking 
based on the principles of community policing. The objectives were: 

 To promote a strategic approach that encourages early 
intervention. 

 To broadly define the roles of functional areas within police 
departments, including 911 operators, patrol, and investigative 
units. 

 To present guidelines for developing and participating in a 
coordinated community response. 

 To encourage the use of collaborative problem solving techniques. 


The National Center worked with the Philadelphia Police Department 
(Pennsylvania) to adapt the model protocol for a pilot test in the 
Department's Northeast Division. At the same time, the National 
Center asked the Police Foundation to conduct an independent 
evaluation of the implementation process. 

Major Activities 

The major activities of the project included: 

Researchcollecting information about promising practices and 
stalking policies from police agencies throughout the United 
States and elsewhere. 

1 Tjaden, Patricia, and Nancy Thoennes. 
(1998). "Stalking in America: Findings 
From the National Violence Against 
Women Survey." Washington, D.C.: 
National Institute of Justice, U.S. 
Department of Justice and Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. 
Department of Health and Human 
Services. 

2 Ibid. 


Developmentcreating a model protocol that could be tailored to the
requirements of police agencies in different jurisdictions.

Implementationadapting and field-testing the model protocol by the
Philadelphia Police Department.

Evaluationassessing the implementation of the protocol in
Philadelphia.


Project Description 

The crime of stalking takes many forms. Stalkers use a variety of 
tactics and techniques to instill fear in victims. To respond effectively 
to stalking requires a multidisciplinary, community oriented approach 
that places a premium on information sharing, collaborative problem 
solving, and coordination among a range of stakeholdersall key 
components of community policing. 

During the project, the National Center, with the assistance of a 
diverse advisory board, developed a model protocol to help police 
agencies throughout the United States address stalking more 
effectively. Advisory board members included experts from law 
enforcement, victim services, and prosecution services. 

The resulting protocol: 

 
Promotes a strategic approach that encourages early intervention. 
 
Broadly defines the roles of officers in functional areas including 
patrol, 911 operators, detectives, and community relations. 
 
Presents guidelines for developing and participating in a 
coordinated community response stalking. 
 
Encourages the use of collaborative problem-solving techniques. 
 
Defines the need for centralized, preferably computerized, case 
management. 
 
Describes appropriate threat assessment techniques. 


Evaluating the efforts that took place in Philadelphia was critical to 
understanding the issues that police departments face when addressing 
stalking. The National Center asked the Police Foundation to 
document the existing approach to stalking in Philadelphia; and, then, 
to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation process through 
surveys and focus groups. 


Time Line 

The project was conducted from January 2000 through September 
2001. Initial activities, focusing on the collection and review of 
existing information, were followed by site visits to Dover, New 
Hampshire and Los Angeles, California to explore current anti-
stalking programs and initiatives. The information gathered was then 
analyzed for incorporation into the model protocol. 

Upon completion of the model protocol, the National Center Project 
Team worked with the Philadelphia Police Department's Stalking 
Protocol Implementation Team to adapt the model to the needs of 
the Department before testing it in the field. Prior to the six-month 
pilot test, the Department provided training on the new protocol for 
officers who would be responsible for implementing the policy on the 
ground. During the development and training phases, and throughout 
the implementation process, the National Center served as a resource 
to the Philadelphia Police Department. The Police Foundation 
conducted its process evaluation as the protocol was launched in 
Philadelphia. 

This monograph presents an overview of the issues, reproduces the 
model protocol developed by the National Center, describes the 
experience in Philadelphia, summarizes the results of the Police 
Foundation's evaluation, and offers conclusions and recommendations. 


Chapter 2:The Meaning of Stalking 

Defining Stalking 

Stalking is distinguishable from many other types of crime in two 
important ways. First, it is a crime involving repeat victimization of a 
targeted individual by the perpetratorit is, by its very nature, a series 
of acts rather than a single incident. Second, it is partly defined by its 3 Ibid. 
impact on the victim. The National Violence Against Women Survey 
suggests the following definition: 

A course of conduct directed at a specific person that involves repeated visual 
or physical proximity; non-consensual communication; or verbal, written or 
implied threats; or a combination thereof that would cause a reasonable 
person fear.3 

Stalking instills fear, creates uncertainty, and wrecks lives. It may be a 
prelude to severe, even lethal violence. It is almost always a feature in 
relationships characterized by domestic violence, past or current, but 
also occurs it situations where there has never been any intimate 
relationship between the stalker and the victim, or where the stalker 
and victim are strangers. As a problem, it is complex and challenging. 
As a crime, it is hard to identify, investigate, and prosecute. 

State and Federal Anti-Stalking Laws 

Stalking is not a new phenomenon, but efforts to address it as a 
specific crime, both inside and outside the context of domestic 
violence, are relatively recent. The first state law against stalking was 
passed by California in 1990. Subsequently, in 1993, Congress directed 
the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institution of Justice to 
develop a model anti-stalking code that would help states formulate 
laws to address the problem of stalking effectively. (See Appendix I 
for a copy of the model code.) 

Today, all fifty states, and the federal government, have stalking-related 
provisions in their criminal codes. State anti-stalking laws vary from 
jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but they share certain basic elements. For 
example, the statutes generally define stalking in terms of a course of 
conduct or pattern of behavior that would cause a reasonable person 
to fear bodily injury or death for himself/herself or a member of 
his/her immediate family. Similarly, under most state laws, two or 
more incidents are required to establish a course of conduct or 
pattern of behavior. 


4 Ibid. 

5 Ibid. 

In addition to specific anti-stalking statutes, there are numerous state 
laws relating to a wide variety of criminal acts and behavior and to the 
investigation or prevention of crime that may be relevant in stalking 
cases. These include laws governing: 

 The nature and scope of protective/restraining orders 
 Assaults, threats, attempted murder, kidnapping 
 Property crimes, vandalism, theft 
 Domestic violence and sexual assault, hate crimes, and terrorism 
or terrorist threats 
 Identity theft, utility theft, and wiretapping 
 Any relevant local ordinances applicable to stalking behavior 


Federal statutes that specifically relate to or are applicable to stalking 
may provide further options for the prosecution of stalkers. When 
federal laws are used, the United States Attorney's Offices coordinates 
with state and local prosecutors to hold perpetrators accountable. 

Relevant federal laws include Full Faith and Credit (U.S.C. 2265), 
Interstate Stalking (U.S.C. 2261), Interstate Domestic Violence 
(U.S.C. 2261), Interstate Violation of a Protection Order 
(U.S.C. 2262), Federal Domestic Violence Firearm Prohibitions 
(U.S.C.922), Interstate Communications (U.S.C. 875), and Harassing 
Telephone Calls in Interstate Communications (U.S.C. 233(a)(1)(C)). 
(See Appendix II for further details of these Federal laws.) 

Prevalence and Nature of Stalking 

Stalking is widespread. It is a problem that primarily affects women 
and intersects significantly with relationship abuse. There is always a 
risk that stalking will escalate to serious physical violence, including 
murder. 

According to the National Violence Against Women Survey, an estimated 
1,006,070 women and 370,990 men are stalked annually in the United 
States. Therefore, in the sense that both men and women may be 
victims or perpetrators, it is a gender-neutral crime. In terms of 
overall numbers, however, the overwhelming majority of victims 
(seventy-eight percent) are women and the primary perpetrators 
(eighty-seven percent) are men.4 

Contrary to the impression given by some highly publicized cases, the 
majority of victims know their stalkers. Survey evidence indicates that 
only a minority of victims are stalked by strangerstwenty-three 
percent in the case of female victims, thirty-six percent in the case of 
male victims.5 Furthermore, research shows that fifty-nine percent of 


female victims and thirty percent of male victims are stalked by 
current or former intimate partners.6 In these intimate partner cases, 
twenty-one percent of the female victims reported that the stalking 
occurred before the relationship ended, forty-three percent said it 
occurred after the relationship ended, and thirty-six percent said it 
occurred both before and after the relationship ended. 

These statistics are striking because they demonstrate the extent to 
which stalking is a key weapon in the armory of domestic abusers. 
Indeed, stalking and domestic violence intersect in a variety of ways. 
For example, stalking is a manifestation of the perpetrator's desire to 
exert power and control over the victim, achieving these ends by 
instilling fear and anxiety. Furthermore, just as stalking can cross over 
into physical violence, so domestic violence may take the form of 
threats and other nonphysical types of abuse. However, while stalking 
does not always involve domestic violence, domestic violence almost 
invariably includes elements of stalking. Thus, most domestic 
violence can be seen as a sub-category of stalking, stalkers being the 
broader group within which the domestic abusers are subsumed. 

Overall, it is estimated that stalkers commit acts of violence against 
their victims in twenty-five to thirty-five percent of all stalking cases.7 
However, perpetrators who stalk former intimate partners are more 
likely to have physically or sexually assaulted them prior to termination 
of the relationship.8 Furthermore, although stalking does not always 
crossover into physical violence, there is evidence that it is often a 
precursor to the most lethal acts of violence. In a high proportion of 
cases involving the murder or attempted murder of women, the 
perpetrator was shown to have stalked the victim beforehand.9 A 
recent study of the relationship between stalking and intimate partner 
femicide also found that in seventy-six percent of femicide cases and 
eighty-five percent of attempted femicide cases there was at least one 
incident of stalking in the year prior to the commission of these 
crimes.10 

Stalking not only closely correlates with relationship violence, 
relationship violence significantly correlates with homicides of 
women. One third of the women killed each year in America die at 
the hands of a current or former intimate. In light of these facts, 
there is good reason to treat every domestic violence case as a 
potential stalking case, and in many instances, to treat domestic 
violence cases as high risk, potentially lethal stalking cases.11 

6 Ibid. 

7 Meloy, J. Reid, ed. (1998), The Psychology of 
Stalking: Clinical and Forensic Perspectives, San 
Diego, CA: Academic Press. 

8 Ibid. 

9 Felder, Raoul, and Barbara Victor. (1997) 
Getting Away with Murder: Weapons for the 
War Against Domestic Violence. New York: 
Touchstone. 

10 McFarlane, Judith M., et al (November 1999). 
"Stalking and Intimate Partner Femicide," 
Homicide Studies, 3(4) 

11 Rennison, Callie Marie, and Sarah Welchans. 
(2000). Intimate Partner Violence," Bureau of 
Justice Statistics,Special Report. Washington 
D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice. 


Stalking creates a psychological 
prison that deprives its victims 
of basic liberty of movement 
and security in their homes. We 
must address these crimes 
effectively by working together 
to protect stalking victims and 
to hold perpetrators responsible 
for their criminal behavior. To 
eradicate stalking, we must act 
with the full force of the law. 

Fourth Annual Report to 
Congress, Stalking and 
Domestic Violence, 
May 2001 

Stalking Behaviors 

Stalking is not, by definition, a one-time criminal act but a series of 
repeat acts of victimization, a pattern of behavior, and/or a course of 
conduct. It may involve a mix of patently criminal acts and behavior 
that, in another context, would be considered benign and noncriminal. 
A stalker can commit any type of crimefrom vandalism, to 
kidnapping, to homicide. Such crimes might include physically or 
sexually assaulting the victim, killing pets owned by the victim, 
violating a protection order, or making overt threats to harm the 
victim, for example. But, stalking laws also criminalize ostensibly 
innocent acts that would normally be considered benign and 
noncriminalsuch as sending letters, delivering unwanted gifts, or 
making phone calls to the victimif they form part of a course of 
conduct or that, implicitly or explicitly, threatens the victim and instills 
fear of bodily harm or death. (For a more comprehensive list of 
common stalking behaviors, see the Model Protocol in Chapter 4.) 

Stalkers and Stalker Classifications 

Stalkers come from different backgrounds and have different 
personalities. They may abuse drugs and alcohol, or avoid these 
substances altogether. They may or may not have prior criminal 
records. Their victims may be current or past intimate partners, 
acquaintances, or strangers. They may be driven by fantasy or delusion 
or by anger, revenge, jealousy, and a desire for power and control over 
a current or former intimate partner. They may have dependant and 
controlling personalities (as is true of many domestic violence 
stalkers) or have a mental illness or condition that needs treatment. 

Researchers have developed a widely accepted "typology" that divides 
stalkers into four main categories and indicates which types are more 
and less common. These categories are Simple Obsessional, Love 
Obsessional, Erotomania, and False Victimization Syndrome. (See the Model 
Protocol in Chapter 4 for further details.) While helpful in some 
respects, the typology has to be applied with caution to real-life 
stalking cases, even by those who have received proper training. 
Individual perpetrators may not precisely fit any single stalker category 
or can exhibit characteristics associated with more than one category. 

Impact of Stalking on Victims 

Unlike many crimes, the concept and legal definition of stalking goes 
beyond the perpetrator's behavior and includes the effects of stalking 
on the victim. The impact of stalking is often wide-ranging and 
severe. 


Many victims talk about the strain of constantly being on the alertfor 
the stalker or the next incident. They speak of the way the situation 
can consume all their energies. They report how vulnerable and out of 
control they feel as a result of being forced to live in a continual state 
of stress and anxiety. One victim described the impact to a staff 
member at the National Center for Victims of Crime, in the following 
words: 

I wake up every morning, wondering if this is the day I will die at the hands 
of my stalker. I spend the day looking over my shoulder for him. I jump every 
time the phone rings. I can't sleep at night from worrying, and when I do 
sleep, I have nightmares of him. I can't escape him, not even for a minute. I 
never have a moment's peace, awake or asleep. 

Stalking affects every part of a victim's life. It brings fear of random 
attacks, loss of trust in society and the criminal justice system, long-
term emotional distress, and disruption of everyday living. It can also 
trigger a wide variety of psychological responses and 
physical/behavioral reactions. 

Psychological responses include not just anxiety, fear, and paranoia, 
but feelings of guilt, self-blame, shame, isolation, low self-esteem, 
anger, rage, and depression. Almost always, there's a pervasive sense 
of loss of personal safety, a constant feeling of stress, and hyper-
vigilance. Sometimes, the victim's reaction manifests itself in a form of 
denialof the problem or its seriousness. Nightmares and disrupted 
sleep patterns, changes in eating habits, and other symptoms tell a 
different story. Victims often complain about feeling exhausted, 
unable to concentrate. Some suffer short-term memory problems. 
Work productivity or academic performance may decline. They may 
show symptoms of chronic Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder 
(PTSD)re-experiencing again and again frightening stalking incidents, 
avoiding reminders of the problem (for example, through social 
withdrawal or avoidance of any situations that might trigger memories 
of stalking incidents) and exaggerated "startle responses." 

The fear or terror induced by stalkers frequently causes victims to 
make significant changes in their lives. Common coping strategies 
include screening all telephone calls (at home and work) and changing 
all personal contact informationphone and fax numbers, email and 
postal addresses, drivers' licenses, Social Security Numbers.12 Many 
victims take steps to avoid being followed and spied on. They alter 
their normal routines, they avoid going out on their own, and they 
give up leisure or sports activities. More drastic action may involve 
temporary or permanent relocation. They may move to another state 
or try to change their identitynotwithstanding the consequences that 
may include uprooting children, leaving behind close relatives and 
friends, and abandoning careers. 

12 Stalking and Domestic Violence Series: 
Report to Congress, Violence Against 
Women Office, Office of Justice 
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 
May 2001 


Victims' reactions tend to worsen with each new incident and get 
compounded by concerns regarding the effects on their children and 
other "secondary victims." The National Violence Against Women Survey 
found that stalking victims are significantly more likely than non-
victims to live in fear for their safety and take personal safety 
measures. It also found that substantial numbers of victims sought 
psychological counseling as a result of the stalkingthirty percent of 
female victims and twenty percent of male victims.13 Lack of 
confidence in the ability of the criminal justice system to protect 
victims from future harassment is an important reason why it is so 
hard for victims to recover from the effects of stalking.14 

Victims' responses to stalking are usually normal reactions to 
abnormal circumstances. It is the stalkers, not the victims, who must 
be held accountable. It is the task of law enforcement and the 
communities they serve to protect victims, stop the harassment, and 
bring the perpetrators to justice. 

13 Tjaden and Thoennes, supra. 

14 Stalking and Domestic Violence Series: Report to 
Congress, Violence Against Women Office, Office of 
Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, May 
2001. 


Chapter 3: Stalking and Community Policing 

Core components of community policing include partnering with the 
community; problem-solving; transforming policing agencies to support and 
empower frontline officers; decentralizing command, and encouraging 
innovative problem-solving.15 

The Challenges of Policing Stalking 

Stalking is difficult to recognize, investigate, assess, and prevent for 
many reasons, including the following: 

 
Stalking is not a single, obvious, easily identifiable criminal 
act like assault, robbery, burglary and other crimes. Stalking is 
often a mix of criminal and (in a different context) non-criminal 
behavior. There may be no overt threats and few clues to interpret 
one stalking incident as part of a criminal "course of conduct." 
 
The impact of stalking on the victimthe fear it inducesis a 
key component of its legal definition. This affects the way the 
crime must be investigated and proved. 
 
Stalking behaviors are complex, varied, and unpredictable. It 
takes many forms and individual incidents may be similar or 
dissimilar. It is hard to be certain if and when stalking behavior 
will escalate to physical violence. 
 
There is no single or standard stalker profile to assist 
investigators. Stalkers may be former intimate partners of their 
victims or acquaintances or strangers. They may be motivated by 
anger, revenge, jealousy, irrational love, fantasy, or delusion. They 
may or may not have prior criminal records or be mentally ill. 
 
In the context of domestic violence, investigation of stalking 
incidents may easily be eclipsed by the cruder 
manifestations of abuse. Stalking may seem insignificant when 
blatant acts of physical violence are occurring. The additional 
danger represented by stalking may be overlooked. 
 
Effective investigation in stalking cases depends on 
gathering information from many sources and seeing "the 
big picture." Like a complex puzzle, all the pieces must be fitted 
together simply to identify the crime, let alone solve it and end the 
harassment. 


15 
The Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services, U.S. Department of Justice. (April 24, 
2001). "News and Information, Background 
Scope: A Definition of Community Policing." 


 
The stalker may commit criminal acts in different locations 
and may be under investigation in multiple jurisdictions. The 
victim may live in one place, work or attend school in another, 
and seek refuge elsewhere. If the stalker threatens third parties or 
vandalizes their property, different victims' names will appear on 
complaint reports, making it even harder to link separate 
incidents. 
 
Stalkers are not easily deterred. Stalkers tend to be obsessive, 
therefore conventional sanctions, including court orders 
forbidding contact with victims, do not necessarily make an 
impact. Many stalkers continue to harass their victims even after 
conviction. 
 
Victim safety is always a priority. There is always the risk that 
stalking will become psychologically unbearable or cross over into 
physical, even lethal, violence. Criminal justice interventions may 
be ineffective or even cause an escalation in the stalker's behavior. 
All intervention must therefore be carefully monitored and go 
hand in hand with action to protect victims. 


Stalking and Community Policing 

Why Traditional Approaches Fall Short 

Compared to crimes involving obvious acts of violence or 
intimidation, stalking is shadowy, subtle, and hard to grasp. The 
burdens on police investigators are considerable. Victim safety must 
always be the priority yet assessing the risks to victims is especially 
problematic. Officers must investigate all matters involving the alleged 
perpetratorespecially if incidents occur in different jurisdictions. 

The risks to victims may not be fully appreciated because connections 
between separate incidents haven't been made or attention focuses 
primarily on incidents involving physical violence. In domestic 
violence cases, while a perpetrator may be rightly arrested on charges 
of assault and battery, other potential dangers to the victim may be 
neglected (e.g., if a perpetrator is stalking the victim and has access to 
a gun). Failure to assess the added danger represented by stalking may 
mean other types of intervention to protect victims get overlooked. 

Stalking as a crime is complex and hard to address. Making 
generalizations about stalkers can be dangerous. Predicting with any 
accuracy what stalkers are likely to do next is exceptionally difficult. 
Applying the different stalker "types" identified through research to 
real life cases isn't easy or necessarily productive. 


The complexity and unpredictability of stalking, the challenges 
involved in identifying stalking and collecting evidence to prove it, the 
continuing risk to victims, the need to prevent further acts of 
harassment all create special problems for police officersproblems 
they don't normally face. This is why the police cannot tackle stalking 
effectively on their own, however expert they are. This is why the 
police need to work collaboratively with others in the community if 
they are to reduce stalking incidents and address the needs of victims. 
Strategies to address stalking must reach beyond the boundaries of 
traditional "reactive" policing and embrace the principles and practices 
of community-oriented policing.16 

Police officers must, of course, be familiar with state and federal laws 
that govern stalking and harassment and the range of charges that can 
be brought against a stalker. They must also be aware of other legal 
remedies (such as orders of protection) that can help protect victims. 
But, in addition, they must build a detailed picture of the stalker and 
his/her behavior, understand the context in which the incidents are 
occurring, assess the risks faced by the victim, be able to propose 
meaningful safety precautions, and engage in proactive 
problem-solving and early intervention. 

The Mesh Between Stalking and Community Policing17 

Community policing has been described as policing that "aims to 
increase interaction and cooperation between local police and the 
people and neighborhoods they serve  to reduce and prevent crime 
and to increase feelings of safety among residents."18 Identifying, 
investigating, and prosecuting stalking cases, assessing the risks to 
victims and protecting them, and preventing further acts of 
harassment are all tasks that cry out for the kind of pro-active, 
collaborative, problem-solving that are the hallmarks of community 
policing. The mesh between community policing and stalking is 
striking. 

A community oriented policing approach means early identification of 
problems and early intervention to enhance victim safety and prevent 
repeat victimization. The challenge is to find ways for police 
departments and community partners to translate these principles into 
practical realitiesinto the policies and protocols that achieve these 
goals. 

16 STOP Violence Against Women Technical 
Assistance Office. (1998). Promising Practices: 
Improving the Criminal Justice System's 
Response to Violence Against Women. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 
Office of Justice Programs, Violence Against 
Women's Office, p. 102. 

17 Mesh (verb) - To come or bring together and 
interlock (Roget's II: The New Thesaurus) 

18 Stephen Mastrofski, Roger B. Parks, and 
Robert E. Worden. Community Policing in Action: 
Lessons From an Observational Study. National 
Institute of Justice Research Preview June 
1998, Office of Justice Programs. U.S. 
Department of Justice. 


19 STOP Violence Against Women Technical 
Assistance Office (1998) Promising Practices 
p. 95. 

20 Domestic Violence and Stalking: The Second 
Annual Report to Congress under the Violence 
Against Women Act (Chapter 3) Violence 
Against Women Grants Office, Office of Justice 
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, July 
1997. 


Translating Theory into Practice 

To apply the principles of community policing to stalking, police 
departments must embrace a vision and philosophy that promotes the 
safety of victims and holds offenders accountable.19 This implies a 
willingness to act on two separate but related fronts. First, there must 
be a willingness to work meaningfully in partnership with others in the 
community to improve officer understanding of stalking, pioneer new 
initiatives, and create practical guidelines to assist officers on a daily 
basis. Second, there must be a commitment to make the necessary 
internal changes that will establish and promote the new policies and 
procedures. 

Community Involvement 

Possible Barriers 

Community oriented stalking policies are sometimes impeded by 
barriers that divide community stakeholders. Differences in missions 
and goals, a lack of collaborative and communication skills, rivalries 
stemming from unequal influence in the community, and other factors 
may hamper efforts to foster positive, productive relationships 
between police and community stakeholders. Police departments need 
to be alert to such barriers and willing to address them, proactively, as 
early as possible. 

Structures 

There is no set formula for building relationships or uniting police and 
community in the discussion, development, and implementation of 
new anti-stalking strategies. Some departments may favor jurisdiction-
wide steering committees. Others may prefer working through a task 
force of key players from prominent local agencies and organizations 
or decide to invite a group of selected community representatives to 
join a planning committee. What matters is not the preferred approach 
(which may be influenced by history, tradition and a range of other 
factors) but the thinking that lies behind it. For example, if broad 
community representation is desired, for the search for potential 
partners must be thorough and go beyond the "usual players." 

"Added value" from the Community 

Stalking is an ongoing pattern of behavior, not a single act or incident. 
There may be no tangible evidence of criminal intent, as in other 
crimes. It may be hard to establish a convincing link between the 
stalker's acts and the impact on the victim.20 These characteristics 



present unique challenges for law enforcement and make it essential to 
recognize why collaborative problem-solving is so critical to tackle 
stalking more effectively. Police agencies first have to appreciate the 
potential of others to help them do a better job. Then, they can 
consider which community stakeholders will be the best partners. 

There are obvious candidatesvictims, victims' neighbors, victim 
advocatesbut many others can make important contributions and 
should not be overlooked. These include prosecutors, corrections, 
probation, and parole authorities, public defenders, members of the 
judiciary, mental health treatment providers, community-based housing 
and social service providers (including domestic violence shelters), 
batterers' education and intervention programs, local 
telecommunications and other business organizations, schools, 
colleges, faith-based social service providers, and federal criminal 
justice agencies. All these community stakeholders have a potential 
part to play in strengthening police responses in stalking cases. 

There is relatively little research that focuses specifically on community 
oriented police responses to stalking. It appears, however, that 
different kinds of partnerships and collaborations can all help enhance 
police action and promote victim safety. The following section 
illustrates a few ways in which proactive, problem-oriented police 
work can be improved by increased victim and community 
involvement. 

More Effective Input from Victims 

Stalking victims have a unique role to play in assisting the police. 
Indeed, the police are probably more dependent on victim input in 
stalking cases than in most other criminal investigations. Individual 
victims know more than anyone else about the stalker's behavior 
and/or the stalker. Actively engaging victims in the investigation and 
working out case strategies in partnership with them results in more 
appropriate and effective police responses. 

Closer working relationships with victims, their neighbors, and others 
can make victims safer while building the case against the stalker. 
Officers can offer advice to victims about safety planning, but only 
victims themselves can work out what changes they need to make in 
their routines, enlist the help of their friends and neighbors, and 
decide whether a protective order is a good option in their 
circumstances. Similarly, although officers conduct the investigation, 
obtaining sound evidencethe foundation of all successful 
prosecutionsdepends critically on active victim involvement and 
cooperation. "Evidence collection starts with the victims."21 

21 George E. Wattendorf: Stalking Investigation 
Strategies, FBI, Law Enforcement Bulletin, 
March 2000. 


Only victims can provide the information to demonstrate a pattern of 
harassment and its effects. Only victims can detail the contacts made 
by the stalker in person, through voicemail, letters, faxes, email, or 
unwanted gifts. Only victims can describe the fear they feel as a 
consequence of the stalker's behavior. If victims are viewed and 
treated as partners, it is much more likely that prosecutors will end up 
with the evidence needed to convict perpetrators. 

Roles for Victim Advocates 

Victim advocates can be a major resource for the police. They 
understand stalking, the impact on victims, and the critical need to 
maintain safety. They often have more frequent contact with victims 
than police officers. They can reinforce the importance of victims 
recording all stalking incidents. They can help victims create and 
maintain stalking logs, devise safety plans, and develop supportive 
networks. They can assess victim needs and help victims to access 
housing, health, and mental health services. They can help victims 
think through the pros and cons of protection orders. (e.g. Victims are 
sometimes encouraged to apply for protection orders not simply to 
enhance their safety, but because violations of these orders often allow 
prosecutors to secure convictions more easily than under stalking 
statutes.) 

In addition to assisting in individual cases, advocates may also be able 
to help departments develop more effective anti-stalking policies. A 
1998 national survey showed "agency policies and procedures for 
stalking cases complement and supplement staff training. But many 
agencies do not have such policies and procedures."22 As a result of 
their in-depth knowledge of stalking and its effects on victims, many 
advocates are well-placed to advise on written guidelines that lay out 
appropriate police responses in stalking cases. They can also 
contribute to the design and conduct of training on new anti-stalking 
policies. 

District Attorneys as Key Players 

The particular challenges involved in proving stalking cases demand a 
special operational relationship between police and prosecutors. 
Prosecuting attorneys can broaden and deepen police understanding 
of stalking so they are better equipped to help build cases against 
stalkers. In many jurisdictions prosecutors have taken the lead, 
pioneering new ways to conduct investigations and monitor stalking 
cases as well as promoting partnerships that assist the police and help 
protect victims. 

22Neal Miller: Report on a 1998 National Survey 
of Law Enforcement and Prosecution Initiatives 
Against Stalking, Institute of Law and Justice 
October 1999. 


Examples of Community Involvement in 
Anti-Stalking Initiatives 

The National Center developed a model protocol to provide police 
departments with a flexible tool for the establishment of effective 
anti-stalking polices. The aim was to enhance, not replace, the wide-
ranging creativity of local initiatives involving law enforcement 
agencies and the communities they serve. The following examples give 
a glimpse of the possibilitiesof the many ways in which greater 
involvement of community stakeholders can enhance police responses 
in stalking cases. 

Dover, New Hampshire. The Dover Police Department has established a 
system of "vertical prosecution" in which a single prosecutor handles 
all stalking cases. The prosecutor's presence in the Department 
"facilitates open communication and a strong cooperative effort in the 
investigation of stalking cases. He serves as the resource person on 
stalking cases and provides officer training on stalking."23 Detectives 
and prosecutor work together as a team but they also rely on "a good 
rapport and comfortable working relationship with stalking victims."24 

Dover has further expanded community involvement through 
JurisMonitor, a technological tool for tracking the movements of 
stalkers after they are released from custody on bail or probation.25 
The JurisMonitor works by transmitting electronic signals to a 
monitoring center from an ankle bracelet worn by the offender. If the 
offender approaches the victim's home in violation of a court order, 
the police get notified immediately. Law enforcement, probation, 
victim advocates, and the monitoring center all receive the case 
information and a copy of the court order; a local shelter may also be 
informed. Victim advocates explain the system to victims, encouraging 
them to use it as part of a broad safety plan rather than relying on it 
alone. Community involvement and victim safety are further 
enhanced through agreements with private companies to provide cell 
phones programmed to dial 911 for all victims whose homes are fitted 
with the JurisMonitor. 

Los Angeles Police Department, California. The LAPD's pioneering Threat 
Management Unit (TMU) was set up in 1990, following the murder of 
stalking victim Rebecca Shaeffer. The TMU investigates all serious or 
terroristic threats (most of which involve stalking) except those related 
to domestic violence. Threat assessment, surveillance, and education 
to promote victim safety are among the techniques used by the TMU. 
Once the TMU accepts a case, detectives call victims once a week. 
The suspect may be contacted in person or sent a warning letter. In 
the Los Angeles District Attorneys Office, a parallel "Stalk the Stalker" 
program has been implemented. 

23 Violence Against Women Online Resources. 
Assessing Justice System Responses to 
Violence Against Women. www.vaw.umn.edu 

24 Ibid. 

25 Ibid. 


San Diego, California. In San Diego, the vertical prosecution system 
ensures that victims have a single person to contact for the entire 
duration of the case. Patrol officers refer all stalking reports from the 
same victim to the same investigating officer who assigns the same 
case number that was assigned to the original complaint. The District 
Attorney's Office has also developed a questionnaire for police first 
responders to help identify potential stalking cases. 

In the mid 1990s, to further strengthen anti-stalking strategies, San 
Diego created the San Diego Stalking Strike Force. This is a 
multidisciplinary group of police officials, prosecutors, judges, victim 
advocates, and mental health professionals working to change the 
attitudes of criminal justice personnel and make recommendations 
about training. Its "Stalking Case Assessment Team" is a forum involving 
police, prosecutors, victim/witness advocates, probation officials, and 
mental health professionals. It meets regularly to address problems 
reported by the police or by stalking victims, the central focus being 
victim safety and threat assessment. The Strike Force is also developing 
model protocols for stalker treatment programs. 

Orange County, California. The District Attorney's Office in Orange 
County has created an "oversight team" for all felony stalking cases 
unrelated to domestic violence. The team consists of a deputy district 
attorney, a district attorney investigator, and a victim-witness 
advocate.26 Tasks undertaken by the team include documenting non-criminal 
incidents that may become part of a pattern of stalking 
incidents, collecting "pre-stalking" incident reports that have been 
forwarded by outside agencies; coordinating parallel investigations 
when multiple jurisdictions are involved; and, maintaining contact with 
victims after a stalker has been convicted, to provide release 
notifications and ensure quicker police responses if the stalking 
resumes. When a stalker is released from incarceration, the team acts 
as liaison between the probation or parole officers and the victim. 
Based on the impact of similar programs in San Diego and Los 
Angeles, the increased coordination achieved by the oversight team is 
expected to reduce the number of lengthy stalking prosecutions, 
increase the conviction rates in lengthier stalking trials, and contribute 
to increased victim safety post-conviction. 

Alameda County, California. The Anti-Stalking Unit of Alameda 
County consists of a prosecutor, investigator, paralegal and victim 
witness advocate. They work together and attend civil "protection 
order" hearings. Judges, after issuing orders in stalking cases, refer 
victims to the Anti-Stalking Unit so they can access support services 
and resources. 

26 Raymond S. Armstrong. Stalking The Stalker: 
A Pro-active Approach to the Prosecution of 
Stalking Cases. Home Front, Quarterly Family 
Violence Newsletter, California District 
Attorneys Association, Vol. 3 No. 2. Winter 
1998, 
www.safenetwork.net/Pubs/pubvawa.htm. 


Rocky River Cuyahoga County, Ohio. In the Rocky River Cuyahoga 
Municipal Court, a probation officer runs two stalking support groups 
that provide information on safety planning, evidence collection, and 
Domestic Violence and non-Domestic Violence-related stalking. 

Winchester, Virginia. Victim advocates at the Winchester Shelter have 
developed stalking kits with cell phones, tape recorders, stalking log, 
and other materials to help victims with evidence collection and self-
defense. 

Los Angeles, California. Victim advocates are involved in educating the 
public about stalking through an initiative sponsored by the Los Angeles 
Commission on Assaults Against Women and the Los Angeles District 
Attorneys Office. They provide individual and group counseling and run 
a 24-hour hotline for stalking victims. 

Police Leadership and Action 

Implementing new policies always requires leadership and 
determination. Launching a new anti-stalking policy is no exception. 
Procedures, training, directives, and police conduct must all reflect the 
changed outlook. If the new guidelines are to be understood at all 
levels and properly executed on the ground, the implications must be 
considered across the board. Directive and training sessions must be 
designed for every member of the departmentfrom dispatchers and 
frontline officers to detectives and supervisors. 

Supervisors, local commanders, and top commanders must all take on 
leadership roles. And because research suggests that community 
oriented police strategies can be designed to involve members of 
virtually every rank, even line officers, whose ability to influence 
community-wide problems is inevitably more limited, can help to 
promote change if given appropriate training and leadership.27 

Some Basic Principles 

Community oriented, coordinated responses to stalking will be 
characterized by many elements. These include early identification of 
the problems and early intervention to enhance victim safety and stop 
the stalking; a sound system of data collection to identify stalking 
behaviors and situations; information sharing and collaborative 
problem-solving; coordination of victim services and police responses; 
cooperative partnerships with key community stakeholders; and, a 
system for monitoring and evaluating police responses, to ensure that 
victims receive the best possible support and protection. 

27 Scott, Michael S. (October 2000) Problem-
Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 
Years. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services available at 
www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=311 


Training and Technical Support 

Appropriate training and technical support will be a critical element in 
the successful implementation of a community-oriented approach to 
stalking. Like other types of repeat victimization, stalking requires 
careful analysis, strategic thinking, collaborative action planning, and 
adoption of problem-solving approaches. It means, in each case, 
conducting a broad inquiry into the nature of the problem and 
adopting techniques like analysis of patterns of offender behavior, 
such as repeat calls involving specific victims or the same or similar 
locations. 

Education and training is vital, but not alone, sufficient. Officers must 
also have the necessary technical support and resources that allow 
them to track cases and correctly analyze the data they collect. 
Without proper technological support such as computers and relevant 
software, the police will inevitably do less than they are capable of 
doingless than their bestboth in terms of protecting victims and 
bringing perpetrators to justice.28 

Community Policing and Stalking: Potential Rewards 

Most law enforcement agencies have not yet adopted comprehensive, 
anti-stalking strategies or introduced procedural guidelines to govern 
police intervention in stalking cases. It is therefore not surprising that 
many stalking victims have the impression that the police do nothing 
to help them. 29 Applying the principles of community policing to 
stalking is the best route to policies and protocols that command the 
support of police and community alike. It is the surest pathway 
towards the identification and utilization of the array of formal and 
informal community resources that can help the police respond better 
to the needs of victims and tackle stalking more effectively. 

Examples of promising community policing anti-stalking initiatives are 
summarized in Appendix III. The following two chapters describe the 
"model stalking protocol" developed by the National Center for 
Victims of Crime and the implementation, in Philadelphia, of a 
protocol based closely on that model. 

28 Sampson, Rana and Michael S. Scott. (2000). 
Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety 
Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 
pp. 34 available at 
www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=583 

29 Tjaden, Patricia, and Nancy Thoennes. (1998). 
Supra. 



Chapter 4: Model Protocol for 
Community Oriented Police Response to 
Stalking 

Introduction 

The model protocol set out in this chapter is based on the premise 
that a comprehensive, coordinated, community response is the only 
way to effectively address the needs of stalking victims and hold 
stalkers accountable. It is designed to clarify the nature of stalking and 
map out ways in which law enforcement can work collaboratively with 
community stakeholders to improve their responses to stalking. As 
illustrated by the protocol that was piloted in Philadelphia (see 
Chapter 5) the model protocol seeks to enhance (not replace) local 
creativity, providing guidelines that can be easily adapted to the needs 
of law enforcement agencies in different jurisdictions. 

I. Purpose 

This policy acknowledges that stalking incidents present significant 
challenges within local communities. The National Violence Against 
Women Survey found that an estimated 1,006,070 women and an 
estimated 370,990 men are stalked annually in the United States. The 
purpose of this policy is to establish uniform police department 
procedures for responding to, recording, investigating and handling 
stalking incidents to ensure that harassing and/or threatening behavior 
is properly identified and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 
This protocol defines the role a police officer shall take when 
confronted with such a situation and reaffirms the officer's authority 
and responsibility to make arrest decisions in accordance with 
established probable cause standards. The overall goal of this policy is 
the prevention of stalking violence through early identification of 
stalking behaviors and early intervention, in collaboration with the 
community, in order to hold the offender accountable and enhance 
the safety of stalking victims and all citizens. 

II. Policy 

Stalking cases present a unique and ongoing threat to the victim, the 
seriousness of which is difficult to predict and may involve ongoing 
behavior by a suspect that can literally last for years. Due to the 
difficult and dangerous nature of this conduct, it shall be the policy of 
this police department to act quickly to investigate all harassment, 


threatening behavior, and stalking reports in a manner that will protect 
the victim and facilitate the arrest of the stalker. Emphasis shall be on 
providing as many measures of safety for the victim as possible 
through all available strategies and interventions. Police officers shall 
convey sensitivity to victims, and an attitude that stalking is criminal 
behavior and will not be tolerated. The officer shall treat all acts of 
stalking as criminal conduct, determining if probable cause exists for 
an arrest, and then taking the appropriate action. The officer shall 
make efforts to ensure that victims are informed of all available 
services within the department and the community. 

The policy takes a continuum approach to stalking response, realizing 
that many parts of the criminal justice system and agencies within the 
community must coordinate to provide a truly comprehensive 
response to victims of stalking. The department will act as the lead in 
implementation of a collaborative plan to involve all disciplines in 
promoting a coordinated team approach towards stalking cases. The 
ultimate goal of the collaborative plan, and the policy itself, is to 
significantly reduce stalking in the community. 

III. Definitions 

A. Legal Definitions 

Legal definitions of stalking vary widely between jurisdictions. The 
definition of stalking used for the purposes of this policy is that 
used in the model anti-stalking code for states developed by the 
National Institute of Justice (National Criminal Justice Association, 
Project to Develop a Model Anti-Stalking Code for States, Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 
October 1993), which has been used by many jurisdictions as the 
basis for enacted legislation. 

1. 
The model code defines stalking as a "course of conduct" 
directed at a specific person that involves repeated visual or 
physical proximity, verbal or written threats, threats implied by 
conduct, or a combination thereof, that would cause a 
reasonable person to fear for herself or himself or a member of 
her or his immediate family. It usually is not necessary to prove 
that the suspect had the intent to actually carry out the threat. 

2. 
"Repeated" means on two or more occasions. 

3. 
"Immediate family" means a spouse, parent, child, sibling, or any 
other person who regularly resides in the household or who 
within the prior six months regularly resided in the household. 



4. 
The model code does not require stalkers to make a credible 
threat of violence against victims, but it does require victims to 
feel a high level of fear ("fear of bodily harm"). 

5. 
The criminal intent to commit stalking is measured by the model 
code by examining: 


a. 
Intent to engage is a course of conduct involving repeated 
following or threatening an individual. 
b. 
Knowledge that this behavior reasonably causes fear of 
bodily injury or death. 
c. 
Knowledge (or expectation) that the specific victim would 
have a reasonable fear of bodily injury or death. 
d. 
Actual fear of death or bodily injury experienced by a victim. 
e. 
Fear of death or bodily injury felt by members of the 
victim's immediate family. 


B. Other Applicable Legal Considerations 

Law enforcement in each state and at the federal level must apply 
its applicable stalking statutes to respond to the crime of stalking 
within its jurisdiction. Stalking laws do not necessarily replace 
harassment, terroristic threats, and similar laws. These statutes can 
play an important role in enforcement of the laws against stalking 
behavior. Stalking laws are often supplemented by other laws that 
provide penalties for stalking-like behavior that lacks some element 
of stalking, and such laws can often be applied to stalking 
behaviors and situations in order to effectively respond to incidents 
and provide safety for the victim. 

1. Other applicable state statutes 

a. 
Statutes pertaining to protective/restraining orders 
b. 
Assault statutes 
c. 
Threatening statutes 
d. 
Vandalism statutes 
e. 
Theft statutes 
f. 
Property crimes statutes 
g. 
Attempted murder statutes 
h. 
Kidnapping statutes 
i. 
Terrorism or terroristic/criminal threats statutes 
j. 
Domestic violence statutes 



k. 
Sexual assault statutes 
l. 
Hate crimes statutes
m.Identity theft statutes
n. 
Wiretapping and utility theft statutes 


2. 
There also may be local ordinances which could be applicable. 

3. 
Federal statutes 

Some stalking cases can be federally prosecuted. To be 
successful; at that level, investigators need to be familiar with 
the applicable federal statutes, 18 U.S.C.  2265; 2261; 2261 A; 
2262; 922 (g) (8); 875 (c)); and 47 U.S.C.  223 (a) (1) (c)). 

a. 
The Full Faith and Credit Act, 18 U.S.C.  2265 (1994, 2000), 
mandates all law enforcement authorities to recognize and 
enforce all valid orders of protection issued by all courts 
throughout the United States and its territories, including 
injunctions against harassment and stalking, in state, tribal, 
and territorial courts. 

b. 
The Interstate Travel to Commit Domestic Violence Act, 18 U.S.C.  
2261 (1994; 2000) states it is a federal crime to travel across 
state, tribal, or international lines with the intent to kill, 
injure, harass, or intimidate a spouse or intimate partner and 
to commit, or attempt to commit, a crime of violence against 
that spouse or intimate partner, and 2261 (a) (2) makes it a 
federal crime to cause a spouse or intimate partner to cross 
state, tribal, international lines, by force, coercion, duress, or 
fraud, and to commit, or attempt to commit, a crime of 
violence against that spouse or intimate partner. 

c. 
The Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C.  
2261 A (1996; 2000) makes it a federal crime to travel across 
state, tribal, or international lines to stalk another person. 
The defendant must have the intent to kill, injure, harass, or 
intimidate the victim, or to place the victim, a family 
member, or a spouse or intimate partner of the victim, in 
fear of death or serious bodily injury, and 2261 A (2) makes 
it a federal crime to stalk another person across state, tribal 
or international lines, using regular mail, email, or the 
Internet (i.e., datums). 

d. 
The Interstate Violation of a Protective Order Act, 18 U.S.C.  
2262 (1994; 2000), makes it a federal crime to travel across 
state, tribal, or international lines with the intent to violate a 
protection order and to subsequently engage in conduct that 



violates that order or to cause another person to cross state, 
tribal, or international lines by force, coercion, duress, or 
fraud and to subsequently engage in conduct that violates a 
protection order. 

e. 
The Federal Domestic Violence Firearm Prohibitions Act, 18 U.S.C. 
 922 (g) (8) (1994; 1996) makes it a federal crime to possess 
any firearm(s) or ammunition if subject to a "qualifying" 
protection order issued on behalf of a spouse or intimate 
partner. Seizure of these weapons helps ensure the safety of 
not only the victim, but the community as well. 

f. 
The Interstate Communications Act, 18 U.S.C.  875 (c), makes it 
a federal crime to transmit in interstate or foreign 
communications, any threat to kidnap or injure another 
person. A related federal statute, the Harassing Telephone Calls 
in Interstate Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  223 (a) (1) (c), 
makes it a federal crime to use a telephone or other 
telecommunications device to annoy, abuse, harass, or 
threaten another person at the called number. 


4. Types of stalkers 

It is important for law enforcement officers to remember that 
there is no one profile or type of a stalker. They can be male or 
female. The relationship between the stalker and victim can 
include past intimates, acquaintances, coworkers, or complete 
strangers. Stalkers can be motivated by anger, revenge, jealousy, 
or absolute fantasy or delusion. The generally accepted 
typology of stalkers includes the following categories: 

a. Simple Obsessional 

This type of stalker is the most common. It is usually a male 
who knows the victim as ex-spouse, ex-lover, or former boss 
and who begins a campaign of harassment against the victim. 
The stalking behavior begins either after the relationship has 
gone bad, or has ended, or there is a perception of 
mistreatment. 

b. Love Obsessional 

This stalker is a stranger to the victim, but is obsessed and 
thus begins a campaign of harassment to make the victim 
aware of the stalker's existence. This type of person often 
stalks a celebrity or public figure, but can also become 
obsessed with the bank teller or grocery store clerk. 


c. Erotomania 

This stalker is often female and falsely believes that the 
victim is in love with her and, but for some external 
influence, they would be together. The victim may be 
someone rich or famous or in a position of power such as an 
employer, movie star, or political figure. In this situation, 
those who are close to the victim (i.e., a spouse or lover who 
is perceived as "being in the way") may be the most at risk. 

d. False Victimization Syndrome 

This is an extremely rare occurrence that involves someone 
who consciously or subconsciously desires to be placed in 
the role of a victim. They therefore establish a complex tale 
of being stalked, which is in fact false. Sometimes this 
individual is the actual perpetrator, and the stalker they 
identify may well be their own target. 

Note: Law enforcement officers need to remember that some 
stalkers can exhibit factors from more than one category. 

IV. Procedures 

A. Basics of a Law Enforcement Stalking Response Protocol 

Early recognition of potential stalking cases is critical to aid in 
victims' safety. Many stalking cases do come to the attention of 
the police early in the stalking behaviors, and appropriate stalker 
interventions by law enforcement can often stop the stalking 
behaviors before serious crimes or injuries occur. However, not 
all cases are referred or readily identified through standard 
means or channels. Law enforcement officers need to develop 
ways to identify these cases. By the time some stalking cases 
reach the attention of the police or the courts, criminal offenses 
have already been committed that reflect significant risks to the 
safety of the victims, and therefore require an affirmative 
response to reduce the risks for the victim. 

As with all first response, victim safety is very important. The 
first responder should take whatever steps are reasonably 
necessary to protect the victim. Generalizing about what a 


stalking victim should do in any particular case can be 
dangerous. Not all stalkers are the same, nor are they 
predictable. Most stalking victims are afraid of their stalker 
whether they have been expressly threatened with harm or not. 
But the degree to which the stalker really poses a threat is often 
difficult to assess. However, it is generally agreed that the 
domestic violence stalker may pose the highest risk of all. 

B. Identifiable Elements of a Stalking Case 

Any time a victim reports any type of harassing, threatening, or 
menacing behavior the responding officer should be thinking about 
the possibility of stalking. Inquiry must be made to determine 
whether this is an isolated incident or repeated conduct. (Note: It 
is not uncommon for a victim to put up with harassing behavior 
for some time before finally calling law enforcement. Therefore, 
whenever a report is made you should suspect the likelihood of 
prior behavior.) 

If the victim expresses a fear of the suspect, these fears should be 
taken seriously and a detailed inquiry made to determine the origin 
of the fear. (Remember: Victims of stalking can be either male or 
female. Male victims, in particular, feel that their fears are often 
minimized by law enforcement, which leads to a reticence to report 
continuing conduct.) 

1. 
When inquiring about prior behavior, the responding officer 
should always determine whether any prior police reports have 
been made and in what jurisdiction. Ask whether any friends or 
family members have filed reports of crimes believed to have 
been committed by the perpetrator. Any time the suspect has 
engaged in more than one incident of some type of harassment, 
the case should be evaluated as a potential stalking case. 

2. 
In responding to certain types of calls for service, officers 
should consider the possibility that stalking is also an ingredient. 
Stalking behavior can be difficult to recognize at first. Ascertain 
the victim's perception of the problem and be alert for a pattern 
of behavior. Incidents that could be part of a stalking problem 
include such crimes as: 


a. Domestic violence of all kinds. (Note: Because stalking so 
often occurs within the context of domestic and relationship 
violence, numerous criminal justice experts advise that every 
domestic violence case should be treated as a potential 
stalking case.) 


b. Vandalism or destruction of property 
c. Wiretapping or utility theft 
d. Burglary 
e. Theft 
f. Identity theft 
g. Assault 
h. Child abuse 
i. Hate crimes 
j. Harassment 
k. Threats 


C. Stalking Behaviors 

Because stalking is a "course of conduct" or a "pattern of 
behavior," stalking can consist of a wide variety of criminal 
behavior and noncriminal behavior. Any type of crime, from 
vandalism to homicide, could be part of a stalking case. Stalking 
laws also criminalize noncriminal behavior, such as letter sending, 
phone calls, and other contacts if that behavior is part of a pattern 
that creates an implicit or explicit threat to the victim. State laws 
define how many incidents make a "pattern" or "course" of 
conduct in a jurisdiction. In most states, the definition is two or 
more incidents. Generally, stalking is an escalating series of actions 
and incidents. Common stalking behaviors include, but are not 
limited to: 

1. Violations of any protective order by visits to the victim's 
home or any other location frequented by the victim. 

2. Telephone calls to the victim (harassing, threatening, obscene, 
or otherwise). 

3. Mail, cards, letters, or gifts to the victim. 

4. Trespassing. 

5. Burglary of the victim's home (often there is no forced entry 
because the stalker may have a key). 

6. Following the victim on foot or in a vehicle. 

7. Showing up at the victim's place of employment or other 
frequented establishments. 

8. Spying or monitoring of the victim's activities. 

9. Making slanderous statements or false reports concerning the 
victim. 

10. Delivery of objects to the victim intended to cause fear to that 
victim (these objects, taken out of context, may seem 
innocuous to outsiders). 

11. Threats made to the victim (either direct, veiled, or
conditional).



12. Vandalism or theft of the victim's property, home, vehicle, 
workplace, or vandalism to the property, etc., of any friend or 
family member who helps her, especially by allowing her to 
stay at their home. 

13. Vandalism affecting the security of the victim's home, such as 
unscrewing outside lights or disabling the alarm system. 

14. Disabling the victim's vehicles. 

15. Transferring the victim's phone line to another line in order to 
monitor messages, or disabling the phone or planting listening 
devices in the victim's home. 

16. Filing "change of address" forms at the post office under the 
victim's name in order to "intercept" the victim's mail. 

17. Harassing or threatening the victim by use of computers and 
the Internet. 

D. Unique Aspects of Stalking Cases 

Stalking cases are unique and sometimes difficult cases for law 
enforcement for several reasons, including, but not limited to, the 
following: 

1. 
Stalking cases often appear insignificant to the patrol officer in 
the beginning. This is because they manifest as violations of 
protective orders or harassing phone calls which can be viewed 
as low priority. Quite often nothing physically has happened to 
the victim yet. Unless the patrol officer questions the victim 
thoroughly, a potential or present stalking case can be 
completely missed. Often, the victim will not be aware that they 
are being stalked. They are aware only that there is a problem in 
their life. 

2. 
For the majority of stalking victims, the fear that something will 
happen is overwhelming, and they never feel safe. To further 
complicate stalking cases, many people believe stalking victims 
are merely paranoid and not in any real danger. Some even think 
stalking is a form of flattery. Others blame the victim, 
wondering what she/he has done to encourage the stalker. 
Because of these perceptions, the stalking victim may feel very 
isolated and because nothing may have happened to her yet, no 
one may help her/him. The victim is further isolated from 
support systems if she/he has moved or changed jobs as a 
protective measure. The victim may also feel guilty about putting 
family or friends in possible danger if the stalker has made 
threats against them. Acknowledging the legitimacy of the 
victim's fear and recognizing that stalking behavior can indeed 
be the precursor of significant violence is a critical first step in 
any stalking investigation. 



3. 
Stalkers may commit criminal acts in multiple jurisdictions. The 
victim may live in one city or town, work in another, attend 
school in a third location and may also flee to a relative's or 
friend's home because of the harassment. Consequently, there 
will be different locationsand sometimes different victims' 
names on crime reports (especially when the friend's or relative's 
property is vandalized)which all relate to acts committed by the 
same stalker, but not being investigated by the same police 
officer or even the same police department. Different agencies 
must communicate on these incidents or the complete pattern of 
the stalking case gets lost, or is never recognized, and the victim 
is not helped. 

4. 
Stalking cases can last for several years with varying periods of 
inactivity or increased activity. 

5. 
Arrest and prosecution of stalkers, and/or the victim's obtaining 
a protective order, is not any guarantee that the stalker will cease 
and desist; in fact, these actions may aggravate the situation. 
This does not mean that these remedies should not be used, but 
only in conjunction with safety planning for and with the victim. 
It is also critical that appropriate bail, conditions of release, and 
ultimate penalties are leveled against the stalker. 


E. Police Communications Division 

Dispatchers and 911 operators should be aware of the wide variety 
of crime reports that could be part of stalking behavior. 
Dispatchers and operators should use question prompts with 
callers to identify a stalking incident. They should be trained to 
code and prioritize reported stalking incidents. Notice of an active 
stalking case should be included in the data provided to dispatchers 
and then to responding officers over patrol data systems. 
Dispatchers and operators must give a potential stalking call the 
same priority as any other life-threatening call. 

1. During the initial call for assistance, the dispatcher will obtain at 
least the following information: 

a. 
The specific location of the emergency: address, 
apartment, etc. 
b. 
A callback telephone number should the call be
disconnected.
c. 
The caller's name. 
d. 
Whether the caller is the victim or a witness. 
e. 
The nature of the incident. 



f. 
Whether there are injuries and the extent or description of 
the injuries (e.g., if an ambulance is needed, then it should be 
dispatched immediately). 
g. 
Is the suspect present (if not, a description of the suspect, 
his/her expected whereabouts, and a description of any 
vehicle involved)? 
h. 
Are weapons involved or present (if yes, what kind)? 
i. 
Are any of the parties under the influence of
alcohol or drugs?
j. 
Are children present (if yes, are they alright)? 
k. 
Does anyone have a current protection order? 


2. Dispatch priority: 

a. 
Whenever possible, two officers will be dispatched 
immediately. (Additional information may be gathered while 
the unit is en route, and then passed on to the officers.) 
b. 
A supervisor must be alerted to the incident and will
respond, if necessary.
c. 
Dispatchers should inform the caller of the intended 
response and provide an estimated time of arrival for law 
enforcement assistance. If distance or officer availability 
becomes a factor in providing adequate response time, the 
caller shall be notified of this and safety planning should 
commence. 
d. 
In volatile situations, the dispatcher will keep the caller on 
the line, if it is safe to do so, until an officer arrives at the 
location, or if the caller is the victim, will ask the victim for a 
safe location for the officer(s) to meet her/him. 


3. Check for previously reported incidents and active protection 
orders: 

a. 
When a call is received that could be stalking, the dispatcher 
shall review the department's records containing prior 
reports, civil protection orders, temporary protection orders, 
and bond orders to determine whether there is any record of 
the parties having been involved previously in a stalking 
incident or some other related offenses, or having a 
protection order in effect. Any relevant information is 
radioed to the responding officers and supervisor. 
b. 
Dispatch must complete all required
documentation/reporting of the call received.



F. Graduated Response Strategy 

Some police problem-solving initiatives have developed systems of 
graduated response which are used to govern the first response and 
subsequent interventions by police and other partner organizations in 
particular types of crime. The graduated response is a formula that 
helps determine the appropriate level of intervention for the effective 
response to crime incidents and the prevention of repeat 
victimization. 

A stalking graduated response protocol (as presented in Table 1, infra) 
would govern how a police organization responds to stalking incidents 
and how resources are allocated to protect stalking victims and curtail 
the behavior of stalkers. This approach could be developed by a police 
department in a stalking response protocol. 

CAVEAT: This threat assessment has to be a constant element of 
stalking response by law enforcement, in that all stalking incidents are 
potentially life-threatening, as stalking behaviors are often escalating in 
severity and violence. 

Although the graduated response protocol specifies interventions 
based on the number of incidents, it also allows for more intensive 
interventions depending on the severity of the case. For example, a 
case involving a violent attack by a stalker may be assigned a level 
three response despite the fact that the assault is the first incident. 

G. Investigation of a Stalking Case 

Evidence collection is an essential part of the investigation in order to 
establish corroboration of the stalking conduct. It is vital that the 
investigator learns as much as possible about the stalker and his/her 
method of operation. Assessment of the potential threat posed by the 
suspect is also essential. Due to the potential danger inherent in 
stalking situation, threat assessment must be an ongoing part of any 
stalking case. 

The three basic questions an investigator must answer while 
conducting any stalking investigation or threat assessment are: 

(1) Who is the suspect? 
(2) What risks of violence does the suspect pose to the victim? 
(3) How does the investigator manage the suspect and dangers 
posed to the victim? 



Intervention Level   
Level 1 
First police 
awareness 
Victim
Gather information. 
Assist victim with 
initial safety plan 
development and 
implementation. 
Assist with 
obtaining a 
protective order. 
Refer to support 
services. 
Perpetrator
Deliver first official 
warning, explaining 
law and policy. 
Check for prior 
arrests and 
convictions. 
Arrest, if possible. 
Refer to counseling 
or other services 
that may control 
the offender's 
behavior. 
Conduct threat 
assessment 
(referring to next 
level if 
appropriate). 

Level 2 
Second incident 
that qualifies 
stalking charges or 
indicates an 
escalation in 
behavior
Victim
Increase home and 
personal security by 
providing protective 
devices such as cell 
phones, personal 
alarms, or video 
surveillance. Assist 
victim with ongoing 
safety planning for 
home, work, 
school, etc. Revise, 
if necessary. 
Perpetrator
Arrest under 
stalking statute or 
other appropriate 
statutes. 
Review threat 
assessment and use 
to oppose or 
influence bail, if 
possible. 
Increase monitoring 
of offender. 

Level 3 
Subsequent 
incidents
Emergency 
Intervention
Victim
Increase security 
and safety systems 
to highest level. 
Assist victim with 
ongoing safety 
planning for home, 
work, school, etc. 
Revise, if necessary.
Implement and 
record reasons for 
selection.
Perpetrator 
Increase 
prosecution and 
surveillance efforts. 
Arrest or deter in 
any way possible. 
Implement and 
record reasons for 
selection. 


1. Evidence Collection 

a. Initially, responding officers should look for evidence that identifies 
and describes the suspect, such as: 

1) Name
2) Description
3) Personal information
4) Residence
5) Place of work
6) Mode of transportation
7) Vehicle make and model
8) License plate number


b. Evidence collection from the victim 

Be sure to impound any tangible items of evidence from the 
victim that corroborates the stalking behavior. Things to be 
seized may include: 

1) Any letters or notes written by the suspect to the victim. Keep 
latent print and DNA possibilities in mind when handling 
these items. 

2) Any objects sent to the victim or left for the victim, including 
"gifts" or flowers. 

3) Any answering machine tapes, voice mail, or other forms of 
taped phone messages. Document time and date. Make a tape 
recording of these messages to submit as evidence. This 
documents not only content but also tone of communication. 

4) Any telephone call trace or phone trap information from the 
telephone company (e.g., Call Trace/Caller ID/*57 records for 
the victim's phone). 

5) Any evidence of phone tapping by the suspect. 

6) Any log/journal/diary of suspect contacts that the victim may 
have been keeping which shows any dates, times, and locations 
of suspect encounters. 

c. Police-generated evidence collection 

1) Law enforcement officers should consider using search warrants 
in these cases. Serving a search warrant on the suspect's 
residence, vehicle, and workplace can be an invaluable tool in 
obtaining evidence to support the charge of stalking and in 
providing pertinent information about the stalker. Items to be 
alert for when serving a warrant: 


a) Any photographs of the victim. Many times these will have 
comments or drawings on them. 
b) Photographs, diagrams, or drawings of the victim's home or 
workplace. 

c) Writings, journals, logs, or diaries kept by the suspect that 
describe his stalking activities or thoughts/fantasies about the 
victim or other victims. 

d) Personal items belonging to the victim. 
e) Video or cassette tapes that might have information 
concerning the stalking, such as surveillance footage. 
f) Books describing stalking techniques or having a subject 

matter dealing with stalking, harassment, or violence. 
g) Any keys that fit the house or vehicle of the victim. 
h) Any equipment that appears to have been used to stalk the 

victim, such as cameras, binoculars, video recorders, 

computers, fax machines, etc. 

2) Any videotape surveillance or still photography of the stalker 
generated by law enforcement officers should be collected as 
evidence. 

3) Any security video (from grocery stores, banks, parking 
lot/workplace security cameras) that are evidence of the suspect 
stalking the victim should be collected. 

4) Telephone records of the suspect. Consider seizing the
suspect's/defendant's cellular phone.


5) Documentation of email sent by the stalker to the victim. (Note: 
Internet service providers only keep email records for one to five 
days. Police have to obtain a search warrant; however, a phone 
call or fax to the provider may be enough to freeze the suspect's 
account until a search warrant is completed. 

6) Certified copies of police reports from other jurisdictions,
convictions sheets, prior restraining orders, etc. should be
collected as evidence.


d. Further corroboration evidence collection by law enforcement: 

1) Photograph any items vandalized, damaged, written on, etc. 

2) Check for fingerprints or DNA on vandalized items or other
objects sent to or left for the victim.


3) Advise the victim to contact the phone company to have a trap 
installed on her/his phone. 

4) If the victim's phone is not set up to record messages or
conversations, have the victim obtain such a machine.



5) For any incident of harassment, determine whether other 
witnesses were present and interview them. Often friends, family 
members, coworkers, employees, employers, etc. have 
information regarding the suspect's behavior. This corroboration 
is crucial. 

6) Research the suspect's whereabouts during the times of alleged 
acts to deter "alibi" defenses. 

7) On serious cases, consider surveillance of the suspect. This may 
be particularly useful in a case where there appears to be a 
specific pattern to the suspect's conduct. (Threat assessment in 
each case should help assist in determining whether or not 
surveillance is needed.) 

e. Most stalking statutes in the country require proof not only of the 
suspect's conduct, but the victim's state of mind. In most jurisdictions, 
the crime of stalking requires that the victim actually suffer a requisite 
level of fear due to the stalker's conduct. It is therefore important to 
document any evidence of the victim's response to the harassment 
which shows "state of mind." For example, has the victim: 

1) Moved to a new location? 

2) Obtained a new phone number ? (Sometimes it is advantageous 
for the victim to keep the old phone number with an answering 
machine to record all messages from the suspect and only 
actively use the new unpublished phone line.) 

3) Put a tap on the phone?
4) Told friends, coworkers, or family about the harassment?
5) Told building security at home, work, or school?
6) Given photos of the suspect to security?
7) Asked to be escorted to the parking lot and work site?
8) Changed work schedule or route to work?
9) Stopped visiting places previously frequented?
10) Taken self-defense courses?
11) Bought pepper spray?
12) Purchased a gun?
13) Installed an alarm system?
14) Bought a guard dog?


2. Stalker Assessment 

Responding officers, detectives, and victim service providers 
should work together as investigators, gathering information about 
the victim and the stalker. Duties for officers, detectives, and 
service providers should be clearly defined. 


a. The responding officer should document the following by
thoroughly interviewing the victim about the suspect:


1) Any prior threats made to the victim (direct or indirect). 
Develop a timeline of the stalking behaviors towards the 
victim. 

2) Any actual pursuit or following of the victim. 

3) Any history of violence against the victim or others. 

4) Any information regarding the suspect's tendency towards 
emotional outburst or rage. 

5) Prior mental illness history of the suspect. 

6) Substance abuse problems of the suspect. 

7) Suspect's possession of, knowledge of, or fascination with 
weapons. 

8) Any history of filed protective orders against the suspect or 
protective order violations by the suspect. 

9) Any annoying phone calls made by the suspect to the 
victim or anyone connected to the victim. 

10) Any unsolicited correspondence, threatening or non
threatening, from the suspect to the victim. 

11) Threats of murder and/or suicide by the suspect. 

12) Any acts of vandalism or arson committed by the suspect 
against the victim or anyone connected to the victim. 

13) Is the victim in fear? 

b. 
If children are present, interview the children about the stalking 
in a careful, gentle manner appropriate to the child's age and 
emotional state. Be alert for excited utterances from children while 
interviewing adults and witnesses. 
c. 
Every stalking investigation should include a thorough research 
of the suspect's prior criminal history and/or prior contacts with 
law enforcement. 


3. Threat Assessment 

In stalking cases, law enforcement officers have a unique opportunity 
to act in a proactive way and prevent future harm to a victim. 
Assessing the potential threat posed by a stalking suspect is an 
important step towards that goal. 

The primary objective of a threat assessment investigation is to gather 
as much information as possible on both the victim and the suspect. 


a. Suspect Information 

Multiple sources of information should be consulted to learn 
about the suspect's behavior, interests, and state of mind. These 
can include: 

1) Personal interviews with the suspect. 

2) Material created by or possessed by the suspect such as 
journals, letters, books, magazines, or other items collected. 

3) Interviews with people who know or have known the suspect, 
such as friends, family, coworkers, supervisors, neighbors, 
landlord, previous victims, etc. 

4) Any public records, such as police, court, probation or 
corrections records, mental health records, or social services 
records. 

b. Victim Information 

The patrol officer and/or investigator needs specific information 
about the victim, such as: 

1) Is the victim well known to the suspect? Does the suspect know 
about the victim's work, home, personal lifestyle, patterns of 
living, daily comings and goings? 

2) Is the victim vulnerable to attack? Does the victim have 
resources to arrange for physical security? What can change 
about the victim's lifestyle that could make attack by the suspect 
more difficult or less likely? Are there Crime Prevention 
Through Environmental Design principles that could be applied 
that would lessen the victim's vulnerability to the offender? 

3) Is the victim afraid of the suspect? Is that degree of fear shared 
by the victim's friends, family, and colleagues? 

4) How sophisticated or naive is the victim about the need for 
caution? How able is the victim to communicate a clear and 
consistent "I want no contact with you" message to the suspect? 

c. Will the suspect attack? 

Using the information obtained throughout the investigation, the 
police officer must then seek to determine whether the suspect 
appears to be moving toward or away from an attack. Factors 
which suggest a high risk to the victim include: 


1) Present threats to kill the victim.

2) Past threats to kill this victim or other victims.

3) Use of weapons such as guns, knives, or other potentially
lethal weapons. 

4) Possession of lethal weapons. 

5) Degree of obsession, possessiveness, and/or jealousy 
regarding the victim. 

6) Violations of a restraining order with demonstration of little 
concern for the consequences of arrest and jail time. 

7) Past incidents of violence against this victim and/or others. 

8) Present or past threats of suicide. 

9) Access to the victim and/or the victim's family. 

10) Hostage taking. 

11) Depression. 

12) Other mental illness evidence or indicators regarding the 
stalker. 

13) Drug or alcohol abuse of the stalker. 

14) History of prior stalking of this victim or other victims. 

d. Questions to consider in assessing threats: 

1) Basic Questions: 

a) Does the victim believe the threat? 

This is important information, even if the victim is minimizing the danger 
she/he faces. Consider also that words or acts that are not particularly 
threatening in one cultural frame of reference could well be terrorizing in 
another. 

b) Was the threat made in the presence of other people? In 
writing? In a recorded telephone conversation? 

Willingness to "leave evidence" or "not caring who knows" may indicate a 
more serious intention to follow through. 

c) Is the threat detailed and specific? 

Evaluate threats in stalking the same as potential suicidesthe more 
thought that has gone into the plan (evidenced by the amount and specificity 
of the detail), the more likely it is to be acted on: "I'm going to kill you" 
is cause for concern; "Tonight, I'm going to rape and strangle you and hide 
your body where no one will ever find it" is cause for greater alarm. 

d) Is the threatened act consistent with his past behavior? 


e) Does the stalker have the means to carry it out? 

Again, consider the parallel to assessing potential suicidesthere's having 
the thought, then there's having a plan, then there's being able to follow 
through. Where the "means" are at hand, there is more risk. 

f) Have there been "rehearsals" of the act that is being 
threatened? 

These can be verbal run-throughs ("let me tell you what I'm going to do") 
or partial re-enactments (showing someone the intended weapon or the 
intended site for the murder or burial). 

g) Does the threat extend to others (such as, children, family 
members, police, or new lover)? 

Fear of harm to others may restrict a victim's willingness to resist and/or 
to follow through with police and the courts. 

h) Does the threat involve murder, suicide, or both? 

If the stalker is a current or former intimate partner, remember that a 
substantial percentage of domestic homicides are multiple-victim killings, 
murder-suicides, or murder-suicide attempts. 

2) Questions regarding any history of violence/use of force by the 
stalker: 

a) Was the suspect abusive to former partners or family 
members? 

b) Has the physical violence increased in frequency or intensity 
over the past year? 

c) Did the physical violence involve choking or attempted 
strangulation or a head injury? 

d) Does the suspect have a history of violence toward people 
who aren't intimates or family members? 

e) Does the suspect have a history of sexual assault behavior? 

f) Has the suspect ever abused pets or other animals? 

g) Has the suspect ever destroyed property, especially a former 
partner's or current target's personal property? (Intentional 
and terrorist destruction of property is often an "it could just 
as well be you, and next time might be" message.) 

h) Does the suspect have a special interest in/fascination with 
movies, television shows, video games, or books that focus 
on themes of violence, power, and revenge? 


3) Questions regarding weapons (consider not only firearms, but also 
other dangerous weapons such as compound bows, swords, large 
hunting knives, or martial arts weapons): 

a) Does the stalker have access to weapons? Does the stalker 
keep weapons in more than one place? Does the stalker have 
access to weapons owned by others? Is the stalker trained in 
their use? 

b) Does the stalker have illegal or exotic weapons? 

c) Is having and being willing to use weapons part of the 
stalker's self-image? (This is particularly crucial in 
relationships that involve people in law enforcement, 
corrections, the military, and the criminal justice system.) 

d) Has the suspect's past violence involved the display, use or 
threatened use of firearms or other weapons? 

e) Does the victim possess weapons? What kind? Is the victim 
trained in their use? 

4) Questions regarding escalation of stalking behaviors: 

a) Does the offender enlist others in monitoring the victim's 
behavior? (Not only the offender's friends, family, coworkers 
and cell mates, but also the victim's friends, family, and 
coworkers.) 

b) Has the offender contacted or threatened the victim's 
friends, relatives, or coworkers? 

c) Has the offender followed, spied on, staked out, or otherwise 
stalked the victim? 

d) Has the offender made unwanted attempts to communicate 
by mail or telephone, or through third parties? (These 
communications don't have to be threats. They can be "I was 
so wrong, I don't know what came over me; can you ever 
forgive me; let's work it out together" messages, flowers, 
gifts, etc.) 

5. Other threat assessment considerations: 

1) Number of times a restraining order has been issued against 
the stalker and number of times the stalker has violated 
restraining orders (checking all available jurisdictions). 

2) Search warrants and seizure of tangible items of evidence.

3) Seizure of any firearms accessible to the stalker.

4) Special considerations when the stalker is a law enforcement
officer. 

5) Special considerations when the stalker is in the military. 


H. Advising the Stalking Victim 

1. A response to a victim of stalking should include whatever steps 
are reasonably necessary to protect the victim, including: 

a. 
Advising the victim about criminal and civil orders of 
protection and other legal tools for prohibiting contact 
between the stalker and the victim. 

b. 
Providing the victim with written referral contact 
information for victim service programs within the 
community that provide assistance with obtaining such 
orders. 

c. 
Providing written referral information regarding the 
availability of shelter, medical care, counseling, and other 
services within the community. 

d. 
Providing the victim in writing with the responding officer's 
name, badge number, the incident report number, and a 
telephone number that the victim can call for information 
about the case. 

e. 
Advising the victim about procedure for initiating criminal 
proceedings and the collection and preservation of evidence 
for police investigators and prosecutors. 

f. 
Providing the victim with a brochure or pamphlet that 
explains their rights as crime victims, available services and 
compensation and how to access such services, etc. 

g. 
Offering to arrange for the department's crime prevention 
unit to come to the victim's residence and conduct a walk
through security check of the residence and recommend 
measures to improve security. 

h. 
Providing written information about safety planning and 
victim advocates who can assist with safety strategies. 

i. 
Helping the victim leave her/his residence, for safety reasons, 
by accessing resources in the community such as family, 
friends, and community shelters and/or actually transporting 
the victim to a secure location. 



j. If there are children in the household, establish what steps 
need to be taken to ensure they remain safe, including crisis 
planning, relocation, and communication with school 
authorities. If the stalker is a parent of children living in the 
household, arrange through the court for custody or 
visitation through a third party. 

2. 
Be honest with the victim about any information that suggests 
that the suspect is a real threat to her/him. 

3. 
Advise the victim to take extra safety precautions. Although 
officers should be cautious in making generalizations, the 
following advice can usually be given in all cases: 


a. 
Stop all contact with the stalker. It is important that the 
victim be very direct and firm. Repeatedly telling the stalker 
that she/he doesn't want to talk to him/her is still talking to 
the stalker and may be perceived by the stalker as carrying a 
mixed message. If after leaving forty messages on her/his 
answering machine, the victim returns the call to demand 
that he/she stop, the lesson learned is that the cost of 
getting a call from her/him is to call and leave forty 
messages. It's essential to cut off all contact. 

b. 
Don't let third parties other than law enforcement 
and/or persons serving a restraining/protective order (if 
applicable) intervene with the stalker. 

c. 
Take the following actions if the stalker poses a genuine 
threat: 


1) Obtain a restraining order or a criminal/civil protective 
order, but appreciate that it is not a guarantee of safety 
and, sometimes, may provoke rather than deter the 
stalker. 

2) Take additional safety precautions when a 
restraining/protective order is served. For example, 
change the phone number or get an additional unlisted 
number and keep the original number connected to an 
answering machine that receives messages from the 
stalker. 

3) Alter work hours and routes to work and other places. 
Always maintain a full gas tank. 


4) Inform employers, coworkers, and workplace security 
about the stalking problem and provide them with a 
photo/description of the stalker. If the stalker shows up 
at work, have someone call the police immediately. Avoid 
contact with the stalker, even if he/she is causing a scene. 

5) If your residence or neighborhood has security staff, 
provide a photo/description of the stalker, the stalker's 
vehicle, and a copy of any restraining order. 

6) Keep a diary with all contact attempts, dates, times, and 
details of any witnesses to incidents. If there is a 
restraining order, call police immediately if the stalker 
attempts contact. 

7) Save all evidence of stalking-related incidents, even if it 
seems insignificant. 

8) If there are hang-up calls to home or work, arrange with 
the telephone company for a phone trap to be installed. 

9) If there are harassing emails, contact the Internet service 
provider to find out options for preserving existing 
messages from the stalker and blocking new ones. 

10)Avoid places frequented by the stalker. 

11)Instruct children in the household to keep all address and 
telephone information confidential. 

12)If possible, move to a new address with a roommate and 
put all the bills (utilities etc.) in the roommate's name. 

4. Encourage the victim to work with law enforcement, victim 
advocates, and/or prosecutors to develop specific, personalized, and 
detailed safety plans and provide written information about who can 
assist with safety planning. Explain that: 

a. 
Safety plans must be continually assessed and adjusted in light 
of developments in the investigation and prosecution of the 
case. 
b. 
It's essential to plan for safety in the home and at locations 
away from home 
c. 
All available strategies and technologies to promote safety. 



5. Tell the victim about early warning strategies involving neighbors, 
known as "cocoon watches" that can provide them with additional 
protection. (These strategies were first developed by law enforcement 
in Great Britain.) Subject to the victim's informed consent, based on 
current risks posed by the stalker, law enforcement can work with 
Neighborhood Watch (and/or other neighbors) to turn neighbors into 
"eyes and ears" that watch out for the stalker and contact the victim 
and 911 if he/she is sighted. Even a five minute warning may help 
save a stalking victim's life. Consent from the victim is critical because 
some victims do not want neighbors to know about their problems. 

I. Suspect Interviews 

1. 
The goal of the interview should be to gather as much information 
as possible about the suspect's thinking, behavior patterns, and 
activities regarding the victim and to encourage change in the stalker's 
behavior. 
CAVEAT: Officers should be aware that in some cases 
interviewing the suspect may serve to intensify his interest in the 
victim and provoke him into more extreme action. Precautions, 
such as safety planning with the victim, must always be taken 
whenever a suspect interview is conducted. 


2. 
Research the suspect's background before the interview, if possible, 
as it can be very helpful to catch the suspect off guard with known 
information. However, be on guard. Stalking suspects can be very 
cunning and manipulative. They will often attempt to deny or 
rationalize their behavior or try to outsmart law enforcement. 


a. Conduct database checks, i.e., Department of Motor Vehicles, 
local records, criminal records, etc. 

b. Search state and national databases, Internet services, and 
police contact records maintained by jurisdictions where the 
suspect has lived. 

c. Interview people that may provide relevant information about 
the suspect such as: 


1) Family
2) Friends
3) Employer(s), both prior and current
4) School officials
5) Child welfare investigators



3. Have a strategy prior to actually contacting the suspect. It is 
recommended that investigators: 

a. 
Interview any stalking suspect in pairs. 
b. 
Be aware of officer safety. 
c. 
Remember to obtain as many details as possible and 
document the interview extensively. 
d. 
Provide the suspect a chance to view his/her actions as 
misunderstood by the victim and how others could have 
misunderstood his/her intentions. 
e. 
Remember to question the suspect about other potential 
victims or crimes. 


4. Objectives of the suspect's interview: 

a. 
Determine criminal activity. 
b. 
Determine the suspect's current state of mind. 
c. 
Attempt to assess the threat posed by the suspect. 
d. 
Learn if the suspect has other victims in mind. 
e. 
Encourage the suspect to change his/her behavior. 
f. 
Advise the suspect that the behavior is unwanted, 
unacceptable, and must stop immediately. 


5. 
If the investigator's involvement is post-arrest, the investigator shall 
conduct the investigation as stated above. It is also imperative that all 
bail and/or restraining or protective orders are reinforced with the 
defendant. It must be clear that all violations of orders or laws will 
result in arrest and possible incarceration. 

6. 
Videotape the interview, whenever possible. Body language, 
gestures, voice tone, eye contact, etc. are all important aspects in 
evaluating the suspect. 

7. 
It is very helpful, though sometimes impossible, to obtain the 
assistance of a mental health expert who can view the video later for 
input during the investigation. Consultation with a mental health or 
behavioral sciences expert can be invaluable to the investigator when it 
appears the suspect may suffer from some sort of mental illness or 
whose behavior is extreme. 


J. Stalker-Focused Interventions 

How law enforcement handles a particular stalking situation 
depends on the type of stalking that is occurring and the level of 
threat to the victim. It can range from advising the victim to 
issue the stalker an unequivocal "no" to assisting the victim in 
obtaining a restraining order to law enforcement contact (verbal 


and/or written) with the suspect. Some stalkers may cease their 
activity when confronted by police intervention. However, 
intervention in other cases can trigger more problems. While 
vigorous prosecution may be the best way to prevent violence 
and minimize harm to the victim, it is also true that legal 
sanctions alone may not deter a person who desperately desires 
revenge or is prepared to die to achieve his objective. 

1. The goals of stalker-focused interventions are: 

a. 
To establish that stalkers are strictly and solely accountable 
for their own actions, and to hold them to the standards 
established by law. 

b. 
To send the message that stalking is considered a serious 
matter, and to establish a "social hold" over the abuser. (This 
includes seriously establishing bail, conditions of pre-trial 
release, terms of protective orders, conditions of probation, 
and the terms of custody/visitation and support with the 
intent of constraining the stalker's behavior.) 

c. 
To the greatest extent possible, require restitution to the 
victim and the community. (In addition to covering the cost 
of medical care, temporary shelter, lost work, trauma 
counseling, and other costs directly associated with the 
stalking, this can include requiring abusers to cover the 
victim's attorney fees and other court costs.) 

d. 
To provide, through access to stalkers'/batterers' intervention 
programs, the opportunity for offenders to learn about the 
dynamics of stalking and domestic violence, come to terms 
with their own culpability, and effect a change in their 
attitudes and behaviors. 


2. Stalker interventions may involve: 

a. 
Contact by a law enforcement officer. 

b. 
Counter-stalking and other anti-stalking surveillance and 
apprehension measures, including technological monitoring 
both pretrial and post-conviction. 

c. 
Temporary/permanent orders of protection (including
orders issued on behalf of nonvictim witnesses).

d. 
Arrest and detention for victim-directed criminal conduct. 

e. 
Arrest and detention for other criminal conduct (such as
independent criminal activity, possession or sale of illegal
drugs, weapons charges, or probation or parole violations).



f. 
Revocation of weapon permits/weapons confiscation (by 
search warrant or court order, whether as a condition of bail 
or through a restraining/protective order). 

g. 
Bail and other conditions of pretrial release. 

h. 
Criminal convictions. 

i. 
Jail, fines, and restitution (including weekend and "part time" 
jail sentences). 

j. 
Suspended sentences with supervised conditions imposed. 

k. 
Supervised probation (including intensive supervision and
day reporting).

l. 
Electronic monitoring and "house arrest." 

m.Psychiatric 
evaluation and hospitalization, mental health 
referral, or drug and/or alcoholism treatment (as conditions 
of release/conditions of probation). 

n. 
Batterers' intervention programs (as conditions of release or 
a probation/suspended sentence and not as an alternative to 
a criminal resolution of a case, such as pretrial intervention). 

o. 
Deportation, if applicable. 


3. 
Suspect Contact by Law Enforcement 
Law enforcement contact, especially by an investigator or 
detective, can be an effective means of deterring stalkers, 
particularly in cases where the victim and the suspect had some 
prior relationship and where the stalker is not suffering from 
mental illness. This type of stalker is more likely to understand an 
officer's explanation of the potential consequences of his 
continued harassment or escalation of stalking behaviors. This 
type of warning contact is most appropriate when the behavior 
does not yet constitute a full violation of law or involves very 
low-grade activities. It can include contact by mail through a 
police warning letter, a phone call, or an in-person visit. Often, a 
face-to-face visit at the suspect's workplace or residence may be 
all it takes to have a deterrent effect on the inappropriate 
behavior. This type of contact can also occur by way of a 
scheduled interview at the police station. 


4. 
Restraining/Protective Orders 


a. While it is recognized that restraining/protective orders may 
not always be effective in actually protecting a victim, the 
primary advantage to having such an order against the 
suspect is that it allows him to be immediately arrested when 
a violation occurs. Therefore, it is vitally important when a 
law enforcement agency is attempting to utilize such orders 
as part of an overall stalking intervention plan that the 
involved personnel be prepared to respond quickly to each 


violation. Only then is there a sanction for the actions of the 
suspect and a motivation to change behavior. If a person is a 
documented victim of stalking, and calls police because of a 
violation of a restraining order, priority response should be 
given to this call. 

b. 
A second advantage to obtaining a restraining order is that in 
many jurisdictions it allows for enhanced charging of the 
stalking crime so as to have a more significant hold over the 
suspect. 

c. 
One strategy that has appeared to be successful is when the 
same officer, investigator, or detective working with the 
victim also is the individual who serves the suspect with the 
restraining/protective order. 


5. Technology Options for Managing Stalking Cases 

Implement available technology as a tool to enhance victim safety 
and collect evidence. Types of technology that can be used to 
contain stalkers while they are under investigation or supervision: 

a. 
Global positioning tracking systemsi.e., systems that use 
transponders and the geographic positioning system to 
constantly monitor and document the location of an 
offender. In jurisdictions using GPS, its implementation is by 
a court-ordered condition of the defendant's bail or sentence 
and is paid for by the defendant. 

b. 
Surveillance systemsi.e., cameras and/or human systems
that maintain a lookout for the stalker.

c. 
Monitoring of telecommunicationsi.e., systems that monitor 
the stalker's attempts to communicate with the victim, such 
as Caller ID/Call Trace and other technologies. 

d. 
Cellular telephones programmed to 911 or the police
department can be used by stalking victims to make
immediate reports of stalking behaviors to the police.


6. Mental Health Options 

Since some stalkers are mentally ill, involuntary commitment by 
law enforcement is a viable option which can be extended when 
probable cause is documented and presented to the court. 
Utilizing this option, when appropriate, has two advantages: it 
takes the victim out of harm's way for some period of time so 


that she/he can provide for her/his safety, and it provides for 
some treatment and evaluation of the suspect which may diffuse 
the immediate situation. It benefits the law enforcement agency 
to locate and work with mental health experts in stalking cases 
that involve these types of stalkers. 

7. 
Prosecution 
Successful prosecution for stalking depends on the concerted 
team effort of dispatch, responding officers, investigators, 
detectives, victim services, consultants, prosecutors, and the court 
system from the time stalking behaviors are first reported. For 
those suspects who continue the stalking behaviors and 
course/pattern of conduct and present a continuing risk to the 
victim, vigorous prosecution for their criminal conduct is the 
only option. The goal of any such prosecution is to ensure 
conviction so that maximum controls can be placed on the 
defendant, thus increasing the safety of the victim while holding 
the stalker accountable for his/her actions. 


8. 
Case management involves developing a plan that moves the 
suspect away from regarding violence against the victim as a 
viable option. At times, effective case management may require 
the investigator to draw on resources connected to the suspect, 
but not traditionally used by law enforcement, such as friends 
family associates, employers, mental health, social services, and 
other community members. All of these contacts may be used in 
seeking to lead the suspect to formulate more appropriate goals. 


K. Arrest, Charging, and Jail/Detention 

The purpose of the investigation is to determine if there is
"probable cause" to believe that the crime or violation of a
protective/restraining order has occurred, and that a specific
individual committed the offense.


1. Officer should arrest and detain a person, until a warrant can 
be obtained, when: 

a. 
There is probable cause to believe that the offender 
committed a stalking offense or a stalking-related offense. 
b. 
There is probable cause to believe that the offender violated 
an anti-stalking protection/restraining order. 


2. Probable cause may be obtained by a written statement from a 
person alleging that an alleged offender has committed a 
stalking-related offense. 


3. 
Inquire as to whether a civil or criminal protective order is in 
effect presently, and, if so, ask for a copy of the order. If the 
victim cannot produce a copy of the order, obtain information 
about the court that granted the order and call dispatch to 
attempt to verify the existence and effective period of the 
order. 

4. 
Upon receipt of a protection order, note carefully the 
restrictions imposed by the order to determine whether there is 
probable cause to believe that the order has been violated. 
Officers shall enforce an anti-stalking, temporary, or a civil 
protection order issued by any court in the state or any other 
jurisdiction, in accordance with the provisions of the order, 
including arrest or removing the defendant from the premises, 
regardless of the reason given for being at the premises. 

5. 
When an officer determines there is probable cause to arrest 
and the suspect has left the scene, the officer should promptly 
seek a warrant for the arrest of that person. 

6. 
When an immediate arrest is not possible and a warrant has 
been issued, the officer shall make the victim aware of the 
warrant and of steps to take should the victim know of the 
suspect's whereabouts. 

7. 
Consult with the prosecutor's office on appropriate charging 
decisions. For instance, if a charging opportunity on a related 
crime presents itself and the risk for the stalking victim is 
substantial or high, it may be best to arrest the offender on the 
related offense and manage the case in the system, rather than 
wait for a pattern of conduct. 

8. 
If the offender is a juvenile and probable cause exists, take the 
juvenile into custody and: 

a. 
Immediately contact the juvenile detention center by
telephone to obtain a verbal authorization of admission.

b. 
Follow all juvenile report and booking procedures and
transport the juvenile to the center.

c. 
Juvenile detention center staff should conduct a risk
assessment and determine the level of detention.

d. 
The officer must sign the stalking complaint with the juvenile 
intake unit within the mandated number of hours of the 
juvenile's admission to the detention center. 



9. Bail considerations 

a. 
In addition to the criminal acts charged, past acts of 
violence, repeated violations of court orders, access to 
weapons, threats of possessiveness, and suicide history, are 
all behaviors that can be introduced at a bail hearing to 
establish the dangerousness to the victim and the community 
(and in the case of suicide history, to himself/herself) posed 
by the release of the offender. Based on such evidence, a 
request can be made for preventative detention (no bail), or 
high cash bail, or in the event of release, conditions to 
ensure safety of the victim and the community such as a no 
contact order. 

b. 
Based on the threat assessment conducted by the 
investigator, consider calling an expert to establish the 
defendant is a homicide risk based on the behavior pattern 
being similar to prior domestic violence homicides. A 
detective, who has a background investigating such cases, can 
be the qualified witness. 

c. 
If dangerousness is an immediate concern, request a mental 
health evaluation under the state temporary commitment 
statutes; however, be aware that these commitments are only 
good for a limited time. If it is known that the defendant is 
currently on some type of mental health medication, ask the 
court for a release condition that specifies that the defendant 
must take his/her medication as prescribed. 

d. 
Because of the potential for danger, and based on threat 
assessment conducted by the investigator, if the offender is 
to be released, a request should be made for supervised 
release and frequent monitoring of the stalker's activity and 
behavior while out on bail, if available. 

e. 
A procedure should be implemented to ensure the victim is 
notified as soon as possible upon release of the defendant 
and/or any change in bail status. Officers should ensure that 
phone numbers for home, work, relatives, pager, and/or cell 
phone number are obtained from the victim to facilitate 
contact. A form should be designed to fax to the 
jail/detention center to alert them that the police should be 
contacted prior to release of the defendant. 


10. Another consideration for law enforcement if the defendant 
is not released, is containment of post-arrest or pre-trial 
stalking behaviors by the suspect while in jail/detention. 


Officers should know that stalkers often attempt to continue 
their harassment from behind bars, intimidating the victim 
through phone contacts, letters, third person threats, etc. 
Officers should advise victims of this, and be prepared to 
document any such activity. A request can also be made for a 
court order stating no contact with the victim from 
jail/detention or through a third party. (Note: The present 
detention or incarceration of a person making threats or 
engaging in other stalking behaviors from inside a jail, prison, 
or other confinement facility is not a bar to charging or 
prosecution for stalking.) 

L. Reporting and Filing Procedures 

1. 
Officers shall make a written report for any incident of 
harassment, threat, stalking, violation of a protection order, or 
for any other offense arising out of a call to a scene involving 
an event or incident that may be a pattern of conduct, whether 
or not an arrest has been made. In the case of an arrest or 
when seeking a warrant, the officer shall document the facts 
and circumstances which are the basis for establishing probable 
cause. All forms required by departmental policies must be 
completed and attached to the report. 

2. 
Department coding systems should enable the collection of 
data regarding the incidence of stalking in the jurisdiction. 

3. 
Department records systems should enable the tracking of 
stalking incidents and cases so that locations are flagged and 
prior or active case information can be made available to 
dispatchers and responding officers to enable appropriate 
response. 

4. 
Department records systems should share information with 
regional and national data repositories to support enforcement 
of protective orders and gun controls. 

5. 
To manage a case involving acts committed in multiple 
jurisdictions, the department records systems should consider 
adopting a strategy used by San Diego Police Department. It is 
the "Key Case Concept." In this strategy, the moment that an 
officer begins working with a victim of a potential or valid 
stalking case, that officer assigns a "key case number" to the 
victim. It is generally the case number assigned to the particular 
crime the officer is working. That number is given to the victim, 
and she/he is told that in the future whenever the stalker 
commits a subsequent crime, the victim (or the victim's friend 



or relative who may have their property vandalized) is to inform 
the responding law enforcement officer of the existence of the 
key case. They are to tell law enforcement also that a specific 
officer from a specific agency is working on a stalking case with 
this particular key case. This strategy has kept information from 
"falling through the cracks," and allows a lead agency to gather 
all the facts pertaining to the criminal actions of the stalker 
regardless of where the criminal actions occur. 

M. Training 

1. Training about the impact of stalking and the response to 
stalking should be provided to all police employees who may 
deal with stalking cases or communicate with victims of 
stalking. Personnel in need of training should include: 

a. 911 operators and dispatchers 

b. Patrol officers 

c. Detectives 

d. Supervisory personnel 

e. Victim advocates 

g. Non-emergency call takers 


2. 
Educational material should be developed for law enforcement 
officers to use to enhance first response and investigation in 
stalking cases. 

3. 
Educational material should be developed for law enforcement 
and the community to promote effective intervention, 
appropriate victim assistance, and ongoing victim safety in all 
stalking cases. 


Special Note 

Since each jurisdiction is unique and stalking laws may vary, this 
policy and protocol is a "model" and contains examples of 
strategies and approaches to help police departments, 
dispatchers, responding officers, investigators, detectives, victim 
service officers, victim service providers, and victims in stalking 
investigations. Depending on the size of the jurisdiction and 
law enforcement agency, in some cases the initial officer will do 
the entire case from beginning to end. In other agencies, where 
case responsibility is split, the patrol officer may document a 
single crime of harassment and/or violation of a restraining 
order, and an investigator/detective will do the follow-up work. 
Whichever system is used, it is critical that all law enforcement 
officers and those involved in stalking response understand the 
risks to the safety of the stalking victim. 


Every effort has been made to ensure that this model policy 
and protocol incorporates the most current information and 
contemporary professional judgment on stalking response. The 
information in this model can be used by departments to create 
or update their own policies and protocols. However, law 
enforcement administrators should be cautioned that no 
"model" policy and protocol can meet the needs of any given 
law enforcement agency. Each law enforcement agency operates 
in a unique environment of federal court rulings, state laws, 
local ordinances, regulations, judicial, and administrative 
decisions. Because of evolving statutes and case law, it may be 
necessary to review the policies and protocols periodically to 
ensure they are in compliance with legal changes. 

(Many of the strategies and interventions included in this protocol were 
developed by the Police Departments of San Diego, California; Los 
Angeles, California; Nashville, Tennessee; and Dover, New Hampshire.) 


Law Enforcement and Community Collaboration Chart 

Police Department 

Response to stalking reports
Intervention with victim and
 stalker
Evidence collection
Threat assessment
Victim safety
Stalker accountability
Stalking prevention
Public education


Prosecution 

Charging decisions
Bail hearings
Enforcing court orders
Legal issues
Trials or guilty pleas
Public education


Probation and Parole 

Stalker monitoring
Victim safety
Violation enforcement
Public education


Victim Services 

Information
Safety planning 
Assistance
Support
Counseling
Follow-up
Public education


Community Groups 

Victim safety & services
Stalker accountability
Public education


Mental Health 

Counseling
Crisis intervention
Involuntary commitment
Stalker intervention


Jail/Detention Facilities 

Notification of stalker release
Victim safety
Enforce no contact order
Observe stalker's behavior


Each of these entities must collaborate to enhance the investigation, 
hold the stalker accountable, and decrease the risk to the victim. 


Chapter 5: Reflections on the 
Development and Implementation of a 
Model Protocol 

The Philadelphia Story 

Field-testing guidelines for appropriate police responses in stalking 
cases were a critical component of the overall project to create an 
effective stalking protocol. The Philadelphia Police Department 
(PPD) agreed to undertake a pilot test with the assistance of the 
National Center for Victims of Crime. This chapter outlines the 
process of implementation in Philadelphia, issues that came to light 
before and after the protocol was adopted, and the factors that 
contributed to the outcomes observed. 

During this phase, the PPD was the star of the show. Members of the 
National Center Team played key supporting rolesregularly visiting 
the pilot sites, assisting in outreach efforts with community partners, 
providing valuable materials on stalking, participating in the officer 
training, and being available throughout for consultation. 

Why Philadelphia? 

Choosing a police department for pilot testing the model protocol was 
a critical decision. For several reasons, the PPD quickly became the 
prime candidate. The city of Philadelphia has a population of 
approximately 1.4 million. It is the fifth largest city in the nation and 
the second largest on the east coast. 

The Philadelphia Police Department is the fourth largest police 
department in the country, with about 7,000 sworn officers and a 
civilian staff of 900. As a substantial police department, serving a 
large and diverse metropolitan population, it was reasonable to assume 
there would be a sufficient volume of cases (especially domestic 
violence cases) to make a pilot test of the stalking protocol 
worthwhile. In addition, the PPD had previously embraced the 
philosophy and ideas of community oriented policing and been 
involved in some community policing experiments. Under the 
leadership of Police Commissioner John F. Timoney, the Department 
was looking for new ways to enhance police-community partnerships 
and open to piloting the model protocol. 

John Timoney was formerly second in command at the New York 
City Police Department, and had been deeply involved in efforts to 
improve the NY Police Department's response to domestic violence. 


When he first began to serve as Police Commissioner in Philadelphia, 
he announced publicly that domestic violence was among his policing 
priorities. Domestic violence (DV) had been a concern in Philadelphia 
for some years. Early in 1992, as a result of a disturbing number of 
domestic aggravated assaults and homicides, the Department decided 
to pilot-test a new DV program. Under this initiative, teams of 
detectives and victim assistance officers (VAO's) were established to 
intervene proactively in cases where there had been no arrest. 

The teams would review the patrol officers' reports, re-interview the 
victim, and offer a variety of assistance and support. They would 
make clear that the victim could call on them for help, as needed, in 
the future. They would offer referrals to support services and suggest 
that the victim should apply for a protection from abuse order. If the 
re-interview yielded information that had been missed or not been 
documented in the original report, the officers might also apply for an 
arrest warrant. Shortly after the pilot was completed, dual DV units of 
detectives and VAO's were established throughout the Department. 

Since stalking so often occurs in DV cases, it was a natural next step 
for the PPD to review the policing of stalking. Commissioner 
Timoney embraced the idea of a new set of policies and procedures 
to tackle the issue of stalking and Philadelphia became the pilot site. 

Getting Started 

The first important decision was how broadly to pilot-test the 
protocol. Should it be adopted very widely throughout the city from 
the outset, or be limited, to one or two areas? Those in the PPD most 
closely involved in the early stages of the planning process believed 
that implementation on a department-wide basis would give rise to a 
host of difficulties. For example, training so many officers on the new 
protocol within the specified time frame would be difficult. It seemed 
to make more sense to test the waters in a single division first. This 
approach would make it much easier to address coordination within 
the Department, normal resistance to change, training, and all the 
other problems that might arise. It would enable the process and the 
protocol to be evaluated and, if necessary, modified before the policy 
was implemented on a citywide basis. 

The area selected for the pilot-test was the Northeast Division of the 
PPD. This Division comprises four separate police Districtsthe 7th, 
8th,2nd and 15th Districtsand has a mixed character. The 7th and 8th 
Districts have relatively stable, middle-income communities. The 2nd 
and 15th Districts are less settled, lower-income neighborhoods, whose 
residents are more likely to encounter illegal drug activity and violent 


crime. The 7th,8th, and 2nd Districts report approximately 350 domestic 
violence cases per month. The 15th District, in contrast, reports about 
700 cases per month. 

Each District has its own Victim Assistance Officer (VAO) whose job 
is to review all crime reports and ensure victims receive information 
about appropriate support services and resources, including crime 
victim compensation. The entire Northeast Division is served by a 
single detective squad, the Northeast Detective Division. 

Building the Team 

Successful community policing strategies, almost by definition, must 
be grounded in a solid team approach. Implementing the community 
oriented policing protocol on stalking in Philadelphia was no 
exception. Based on its prior involvement in community policing 
projects, the PPD knew that every potential partner would have its 
own history with the Department and its own perspective. It was 
aware that it had to reach out to a range of community stakeholders, 
build bridges, and handle relationships with tact and care to get the 
community "buy-in" essential to success. 

The PPD planning team gave careful consideration to the way each 
phase of the project would be implemented, including the strategic 
decision about when to involve prospective community partners. The 
case for bringing in community stakeholders as early as possible was 
well understoodincluding the risk that a delay might cause some 
potential community partners to see their involvement as a mere 
afterthought. However, balanced against this was the need to 
strengthen coordination within the Department before others joined 
the process. Both the model protocol and the organizational structure 
of the PPD meant that several units would have to work together in 
new ways, ways normally required of the VAO's, Detectives, the 
Training Academy, Headquarters, and the District Command. There 
were, in effect, two competing priorities: the need for the PPD to "put 
its own house in order" and early involvement of community 
stakeholders. 

Inspector Patricia Fox, head of the PPD Research and Planning Unit, 
was given overall responsibility for implementing the new anti-stalking 
policy in the Northeast Division. From the outset, she recognized the 
critical importance of improving internal coordination. She was 
convinced that it was essential to have a solid framework in place (in 
terms of the PPD's own administration and operations) before 
community stakeholders came on board. The time constraints for 
completion of the pilot-test (over which the PPD had no control) 


served to strengthen her conviction. Thus, Inspector Fox proceeded 
by first bringing together the key players within the PPD to foster a 
unified approach to the project internally. 

The initial meeting between the PPD Stalking Protocol 
Implementation Team and the National Center Project Team (chaired 
by Inspector Fox) took place in February 2001. The PPD Team 
included senior staff from the Research and Planning Unit and 
commanders from the 15th District, together with their key operations 
staff. The lengthy agenda included an outline of goals and objectives, 
an overview of the existing model protocol, the final approval process 
for the Philadelphia version of the protocol, procedures for 
implementation, training issues, the roll-out of the new policies, the 
involvement of community partners, an action plan for next steps, and 
the overall, tight timeline. The early exchange of views on these topics 
between members of the two teams helped launch the project and 
shape its future course. 

As it turned out, the PPD was able to address most of its internal 
operational issues at the two initial planning meetings. This made it 
possible to invite the potential community partners to join the process 
at the third meeting. On that occasion, in response to criticism from 
the District Attorney's representative regarding the failure to involve 
her office earlier, Inspector Fox set out the reasons underlying the 
decision. She explained why it had been so important to give priority 
to internal issues and highlighted the compressed time frame and the 
speed with which the implementation had to proceed. Reflecting on 
what happened, at a later stage, Inspector Fox commented: "Looking 
back, I believe it was regrettable that we did not communicate sooner with the 
DA's office. It's still my view that dealing with the internal issues was a priority, 
but it was never my intention to cause upset among our law enforcement partners. 
In hindsight, I would have involved the District Attorney's office at an earlier 
stage." 

Notwithstanding the slightly bumpy start, by the end of the meeting 
there seemed to be a general willingness to move forward in 
partnership with the Police Department. The victim advocates, in 
particular, were impressed by the fact that the PPD was planning to 
adopt guidelines based on the model protocol created by the National 
Center for Victims of Crimean independent organization whose sole 
focus is the interests of crime victims. They expressed their 
wholehearted support and praised the potential benefits that would 
flow to the community. 


Training 

Deciding the Basics 

The kinds of changes required by the new anti-stalking policy 
demanded training at several levels within the PPD. It called for hard 
choices and much time was devoted to discussing training 
requirements and arrangements. A whole series of question had to be 
answered: What should be included in the training curriculum? Who 
should be trained? Should everyone receive the same training? Who 
should conduct the training? When and where should the training take 
place? How would the training fit into police routines? 

With respect to the content of the new training, some areas were fairly 
straightforward and easy to articulate. (For example, how stalking is 
defined, what behaviors constitute stalking, and the relationship 
between stalking and domestic violence). Other areas, such as the 
crime reporting process and the role of different police officers in that 
process, demanded more careful consideration and analysis. 

From one point of view, the VAO's and the DV detectives were 
clearly the officers best suited to identify stalking caseseither through 
their reviews of single crime reports or after examining a series of 
reports concerning incidents involving the same perpetrator. For these 
officers, training on the new protocol was clearly vital. They had to 
fully understand stalking in order to identify it. They had to be able to 
recognize the impact of the stalker's behavior on the victim (the fear it 
induced) and the kinds of acts that, taken together or in context, 
comprised a "course of conduct" amounting to stalking. However, it 
was equally important for patrol officers to receive training. They were 
the "first responders" who prepared the initial crime reports. They, 
too, had to be able to identify conduct that could be classified as 
stalking and respond appropriately to the victims. 

Reporting procedures within the PPD required patrol officers to 
submit written reports to officers in the District Operations Room 
who, in turn, forwarded them to "Reports and Control"the central 
repository for crime reports. In cases of domestic violence, patrol 
officers were also required, at the scene or when the complaint was 
made, to give cards to victims with details of support services. 
Information about crime victim compensation and services (for all 
types of victims) was given to victims by the detectives or the 
VAO'sthe next day (if an incident happened in the evening after the 
end of the working day) or on a Monday morning (if it occurred at a 
weekend.) In stalking cases, the VAO's reviewed all the complaints and 
decided which required follow-up. Action would depend on the 


seriousness of the incident and the officer's prior knowledge of the 
situation. The VAO's also decided whether the victim should be 
referred to a DV detectiveif the patrol officer had not already made 
such referral. 

After lengthy discussions, the PPD Implementation team decided that 
the answer was two separate training courses. The first, comprising a 
three-hour training session for a group of approximately seventy-five 
individual officers, would be designed specifically for the DV 
detectives and the VAO's. The second would be a one-hour training 
block for the non-VAO patrol officers. It would be more narrowly 
focused but aim to improve recognition of stalking and responses by 
officers on the street. (For example, it would teach officers when and 
where to refer victims for help.) 

Practicalities and Preparations for the Training Days 

Allocating time for training tends to create problems for all police 
departments. However, in the PPD, once every thirteen days, all patrol 
officers are on duty at the same time. These are known as "fat" days. 
The PPD estimated that approximately 550 patrol officers and 
detective personnel in the Northeast Division could be rotated 
through a series of training sessions on a single "fat" day. This, then, 
seemed to be the answer. By selecting a "fat" day for the training of 
the patrol officers, concerns about balancing training requirements 
against appropriate levels of patrol strength on the streets could be 
overcome. 

Allotting sufficient time for the new training was vital, but success 
ultimately depended on quality. Here, the joint efforts and 
collaboration really paid off. Staff in the Research and Planning Unit 
began work on a draft procedural directive for the Northeast Division 
soon after the initial planning meeting. These guidelines were based 
on an earlier DV policy directive but followed "the spirit of the 
National Center model protocol."30 The task of developing the two 
sets of training curricula was given to the faculty of the Police 
Academy, assisted and supported by the National Center Project 
Team.31 The National Center's generic model protocol was also used 
as a training tool, copies being handed out to everyone who attended 
the session. This meant that all officers who underwent the training 
were equipped with written material that offered greater in-depth 
knowledge about stalking and appropriate police responses. 

The National Center's Stalking Resource Center provided additional 
materials for the training. Its involvement gave access to research, 
expert presentations on stalking, and videos documenting stalking 
behaviors and incidents. The National Center Project Team originally 

30 Inspector Patricia Fox.
31 Known at that time as the "Police College."



recommended inclusion of a "live" panel of stalking victims as part of 
the training for the detectives and the VAO's. This proved impractical 
due to time constraints, but an excellent video on stalking, identified 
by the National Center, was used instead. 
Training in Action: (1) Detectives and VAO's 

The training for the specialist officers was an important landmark in 
the process. In addition to the VAO's and the Northeast Division DV 
detectives, citywide training officers were invited to attend, signaling 
Commissioner Timoney's intention to eventually adopt the protocol in 
all police Districts across the city. Opening the training to officers 
from outside the Division meant that they would be able to conduct 
training in other Districts when the protocol went citywide. 

The day was divided into identical morning and afternoon sessions. 
Introductory remarks from Inspector Fox were followed by initial 
comments from the National Center Team focusing on the model 
protocol's place within the philosophy of community policing. 
Commissioner Timoney attended the morning training 
sessiondemonstrating his commitment to the project. His comments 
were taped for those attending the afternoon session. Members of 
the Police Academy faculty conducted the bulk of the training in both 
sessions, focusing on how to recognize different elements of stalking 
and address victim needs. Staff from the Research and Planning Unit 
of the PPD also participated, focusing on the guidelines that the 
patrol officers, the VAO's, and the DV detectives would follow once 
the protocol became operational. 

Role of the Community Partners in the Training 

In addition to the input from the Police College, the National Center, 
and the PPD Research and Planning Division, there were 
contributions at the training from the community partners. A 
representative from the District Attorney's Office provided significant 
support and encouragement, praised the project, and shared some of 
her professional experience as a prosecutor with the training groups. 
She stressed ways in which officers could help build credible cases 
against alleged perpetrators through careful documentation and 
attention to detail. She emphasized, in particular, the need to 

 Document the demeanor of both victim and offender 

 Provide relevant background information about the partiesfor 
example, what was their relationship? Were they married or 
dating? Were they coworkers? Were they strangers? What led to 
the incident? 



 Document all statements made by the investigating officer as well 
as the victim and the alleged perpetrator. 

 Provide full details about the incidentWhat allegedly happened 
and appeared to have happened? What kind of incident was it? 
Where did the incident take place? What had each party been 
doing at the time? 

 Document actual words spoken by the victimto give the report a 
"ring of truth." (She gave an example of what a rape victim said 
she was thinking about during the rape.) 

 Provide any other information that would "put it together"Were 
there allegations of prior incidents? Was there evidence to suggest 
an order of protection had been issued against the perpetrator at 
some time in the past? 


The District Attorney's representative also drew attention to the 
importance of having recommendations from officers about the 
appropriate level of bail and bail conditions in high-risk cases. In 
addition, officers were reminded that in cases where there was a 
current order of protection and the offender possessed a firearm, 
federal charges could also be brought by U.S. Attorneys. 

Underscoring the community oriented approach of the training was 
the participation by numerous Philadelphia-based victim advocacy 
agencies, including Women in Transition, Women Against Rape, 
Women's Law Project, Congresso de Latinos Unidos, and the NE 
Victim Services Agency. Advocates chose the Executive Director of 
Women Against Abuse to speak on behalf of them all. She described 
the full range of services in the community for victims of domestic 
violence and stalking. She emphasized that victims could get assistance 
from any of the groups present. She stressed that if a particular 
organization couldn't help directly, its staff would direct victims to 
appropriate services and resources elsewhere. 

For those involved in the planning, preparation, and conduct of the 
training, the hard work yielded considerable rewards. The community 
partners expressed genuine excitement about their own participation 
and praised the high quality of the sessions. The PPD personnel 
expressed their appreciation for the positive feedback and were 
gratified by the comments of the community partners. 

Training in Action: (2) Patrol officers on the street 

The one-hour training for the patrol officers of the Northeast 
Division took place a week after the longer training. It was notable in 
several ways. For example, the fact that the training was brought to the 
officers, instead of the officers traveling to the more formal 
environment of the Police Academy, was itself unusual. In addition, 


the emphasis was primarily practical rather than theoretical, focusing 
on what the officers needed to know and do in stalking cases. Finally, 
an unprecedented number of officers were trained on the same 
dayapproximately 600. 

The training sessions took place at two separate locations. They 
started early in the morning, at 4:30 AM, and continued until late in 
the evening, ending at 10:30 PM. Because it was a day when all squads 
were working, the officers were taken off patrol for one hour to 
attend the training without depleting patrol strength on the streets of 
the Northeast Division. Some non-DV detectives and field training 
officers also attended the training. 

Due to the urgency of completing the training and the number of 
separate training sessions that had to be conducted in a single day, 
Police Academy faculty members did not participate in the second 
level training. Instead, staff from the Research and Planning Unit 
(including Inspector Fox) conducted the training. The sessions 
focused on providing frameworks for recognizing stalking as a "course 
of conduct" that involved at least two incidents. The officers were 
informed about the adoption of the new procedural guidelines in the 
Northeast Division, but warned they were "a work in progress" and 
changes might subsequently be introduced. 

At the end of the one-hour session, all the officers were given 
laminated cards. On one side of the card was a list of suggested 
questions for officers to ask if they found themselves dealing with a 
case of stalking; on the other side, was a list of safety measures for 
victims. 

The shorter training sessions were not limited to officers from the 
Northeast Division. VAO's and field training officers from the other 
PPD districts were invited to attend (again anticipating later extension 
of the protocol throughout the city.) Prosecutors and victim advocacy 
groups across Philadelphia were also invited, so they would be aware 
of what was going on in the Northeast Division and have the 
opportunity to share in the developments. 

Post Implementation Developments 

The steps described above all represented the beginning rather than 
the end of the process. Consequently, as the protocol was being rolled 
out in the field, the National Center organized a series of meetings 
with the PPD and the community partners. 


On a weekly basis, the National Center Project Team met with 
Inspector Fox and her staff to review progress and address concerns 
and barriers to success. At these meetings, ongoing problems in the 
field were identified and efforts made to find solutions. The meetings 
also fulfilled a more general function of providing feedback to the 
project's leadership and community partners. 

One issue that quickly emerged was the fact that some commanders in 
the Northeast Division were unfamiliar with the new guidelines, 
having not been directly involved in the project at an earlier stage. 
The problem was quickly solved, however, after Inspector Fox 
arranged a meeting between the National Center Project Team, the 
Northeast Division commander, and the relevant commanding 
officers. This helped promote the cooperation of commanders, who 
had not made the connection between a memo received from 
Headquarters and the protocol being implemented in their Division. 

Discussions with the VAO's and the DV detectives highlighted, once 
again, the complex nature of stalking. The officers said that the new 
guidelines had made them more sensitive to the special fears, 
concerns, and risks of victims in the domestic violence cases. But they 
wanted better technical support, to enable them do a more effective 
job of identifying and responding to stalking. 

Almost all the reported cases were linked to domestic 
violencetypically, scenarios involving ex-spouses or intimate partners. 
In one incident, the victim reported to the patrol officer that her 
estranged husband had come to her apartment and threatened to kill 
her, her boyfriend, and himself. The perpetrator later phoned the 
victim and told her she now had a "shadow."' This complaint was 
immediately forwarded to the detective squad for follow-up. 

In another case, the victim reported that her ex-boyfriend had been 
harassing her and her stepsister in threatening telephone calls about 
the custody of their son. In a similar case, the victim reported 
harassment by her ex-boyfriend at her residence as well as telephone 
threats. There was also a complaint involving a male victim who had 
an order of protection. He complained to the police that his ex-
girlfriend had come to the house and threatened to kill him. In all 
these incidents, the VAO's personally contacted the victims to 
ascertain whether they were receiving appropriate services and to 
make sure they were in communication with the detectives assigned to 
the case. 

Only one case in the follow-up period was unrelated to domestic 
violence. It concerned a medical center that was receiving annoying 
calls from a man who was also leaving business cards all around its 


offices. The case, although less typical, nonetheless illustrates how the 
protocol operated in practice. Investigation revealed that the 
perpetrator was a former patient who wanted medication and a 
doctor's note needed to apply for a disability benefit. The VAO visited 
the medical center and the perpetrator's residence and found everyone 
believed he had a mental problem. But the physician could not 
prescribe the requested medication, because the clinic had not treated 
him for this mental condition. The calls ceased after the VAO warned 
the perpetrator about his behavior on the telephone. 

There was one other non-DV complaint about repeat phone call hang-
ups. Here, the VAO checked with the telephone company who traced 
the calls to a business fax machine with an automatic redial system. 
Although the incident had an innocent explanation, it demonstrates 
why stalking can be hard to identify and how police intervention can 
help victims. Stalkers often use phone hang-ups as a technique to 
annoy and frighten their victims. Police officers do not often 
investigate such complaints or take them seriously. By following the 
protocol, however, the PPD officers were quickly able to reassure the 
complainant. In a genuine stalking case, similar action might have 
protected the victim, put an end to the incidents, and/or resulted in 
the perpetrator's arrest and prosecution. 

The most significant issue raised by the VAO's in the post-
implementation phase was the difficulty of tracking cases where 
records were not computerized and the risk that stalking cases might 
be missed if they were not referred in a timely way to the DV 
detectives. To detect multiple incidents easily and get cases referred 
quickly for further investigation, a computerized system was vital. 

To operate effectively and efficiently, officers needed a system that 
would allow them to undertake a range of different tasks: identify 
repeat calls with minimum delay; compile a list locations where it was 
known there was a problem of domestic violence; develop a better 
understanding of the nature of the violence; discover what measures 
victims had taken to protect themselveshow they had changed their 
daily routines or what steps they've taken to enlist the help of 
neighbors, friends, landlords, and others; and know what further steps 
could be taken to improve victim safety. Given the volume of 
complaints, it was unrealistic to expect officers to be able to remember 
the details of a case from one month to the next. They couldn't do 
their job properly if they didn't have computers and the appropriate 
computer software for tracking cases. 

The VAO's also pointed out the need for additional resources of a 
different kind. They said they generally informed alleged perpetrators 
that domestic violence was a crime, and where there was a stalking 


element, that stalking was a crime. But, they believed they could and 
should do more. In response to these concerns, the National Center 
provided some posters and tip cards that officers could hand to 
victims, to reinforce verbal messages about the criminal nature of 
stalking and domestic violence. 

The post-implementation meetings with the District Attorney's Office 
and victim advocates generally confirmed progress and suggested the 
protocol had affected the way many officers prepared their reports. 
Representatives from the DA's Office said the reports now seemed to 
record stalking whenever it occurred in a case. They also said stalking 
was being identified more oftenbut believed that this reflected better 
documentation in domestic violence cases rather than an increase in 
the number of stalking cases or incidents as such. 

The same theme emerged at all the meetings: the need for continued 
interagency cooperation. Consequently, it was agreed that regular team 
meetings between the police, prosecutors, and victim advocates would 
continue. 

Keys to Success 

Many factors contributed to the successes in Philadelphia. They 
included strong leadership; involvement of key officers early in the 
process; the willingness of the PPD to adopt the essential 
components of the National Center's model protocol; the support and 
enthusiasm of the community partners; the high-quality training; 
access to good educational resources and materials; and, follow-up 
after the protocol had been implemented. 

Leadership 

The importance of the leadership of Commissioner Timoney and 
Inspector Fox cannot be overstated. Without the initial enthusiasm of 
the Police Commissioner, the project could not have gotten off the 
ground. His commitment and personal endorsement were absolutely 
critical, as was his appointment of Inspector Patricia Fox to head the 
PPD Stalking Protocol Implementation Team. Inspector Fox played 
an invaluable role.32 As an Inspector who had risen through the ranks 
(serving as a patrol officer, a detective supervisor, and a Divisional 
commander) her personal leadership qualities, competence, ability to 
move agendas and keep people on track were combined with a 
willingness to seek and accept guidance from the National Center's 
Project Team. This launched the project and kept it moving.33 

32 Her achievements were especially notable in 
light of the fact that the project was delayed 
almost a year, due to personnel changes at the 
PPD and the National Center. 

33 The Project Team consisted of the National 
Center Project staff coordinator, Trudy Gregorie, 
and Dr. Joseph R. Ryan and Professor Benjamin 

B. Tucker of Pace University, New York City, who 
served as consultants on behalf of the National 
Center and provided technical assistance to PPD 
staff throughout the project. 


The strategy employed by Inspector Fox was straightforward. She 
used the Commissioner's commitment to address stalking and his 
support of the National Center to underscore the importance of the 
project. She conveyed the message that the Commissioner wanted 
things to happen, and, therefore, things would happen. She resolved to 
tackle in-house matters first and convened a series of internal 
meetings, starting with the leadership of the respective police 
unitsthe district commanders and the detective commander for the 
Northeast Division. These meetings were used as focus groups and 
fostered a team approach in the overall planning of the 
implementation strategy. 

Involvement of Key PPD Personnel Early in the Implementation Process 

The detectives and line officersthe VAO's and the Domestic Violence 
detectiveswere recruited as key members of the Planning Team at the 
outset. Their knowledge and skill was rooted in their experience of 
domestic violence cases. Their insights helped ground the 
implementation process in everyday realities. Because the risk of 
escalation to serious or lethal violence is often greatest in domestic 
violence cases, the participation of these officers had special 
significance. They were enthusiastic participants because the protocol 
had particular relevance to a large part of their caseload- namely, 
domestic violence offenders who engaged in stalking. They welcomed 
any initiatives that would help protect victims in these cases. 

Adopting the Key Components of the National Center's Model Protocol 

Another significant factor in the implementation process was the 
PPD's decision to adopt the essential components of the model 
protocol developed by the National Center. Rather than reinventing 
the wheel, the PPD opted to make the most of the product that 
already existed. Thus, while the PPD prepared its own draft 
procedural guidelines for officers in the Northeast Division, these only 
departed from the National Center model, in a substantive sense, 
regarding the use of written warnings to deter stalkers from further 
acts of harassment. 

The National Center had included the "warnings" option in the model 
protocol because of research showing warnings deter stalkers in about 
fifteen percent of cases. The PPD decided not to follow suit, after 
being advised by legal counsel that if there was sufficient evidence for 
a written warning, there was sufficient evidence to make an arrest. If 
an officer failed to arrest a stalker and the victim sustained harm or 
loss, it was feared it might expose the Department to a lawsuit.34 

34 Opinions on the use of warnings vary. 
Several police departments do send warning 
letters to perpetrators in certain circumstances. 


The decision of the PPD to incorporate the substance of the model 
protocol into its own procedural guidelines saved time and effort. It 
also offered an unforeseen bonus. Although not anticipated at the 
time, it helped reduce skepticism and bolster the credibility of the 
PPD in the eyes of the community partners, thus encouraging their 
involvement. 

Involvement of Community Stakeholders 

Despite concerns voiced by the District Attorney's Office in the 
planning phase, the PPD succeeded in winning backing for the 
initiative from both prosecutors and local victim advocacy groups. The 
partnership that developed between police and community agencies 
helped lay the groundwork for the new polices and procedures 
introduced in the Northeast Division, aided the implementation 
process, contributed to the success of the training, and, in general, 
helped promote a positive response to the new protocol. The victim 
advocates and the District Attorney's Office also participated in the 
training and the implementation process in the Northeast Division. 
Notwithstanding the initial difficulties, the support and participation 
of the community stakeholders ultimately proved an important feature 
of the Philadelphia story. 

High Quality Training 

Training played a critical role in the broad success of the overall 
process. Careful analysis of the issues, detailed planning of the 
curricula, high quality content and presentation, good materials and 
resources, and the involvement of the community partners all played 
key roles. 

Together, the joint efforts of police and community contributed in 
important ways to the smoothness of the implementation and the 
relative lack of resistance to the new protocol. 

Follow-up 

After the protocol became operational, follow-up meetings proved 
vital in several respects. When new policies are developed and pilot-
tested, there is always a learning process. However careful the planning 
and preparation, there are always bumps in the road that with 
hindsight and analysis can be better navigated in the future. The 
post-implementation discussions provided an important opportunity 
for the airing and exploration of issues that had not emerged (or not 
emerged sufficiently clearly) during the planning phase. 


In some cases, problems were quickly solvedthrough better 
communication and/or access to additional resources. In other cases, 
the discussions pointed to ways in which procedures could be 
improved and priorities clarified. The issue that came into sharpest 
focus was the need for computerized records to track cases quickly 
and easily. From the perspectives of the VAO and the detectives, this 
was an urgent priority, since computerization is the vital foundation of 
all good tracking systems. The key to effective policing in stalking 
cases is collection and analysis of data, to build a history of the case, 
and get a full picture of the perpetrator's behavior and its impact on 
the victim. Computers are, thus, a vital element in successful 
implementation of the protocol and the effective policing of stalking. 

The post-implementation meetings also fulfilled the more general 
function of a communication loop for the project's leadership and the 
community partners. They demonstrated that the protocol had 
delivered some tangible benefits and confirmed the importance of 
community involvement in the development and implementation of 
policies to improve the policing of stalking. 

Recommendations 

Implementing change is never easy. It involves leadership, 
commitment, effort, and a fundamental willingness to do things 
differently. The collaboration that took place in Philadelphia illustrates 
how police departments can work creatively with the communities to 
strive for more effective ways to police stalking. Four months after the 
Model Protocol had been rolled out in the Northeast Division, the 
National Center Project Team made seven recommendations to the 
PPD. These reflect lessons learned during and after the 
implementation of the new anti-stalking protocol. 

1. 
The pilot test should continue for another six to twelve 
months in the NE Division, before the protocol is 
implemented on a citywide basis. This will allow each step 
in the implementation process to be assessed more fully (see 
Chapter 6 for a summary of the independent process 
evaluation) and provide time for follow through on other 
recommendations. Regular meetings between the National 
Center Project Team and key playersincluding front line 
officers, Headquarters, and community partnersshould 
continue during the extended period to identify any 
additional problems and work out solutions. 

2. 
Computers and tracking software for the four VAO's in 
the North East Division should be purchased.This is 
vital to improve the efficiency and ease of tracking and 



referring "multiple incident" cases, as well as establishing 
whether victims were implementing safety plans. 

3. 
Safety planning roles should be clarified. A critical 
reason to introduce the anti-stalking protocol is to ensure 
stalking victims adopt safety. Decisions must be made about 
who is primarily responsible for helping victims devise and 
implement safety plans: the VAO's or victim advocates. (If a 
case reaches a significant danger level, the prosecutor's office 
might want to assume the lead role.) Whatever the situation, 
such a decision must emerge through discussions between 
the police, victim advocates, and prosecutors. 

4. 
Convene ongoing meetings between the police, 
prosecution, and victim advocates. For successful 
implementation of the Protocol, continuous input from 
police, prosecutors, and victim advocates is essential. 

5. 
Develop an informal warning notice for offenders.When 
the victim first notifies police about a stalking incident, 
national experience suggests that educational material to 
inform the victim and the offender of the elements of the 
crime are instrumental in serving as a warning notice. 

6. 
Establish or develop a relationship with a centralized 
victim services helpline for stalking and domestic 
violence victims. Given the nature of the crime, victims 
often want to access services for counseling, support, and 
advocacy. 

7. 
Revise the current crime report forms to allow more 
victim/offender information to be recorded.A review 
disclosed that important information was not collected or 
available for analysis. For example, there was no box for 
recording the victim/offender relationship and insufficient 
space to record facts such as the level of fear exhibited by 
the victim, signs of violence observed at the scene, threats 
made by the perpetrator, and the number of times the police 
had been called to the location. 



Appendix I: Process Evaluation of 
the Implementation of an 
Anti-Stalking Protocol by the 
Philadelphia Police Department 

A Report to the National Center for Victims of Crime and the Office 
of Community Oriented Policing Services by Graham Farrell,35 
Laura Wyckoff,36 and David Weisburd.37 

December 2001, revised January 2002. 

Summary of Recommendations 

The thirteen recommendations listed below are based on and need to 
be read in conjunction with the findings and conclusions in the body 
of this report. They are grouped into four areas: 

Recommendations for Police Management and Training 

1. 
Efforts to implement anti-stalking protocols in police 
departments should only be conducted with the full support of 
the chief of police. 
2. 
Supporting video statements by chiefs, and repeated public 
verbal support for anti-stalking efforts, should be considered 
for formal inclusion as part of the model anti-stalking protocol. 
3. 
Training should give an even greater emphasis to definitional 
issues than occurred in Philadelphia, particularly the facts that 
the crime of stalking need not necessarily involve physical 
violence or strangers. Tests of officer knowledge of these 
fundamental issues may be an appropriate component of 
training. 
4. 
Consideration should be given to follow-ups and checks to 
ensure that all the officers targeted for training are reached. 
5. 
Consideration should be given to the development of FAQ 
sheets for trainers and key players involved in implementation 
efforts, to address skepticism and highlight critical points about 
stalking. 


Recommendations for Improving Crime Prevention Impact 

6. Future efforts to implement anti-stalking protocols need to 
significantly emphasize non-traditional crime prevention 
measures to tackle stalking. 

35 Associate Professor, Division of Criminal 
Justice, University of Cincinnati. 

36 Research Associate, Police Foundation. 

37 Professor, Hebrew University Law School; 
Senior Research Fellow, University of Maryland; 
Senior Fellow, Police Foundation. 


7. 
A phased implementation plan may best facilitate future efforts. 
Initially, 'traditional' practices, such as charging and arrests, 
should be the focus, using data to provide feedback on these 
spearhead issues. Later, additional preventive measures and 
tactics should be highlighted. 

8. 
Police information technologies should be designed to allow the 
tracking and cross-referencing of repeat callers, locations, 
victims, and offenders. 


Recommendations for Inter-Agency Work 

9. 
Judges, other court officials, and representatives from other 
local agencies that encounter stalking, such as housing and 
social services, should be considered for inclusion in multi-
agency groups seeking to prevent stalking. 

10. 
Consider including court officials and officials from other 
agencies in training sessions relating to stalking, perhaps as 
attendees at training for police officers. 

11. 
Non-police agencies should be consulted as early as possible 
during the process of tailoring a model protocol to suit local 
needs. 


Recommendations for Future Research 

12. 
An impact evaluation, or series of impact evaluations, should 
identify the components of the protocol that most effectively 
reduce stalking and address the needs of victims. 

13. 
A nationally representative survey of police officer knowledge 
and views relating to stalking should be commissioned by the 
Department of Justice. Should the findings concur with those 
of the Philadelphia study, the next logical step would be the 
development of a national program of research on stalking. 


I. Introduction 

This is an executive summary of a report constituting a process 
evaluation of the implementation of an anti-stalking protocol by the 
Philadelphia Police Department (Farrell, Wyckoff and Weisburd 2001). 
That report contains additional material, including a review of the 
literature relating to stalking and police responses, full details of the 
qualitative and quantitative methodologies, supplementary background 
information, extensive analysis and quotations from the in-depth 
interviews with agency officials and other qualitative fieldwork, and 
more comprehensive coverage of the study's quantitative surveys that 
are touched on only briefly herein. We are grateful to the many people 
who cooperated with and facilitated this research in a range of 
capacities.38 

38We thank the many police officers we 
surveyed and interviewed, as well as 
representatives from local agencies, for their 
cooperation. Our particular thanks go to Sean 
McGlinn of Philadelphia Police Department for 
acting as our day-to-day liaison. 


By far the most important finding of the process evaluation is that an 
anti-stalking protocol was put into operation by the Philadelphia 
Police Department under the advice and guidance of the National 
Center for Victims of Crime. This was no mean feat and provides a 
firm basis on which to build for the benefit of stalking victims and 
society as a whole. However, since the report does not whitewash the 
difficulties encountered in Philadelphia, readers should be careful not 
to overlook the positive contribution made by this important 
demonstration project while pondering the problems and 
imperfections in the process. The key recommendations are that the 
efforts begun in Philadelphia should be extended to include impact 
evaluations, and that tactics to prevent stalking should be refined and 
developed. 

II. Research Design and Method 

A range of research techniques tapped into a variety of sources of 
information, providing multiple and overlapping process indictors 
from a variety of angles and perspectives. The research had three main 
research strategies: qualitative in-depth interviews with agency officials, 
observational fieldwork, and quantitative surveys. The research was 
conducted between May 2000 and October 2001. 

In-depth interviews with police officers were conducted in three of 
Philadelphia's six police Divisions: the Northeast Division, where 
implementation of the protocol took place, plus two other Divisions 
for comparative purposes. Interviewees included captains, detectives, 
victim assistance officers, patrol officers, and operations room 
officersthat is, the key players involved in handling stalking calls and 
cases. In-depth interviews were conducted with officials from the 
District Attorney's Office, local victim service organizations, and the 
advisors to the implementation work who were employed as 
consultants by the National Center for Victims of Crime. A semi-
structured interview instrument was tailored to specific interviewees. 
Over 100 persons were interviewed in depth. Most interviews were 
taped, and typically transcribed by a third party. Additional 
observations, comments, feedback, analysis, and interpretation by the 
field researchers were normally written-up on the same day or days 
immediately following fieldwork. Observation at various meetings and 
ride-alongs in police patrol cars provided additional insight into the 
implementation as well as into police working practices, and fieldwork 
notes were developed into short written reports that informed the 
main report. Individuals and agencies are anonymous in the report 
where appropriate. 


The complementary quantitative aspects of this evaluation consisted 
of two surveys of police officers. Over 2000 surveys were completed 
for the project. The first survey was a training evaluation survey given 
to officers who attended the stalking awareness training relating to the 
implementation of the anti-stalking protocol. The second was a survey 
of officers' knowledge and views on stalking, conducted at police roll-
calls in the Implementation Division and a comparison Division. A 
key aim of the demonstration project was to raise police officer 
awareness of stalking, since recognizing the problem was held to be a 
prerequisite to the development of an appropriate response. Utilizing 
a quasi-experimental design (before and after training, with a 
comparison Division), the survey allowed a comparison of aspects of 
officers' knowledge and views before and after training, facilitating the 
development of indicators relating to this part of the implementation 
process. The focus of the evaluation was thus the implementation 
process, including officer knowledge, views, and practices, rather than 
of the impact upon levels of stalking in Philadelphia. 

III. Key Findings 

This section first describes key findings relating to police officers' 
knowledge, views, and practices prior to the protocol. This is followed 
by insights, from various parties, into the development and 
introduction of the protocol, and views on the protocol. It then 
describes findings relating to training and other aspects of 
implementation, and subsequent knowledge, views, and practices of 
police officers. Frequent quotations are included as empirical evidence 
where they illustrate, describe, or capture the essence of a particular 
argument or issue. Key survey findings are integrated into the body of 
the text. 

1. Police Knowledge, Views, and Practices Prior to the Protocol 

Prior to the protocol, police officer knowledge of stalking, its legal 
definition, and the appropriate police response, was limited (see also 
Farrell, Weisburd and Wyckoff 2000 for survey findings). The crime 
of stalking was, for the most part, not recognized by police officers. It 
was therefore was not viewed as a problem. The following statements, 
from two patrol officers and a captain respectively, encapsulated the 
situation: 

"I don't recall anything being given to us about stalking. I don't know what 
the definition of stalking is. It's sadthere is no definition out there. We 
may have briefly gone over it in the academy. . . . I don't even know if the 
detectives will be able to tell you what stalking is. As far as I know I've 
never seen anyone arrested for that. I don't know if it's taken seriously." 


"We really don't have cases where we say 'Oh, this is stalking.' " 

"Stalking is pretty much fairly new. I only say that from my own experience 
. . . as far as stalking goes we are probably where we were with domestic 
violence five years ago. . . I know of only a couple of stalking cases in the 
last three years or in my whole career." 

As these interviewees indicated, police officers reported that there had 
been little or no previous training relating to stalking. A captain 
reported some training but implied it was brief and not particularly 
memorable: 

"I do remember training on stalking . . . I think when it was introduced to 
the crime codes, and I don't remember when that was. But I don't remember 
any follow up, or any specific departmental memorandum regarding 
stalking." 

A representative from the District Attorney's Office noted the need to 
train police patrol officers on the collection of information at the first 
response to stalking: 

"The patrol officer is important to me when I get to trial. When I ask 
"What was the demeanor of the victim or the defendant?," "Where were the 
kids?" . . . those [the patrol officers] are the people who are going to make 
the assessment, who are going to make the decisions.. . . So why not arm 
them with a little bit of understanding? So when they have to integrate 
themselves into the scene they can move it closer to conviction, or 
understanding and prevention, or any of these goals." 

It was evident from the pre-training interviews and surveys that there 
was broad scope for improving police officers' knowledge and 
practices relating to stalking. 

2. The Development of the Anti-Stalking Protocol 

A model anti-stalking protocol was developed by the National Center 
for Victims of Crime. It drew upon a wide range of sources, involved 
consultation between the National Center for Victims of Crime and 
nationally-recognized experts, and went through many stages of draft 
and revision. It was a pioneering effortarguably the first 
comprehensive protocol of its kindnotwithstanding that revision may 
be made to the model in the future, as part of the ongoing learning 
process. 

The implementation in Philadelphia overlapped with the closing stages 
of the development of the model protocol, and so the model protocol 
was revised as lessons were learned, and with input from those 


involved. Consequently, the protocol adopted by the Philadelphia 
Police Department was very similar in form to the model protocol. In 
practice, this evolved as a practical means of testing and refining the 
model protocol, as well as allowing the police department to 'buy-in' 
and acquire ownership of the protocol. The National Center for 
Victims of Crime employed two consultant professors, each with 
extensive experience of policing, to act as advisors to the 
implementation process. 

The importance of top-level police support for the project cannot be 
over-stated. It was clear that not just the formal support, but the 
public appearance of support from the Commissioner, played a key 
role. One of the consultant advisors to the implementation noted the 
significance of this factor: 

"Every time we've had a meeting [the Commissioner] made a point just to 
walk through the room to say 'Hi' to [us]. That alone [means] everybody in 
the police department [knows] we got the official blessing, and [that] this 
means he knows what's going on. [T]here was never a time he didn't come 
in. Like he's walking through, just passing through . . . Because he [the 
Commissioner] did that there were no other stumbling blocks in this 
process." 

A police inspector, head of the Research and Planning Unit, was 
assigned responsibility for the management of the project from police 
headquarters. This assignment of responsibility was important, since 
the Inspector served as a direct link between the Implementation 
Division and Headquarters, ensuring accountability as well as sending 
a strong message that the project was taken seriously at Headquarters. 
At one particularly critical juncture, the importance of this role was 
evident, when the Inspector served as a champion for the project. 
This occurred during the first training session when all departmental 
detectives working on domestic violence, and all departmental Victim 
Assistance Officers, were present. When an aspect of the protocol was 
criticized by detectives, and a murmur crept around the room 
suggesting that this part of the protocol was unacceptable, the 
Inspector interrupted the training session and clarified, in no uncertain 
terms, that officers would do what they were told and that the 
protocol was the official line. 

3. Views on the Protocol 

Reactions to the protocol document were, for the most part, extremely 
favorableindicated not least by the fact that it was adopted by one of 
the nation's largest police departments. As always however, some 
views were mixed, and reservations were particularly expressed in 
relation to the potential difference between theory and practice. The 


full spectrum of views on the protocol is captured by the statements 
below. 

A representative from the District Attorney's Office was extremely 
positive: 

"My initial impression when I sat down and read it is that it is incredibly 
inclusive, so that it's clear that folks talked about and included every aspect 
of stalking that I've seen." 

A representative from a local victim services organization expressed 
mixed views: 

"On paper it looks good. But I think [in practice] it's ridiculous for people 
to do all the things they have to do. If it's realistic it's good I just don't 
think it is." 

A representative from the police command staff was cynical about the 
practicality of the protocol: 

"To do all of the things I saw on there [the protocol document], you would 
hope you only got one or two cases a week. In reality, we would have to triple 
our manpower to do all the things. Very unrealistic." 

A police captain from elsewhere in Philadelphia who had consulted 
with the domestic violence detectives who had attended the stalking 
awareness training was blunt on the issue: 

"A lot of these things are unreasonable in a big organization like this." 

It was evident that, depending on the perspective and role of the 
observer, the ambitious nature of the protocol could be viewed as 
either a strength or a weakness. 

4. Stalking Awareness Training for Police Officers 

Training of police officers took place on two days, April 25, 2001 and 
May 2, 2001. 

The first training session was a day-long session dedicated to victim 
assistance officers and domestic violence detectives from across the 
department, and was attended by officials from local victim service 
organizations, the district attorney's office, and other observers. The 
second was a series of one-hour sessions aiming to train all police 
officers in the Northeast Division where the protocol was to be 
implemented. The protocol officially went 'live' on the day after the 
second training session. 


There was almost universal agreement from attendees from various 
agencies, as well as from trainees, that the training given to officers 
was of good quality. It was held to be well prepared, of substantive 
and useful content, and well presented. Both the style and the 
substance of the training were captured by a representative from the 
District Attorney's Office: 

"The style of presentation was wonderful. The subject matter was extremely 
inclusive. The tapes and examples were greatthe more visual aids the 
betterbrought it to life. Made [it] a sensory experience. 

I thought the training itself was well researched, well presented and well 
dressed. The right accessories. What can I add? I don't know, I don't think 
there was much. There was nothing I felt was missing." 

A police Victim Assistance Officer noted the awareness-raising aspects 
of the training: 

"It was like a wake up call to look for it more. Try to get hold of it. Get a 
better grasp." 

Although impressions of the training were largely positive, some 
commentators thought there could be a change in emphasis, while still 
others remained cynical about the subject. One agency official thought 
the link between stalking and domestic violence required greater 
emphasis to break the stereotype: 

"I thought the training was good [But] I wanted to see more focus on 
the domestic violence aspect of it  that's where I think most issues are. I 
think in the family violence cases they [the police] are not attuned to think 
this way.  I think police think it is the Hollywood version of stalking." 

A patrol officer and a detective from different training sessions 
appeared each suggested that the definition of stalking was too broad, 
which could indicate skepticism or that the subject matter had not 
necessarily been understood: 

"According to [the] new training, almost everyone is now stalking. 
Everything that used to be harassment or threat or anything is now 
stalking." 

"The way they phrase stalkingit just about covers every one of the jobs 
we've ever had. We would have stalking constantly, because they really left it 
really wide open." 


A representative survey of trainees was conducted with 372 police 
officers as they completed the one-hour training sessions. Of those 
surveyed, 86% thought the training was needed, and 70 percent 
thought it provided them with new information. Trainees were asked 
sets of questions relating to the course, the material, the trainers, and 
on various aspects of definition. On a five-point scale, most trainees 
typically gave the course a score of good or very good in every 
instance, feeling that the objectives were clearly stated (87 percent), the 
material well organized (84 percent), visuals were used effectively (75 
percent), and that there was ample time for participation (83 percent). 
Eighty two percent of trainees gave the training course an overall 
rating of good or very good. With regards to the quality of the 
trainers, over 80 percent of trainees ranked the trainers as good or 
very good on each of five measures, and 91 percent of those 
responding scored trainers as good or very good on an 'overall' 
measure. 

The legal definition of stalking appeared to be complex for trainees to 
understand. It seems likely that this is because the definition of 
stalking is more complex than what people expect from their 
stereotypical or even 'common sense' perception of the crime. The 
training emphasized definitional issues. However, when surveyed on 
the substance of what they had learned, police officers demonstrated 
difficulties with the definition of stalking. Only 11 percent of those 
surveyed were able to correctly answer a multiple-response question 
on the definition. Many incorrectly checked the options stating the 
stalking must involve strangers or that physical violence must take 
place. While many respondents knew that emotional harm to the 
victim and repetition of the act must occur, few knew that these two 
items alone were the minimum criteria for stalking to have occurred. 
An optimistic interpretation of the findings would be that the 
multiple-response options confused officers. To be conservative, we 
would therefore recommend that future such surveys utilize several 
different measures to study definitional issues. 

We conclude from the survey and the subsequent in-depth interviews 
and fieldwork, that it is insufficient for officers to rely on common 
sense to understand and define stalking, and that this leads them to an 
incorrect stereotypical definition. We therefore recommend that 
future training sessions incorporate an even greater emphasis on 
definition, perhaps including some simple testing of officers or other 
means to try to ensure that the requisite facts are retained. 

One agency official asserted that, although the Philadelphia training 
had been high quality, that this did not necessarily mean the same 
quality could be replicated elsewhere: 


".. [The instructor] developed the training piece. It's one thing to take this 
model, but to synthesize it into your own training, into your own policy, you 
need that extra [ability]. That alone is a major accomplishment. I don't 
know how, when you've got 19157 police departments in the United States, 
how that would be done in each police department, or if that's doable at 
all." 

The training in the Philadelphia Police Department did not achieve 
full coverage of the target group of police officers. Two independent 
quantitative indicators (the exit survey of officers, plus the subsequent 
follow-up survey) suggested that around 70 percent of police officers 
in the implementation division received training. The subsequent 
qualitative research also offered supporting evidence when several of 
the patrol officers selected for in-depth interviews were found not to 
have attended the training, and the research team was obliged to 
increase the number of qualitative interviews to account for this 
factor. 

The fact that a significant proportion of police officers, perhaps as 
many as a third, did not receive training on the anti-stalking protocol, 
could reasonably be expected to dilute the impact and quality of the 
anti-stalking effort. Future training efforts should consider means to 
increase the coverage among the target group, through routine follow-
ups and checks. 

5. Local Victim Service Organizations and the District 
Attorney's Office 

The demonstration project was clearly police-led, since it was the 
police who held primary responsibility for implementing the protocol. 
The involvement of other agencies, particularly local victim service 
organizations and the District Attorney's Office, was encouraged since 
it was recognized that the protocol would flourish with inter-agency 
cooperation. These agencies were informed of the process and invited 
to participate in the implementation of the anti-stalking protocol. As 
noted above, these agencies were very supportive of the protocol and 
its substance. Together with this positive view however, more than one 
agency official expressed the view that they would have expected to 
have been consulted earlier in the process. One agency official 
captured both these viewpoints: 

"I think they should have included the DA's Office and advocacy groups 
much sooner than they did. I think the result is good though, I don't know 
if I would have done it drastically different. I think that at the point we 
were involved, everything was already scheduledyou know, with the training 
dates. It was a little late in the game." 


Another observer was direct: 

"[It took a] good effort to get this thing [the implementation] moving as 
quickly as possible. . . . They put the model in and they got it going, but now 
when they realize the model should include outsiders . . . after everything was 
done and the model has been developed, they called in the outsiders. The 
outsiders get offended. So its not hindsight from that alone to see how [other 
agencies] reacted to be invited after the facts." 

The possible tardiness of the involvement of other agencies 
notwithstanding, the quality of the subsequent collaborative effort was 
also of note. It is not uncommon in multi-agency crime-related 
partnerships for the police to dominate. This occurs for various 
reasons, often reflecting greater resources, a clear mandate to act 
against crime, and an independent and direct approach to tasks. In 
Philadelphia, an official who had been impressed by the protocol 
document and the police training sessions subsequently expressed 
reservations about the aspect of inter-agency collaboration: 

"I underestimated the difficulties in finding a partnership with an institution 
like the police. There is a huge cultural gap with dealing with the police. 
How do we approach them? When do we call them? Who do we talk to?" 

Differing working practices, as well as widely varying 
resourcesnotably the police having more than other agencieswere 
acknowledged to make collaboration difficult: 

"We tend to be less hierarchical [than the police]. . . We need to figure out 
the pieces of the police department and where we need to make connections. . 
. . We recognize that we need to make connections in their training bureau. . 
. . in the commissioner's office, crisis centre, the head of detectives, the head of 
patrol, the internal affairs, the special victims unit. . .the Victim Assistance 
Officer, the officers that work with the DAs, the family violence and sexual 
assault unit . . . I don't think it's out fault or the police's fault. The [police] 
force has over 7,000 people. We are trying to do what we can. It's time 
consuming and difficult." 

While the issues raised here are far from new, and there is a growing 
literature on such issues as they relate to inter-agency collaboration, 
this does not detract from their significance. It would be unlikely for 
any collaborative effort to overcome all such discrepancies, and 
achieving a partnership with the least-worst inter-agency conflict may 
be the best that can realistically be hoped for. However, the evidence 
would suggest that involvement of non-police agencies at an earlier 
stage of the demonstration project may have been beneficial. 


6. Courts, the Judiciary, and Other Community Agencies 

Several interviewees noted that judges could contribute to the anti-
stalking effort, provided that they (and other court officials) receive 
appropriate training. The popular image of the "all-knowing judge" 
was belied by comments from representatives of local victim service 
agencies and the District Attorney's Office indicating that some judges 
do not always understand the issues: 

"We know what the abusers say when they get into court. They make 
themselves very pitiful. They make the judges buy into it. . . . [B]ecause 
judges are go-getter . . . they don't understand somebody learning survival 
strategies that involve rolling over [a reference to the possibility that some 
victims are passive]. . . . It is very hard to get people to understand that 
picture." 

"I've seen judges listen to the stalking cases. How do you convey that she 
moved out, and [that, when] he leaves a box of candy in the back of her 
car, that is really scary to her? And that she wants the law to do something 
about it? It's not the punching. It's not the physical stuff. So it's harder to 
see." 

In a similar fashion, a police Victim Assistance Officer astutely 
captured the fact that prosecutions deriving from police work 
ultimately depend upon the decisions of judges. This simple 
observation suggests that key players at each stage of the criminal 
justice system must be equally practiced at dealing with stalking cases: 

"We are not the judicial system. We put them in, but we don't let them out." 

The possibility of including court officials to a greater extent, at 
various stages of a multi-agency process relating to an anti-stalking 
protocol, is something that future efforts might consider. 

It is also possible that anti-stalking efforts could benefit from the 
inclusion of a broader range of community agencies. Although this 
was not directly tackled as part of this process evaluation, future 
efforts might consider the possibility of involving other community 
agencies. Housing departments, for example, often have civil remedies 
to various types of crime (including threats of and actual evictions) 
that might be readily adapted to stalking cases, and integrated as part 
of a protocol. Other agencies such as social services would be 
potentially fruitful as a source of information regarding stalking cases. 
In some instances, existing inter-agency partnerships focusing on 
domestic violence might be a useful focal point for the introduction of 
an inter-agency approach to anti-stalking efforts. 


7. Police Views, Knowledge and Practices after the 
Protocol Went 'Live' 

After the anti-stalking protocol "went live" in the Northeast Division 
of the Philadelphia Police Department, both the qualitative and 
quantitative aspects of the research conducted prior to the protocol, 
were replicated. There was a year between the two sets of surveys and 
interviews. This allowed some comparison of the knowledge, views, 
and practices of police officers from before and after the training and 
the introduction of the protocol. The views of officials from other 
agencies were also sought. 

A representative from the District Attorney's Office gave an extremely 
positive indication that the work being undertaken would prove 
beneficial, stating 

"Since training, there were some wonderfully worded probable cause affidavits 
and arrest warrant affidavits. And they included a lot of the training and 
protocol steps. [The Assistant DA] has seen an amazing 
improvement[The Assistant DA] thought one affidavit was beautifulit 
included all things from the training, and was worded well." 

Perhaps reflecting their different roles in the implementations efforts, 
the local victim services organization did not appear to have the same 
experience, with a representative noting 

"It is hard to look at the protocol and figure out what the resources are [that 
will do the tasks], how they can handle it. I haven't seen any ripples [positive 
effects] from it. . . . I don't think I have had any cases from Northeast." 

Two months after the introduction of the protocol, there was 
preliminary evidence from the Implementation Division that the 
number of stalking-related charges had increased. For this component 
of the research, a quasi-experimental retrospective analysis was used 
to investigate the departmental charge data. Charges in the two-
months after the protocol was introduced were compared to charges 
for the same two-month period the year before, and change in the 
Northeast Implementation Division was compared to change in the 
remainder of the police department. This analysis showed that, while 
the volume of charges in the remainder of Philadelphia had remained 
stable, the number in Northeast had increased by seventy percent. 
However, the short time periods involved meant that the numbers 
involved were relatively small and were insufficient to state that the 
difference was statistically significant after a chi-squared test although 
the difference was close to significant at the 10 percent level. 


A measure of increased stalking charges may not necessarily be an 
unambiguously positive indicator. One police captain implied that it 
need not necessarily reflect new cases that would previously go 
unrecognized, if stalking was an add-on charge to existing cases. The 
implication could be that administrative rather than more substantive 
change could inflate the number of stalking charges: 

"I talked to my domestic teamHe says we've been adding it [a stalking 
charge] on. In [terms of the number of] cases, it has been only a few weeks 
now, but they have been adding it on [to the list of charges]. I don't know 
about beforehand. They have been adding it on as an additional charge." 

Although beyond the scope of the present study, future research 
efforts might examine the extent to which increases in charges for 
stalking are due to charges that are added to existing cases, or due to 
the identification of 'new' stalking cases that would not previously 
have resulted in charges for any type of crime. While both are positive 
indicators, it would be hoped that an initial spearhead would see an 
increase in the add-ons, followed by an increase in 'new case' charges. 

Police Victim Assistance Officers 

Victim Assistance Officers (VAOs) handled the reports on stalking in 
the implementation division, but held mixed views on whether the 
quality of reports from patrol officers had increased. Note again the 
importance of the quality of the patrol officer reports since, as the 
District Attorney's Office had noted, these reports can play a 
prominent role in prosecutions. At a group interview, contradictory 
views were presented in the following exchange between two VAOs: 

VAO1: "They [patrol officers] have to ask who, what, when, where, and 
how? Have to ask these things. We have some officers that will continually 
write the same report from the day they get on [the job] to the end. [The 
report] [d]oesn't say what was said or what was done, etcetera. Even after 
the training [on stalking] we get reports like that." 

VAO2: "But I have noticed the reports have changed and are getting better." 

At least one VAO recited an instance where it was clear that the 
stalking awareness training had improved the VAO response to a 
stalking case: 

"[I told the victim] to be aware, to get a security system, put her car in the 
garage. She has a huge fence. Sensor lights. [I told her to] Make the 
neighbors aware. Her coworkers are aware. [I told her to] Take security 
measures. She came to me before the training. The training was very 
helpful." 


Another VAO seemed to justify previous practices relating to stalking 
by shifting the 'blame' (for not recognizing stalking) to the victim. The 
following quote could be seen as ironic in the context of the fact that, 
even after the training, a firm grasp of the definition of stalking still 
seemed to elude many police officers: 

"it's that the victims aren't relaying it properly. Maybe they don't know the 
actual meaning of the word stalking." 

However, other VAOs suggested that their working practices were not 
significantly changed by the protocol. They suggested that, after patrol 
officers, the primary changes in the manner that the police would 
handle cases came via the work of the domestic violence detectives, 
who would liaise with the District Attorneys Office: 

"I am not doing that much different than I have for five years. The difference 
is, what are they [the detectives] doing up there?" 

Police Detectives 

Changes were clearly beginning to occur in both the awareness and 
working practices of the detectives in the Implementation Division, 
and in detectives in other divisions who had attended the training. 
Again however, the nature of the change was not wholly 
unambiguous. To retain individual anonymity, the following quotations 
reflect views from detectives from different divisions, since all had 
attended the stalking awareness training. 

Some detectives clearly felt that the training had been beneficial and 
had directly influenced working practices, as suggested by the 
following: 

". . . now I look into it [stalking] a lot more. It makes you more aware. 
The training helped me. I keep the folder, I have the folder. Now I can get 
the complainant in here. We charged before with stalking, but now I think it 
is a little more awareness." 

Another detective noted that they now had no problem or 'price' with 
making arrests for stalking: 

"I just had a phone call. I arrested her husband [previously], and he was 
charged with stalking, and put on probation. And now he is out stalking 
her again. And then I have to talk to the complainant and we have to go 
through the whole arrest process. Stalkingwe have no price about [problem 
with] arresting someone for stalking, and we do it." 


Evidence from this detective suggested stalking charges were being 
introduced: 

". . . He never assaulted her [previously]. And then that night, he did 
assault her. And that went to the [other police] division. The charge is 
terroristic threats and stalking. They are all misdemeanors. That way if he 
does it again, it can become a felony when he is convicted of it. And now 
she has a protection order." 

One detective, like the VAO who blamed victims for not recognizing 
stalking, also deflected criticism from police officers by finding fault 
with the victims: 

"But she's had an off-and-on relationship with him. In her sense she didn't 
feel she was being stalked. When you think of stalking you think of 
textbook-type thingsthings you see in Hollywood. Maybe our complainants 
aren't smart enough to realize this'Oh, I'm being stalked.'" 

What to do with skepticism? 

It was clear from interviews with those involved with the 
implementation, that ensuring uniformity of practice among detectives 
could be extremely difficult. Since the detectives dealing with stalking 
typically worked two to a division, it was observed that a single 
detective, who rejected stalking as a priority for policing, could 
significantly affect the workings of that division. The relevant division 
and detectives are anonymous here, to avoid identification of those 
involved, but the significance of the problem for effective 
implementation of an anti-stalking protocol should not be underestimated. 
Skepticism can be contagious. The views of one cynical and 
hardened officer can spread and influence the views and perceptions 
of colleagues. This possibility was suggested in the following 
statement from an agency official, where the influence of a seasoned 
detective's skepticism was evident: 

"I think [the detective] is really smart. [The detective] may be cynical, might 
be burnt out, but from our first meetings [the detective's] assessment has been 
proven right. I looked at those [case reports] . . . and stalking is 
nonexistent." 

Note that this viewpoint of the 'nonexistence' of stalking in 
Philadelphia is empirically contradicted by the evidence provided by 
police officers who were dealing with stalking cases as well as the fact 
that the research team examined a sample of a dozen stalking cases 
files from each of the police department and the District Attorneys 
Office. However, it highlights the possibility that some police officers 
or agency officials do not take stalking seriously, that continual 


monitoring of detectives may be necessary, and that those responsible 
for implementing anti-stalking efforts should be forewarned of the 
possibility of skepticism. In one interview, it was suggested that 
offenders committing stalking offenses deserved sympathy since they 
often did not realize the severity or impact of their stalking behavior. 

Those responsible for implementing an anti-stalking protocol need to 
be prepared to tackle seasoned police officers, and even officials from 
other agencies, who remain cynical. As a means of overcoming this 
problem, one of the consultant advisors to the implementation 
suggested that local data collection, which would allow the provision 
of evidence to cynical officers, would arm implementers with locally-
relevant empirical evidence on the extent and nature of the stalking 
problem. We would recommend such preliminary data collection 
exercises be considered for adoption in jurisdictions where anti-
stalking measures are to be adopted. We would also recommend 
(detailed further below) that trainers and implementers be armed with 
a list of FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) that directly address the 
types of stereotypical views raised by cynics. 

Police Officer Survey Findings 

The survey of police officers was conducted before and after the 
introduction of the anti-stalking protocol, in the Implementation 
Division and a Comparison Division. It was arguably not a completely 
controlled quasi-experimental design since VAOs and domestic 
violence detectives in the Comparison Division also received training. 
Any possible 'tainting' of the results caused by this factor would tend 
to make the findings more conservative, that is, to make the extent of 
change appear less. In reality, this threat to validity of the pre-post 
comparison would be expected to have little impact upon the views of 
patrol officers, whose views are analyzed here. 

The surveys presented here were conducted at roll-calls, where 891 
surveys were completed of which 779 were from patrol officers. The 
surveys had a 99.8 response rate since, while there were no refusals, 
there were two spoilt surveys. Administration was conducted by police 
roll-call supervisors, with monitoring by the researchers. The survey 
was short, taking officers approximately five minutes to complete. 
Consequently, there was minimal disruption of police department 
staff, and cooperation with the survey was excellent. The end result 
was a large sample size obtained at relatively small research cost. The 
brevity of the survey meant that data preparation, data entry, and 
cleaning remained feasible within the small-scale of the evaluation 
exercise. 


After the training, at least one survey indicator suggested that police 
officers in the Implementation Division were significantly more aware 
of issues relating to stalking. Prior to the training, 24 percent of 
officers in the Northeast Implementation Division reported having 
been involved with a stalking case in the last five working shifts. This 
increased to 35 percent in the post-training survey, whereas there was 
no change in the Comparison Division. The difference was statistically 
significant (Chi-square=4.652; p=.031; d.f.=1). Although the increase 
of 13 percent in absolute terms could appear relatively small, it needs 
to be viewed as a relative figure. The implicit goal of 100 percent of 
officers reporting involvement in stalking cases is an unrealistically 
hypothetical maximum. The change might be preferably viewed as a 
43 percent increase in the proportion of officers reporting 
involvement in a stalking case in the last five working shifts, and thus 
arguably denoting a far greater awareness of the crime of stalking. 
There was no comparable or significant change in the proportion of 
officers reporting involvement in domestic disputes. 

Prior to training, 17 percent or almost one in five patrol officers in 
Northeast Division did not know that stalking was a crime in 
Pennsylvania, a figure which dropped to 4 percent among trained 
officers. However, officers in Northeast who had not been trained 
reported similar increases in knowledge of this issue, although there 
was no change in the level of knowledge in the comparison division. 
An interpretation consistent with the data would be that it reflects an 
awareness of the anti-stalking effort in the Implementation Division, 
even among officers who did not attend the training sessions. 

With respect to knowledge of the definition of stalking, the results 
were inconclusive. Although there was an increase in the correctly 
identified definition from 13 percent to 19 percent among trained 
officers, the increase was to 22 percent among officers in the 
Implementation Division who had not attended training. Further, 
although there was no change in the level of correct responses in the 
Comparison Division, the level of knowledge in the Comparison 
Division was the same as that in the Implementation Division after 
the training. No explanation for this phenomenon is presented here. 
However, the finding that only one in five patrol officers had a firm 
grasp of the definition of stalking (as found in the exit-survey 
evaluating officer training) reinforces the need for additional emphasis 
upon definitional issues in future training efforts. 

The definitional issues raised by the survey of officers were not 
necessarily restricted to the police. One official did not appear to note 
the differences in definition between stalking and domestic violence, 
overlooking the fact that physical violence need not be present for the 
crime of stalking to occur as well as the issue of stalking between 
non-intimates: 


"And I think what's missing in this whole discussion about stalking and 
domestic violence is 'Why do we want a stalking response team?' Why don't 
we have a domestic violence response team? Not a stalking response team. If 
there are any problems that are uncovered now with stalking they are really 
problems that are uncovered in response to domestic violence. That's the real 
issue here." 

Police officers were asked about their perception of the departmental 
response to stalking. Trained officers were more likely to report that 
they thought the response was good or excellent (49.5 percent) 
compared to officers before the training (40.3 percent), officers who 
did not attend the training (38.1 percent), and officers in the 
comparison division both before and after the training (44.7 percent 
and 39.6 percent respectively). However, the extent of change would 
suggest that, of officers who did not rate the departmental response 
as at least good prior to the training (60 percent), only one in six 
developed a more positive perception as a result of the training. 

Officers were asked about the frequency with which they filed reports 
relating to stalking in the last month. There was little indication of 
change among trained officers. The increase from 18.8 percent to 20.9 
percent of officers who filed a stalking report could easily reflect 
natural variation in the data, as confirmed by variations in the levels of 
filing of domestic dispute and harassment reports. When officers were 
presented with scenarios that were possible stalking cases, one 
involving a stranger and one involving an acquaintance, the most 
significant changes were notable in relation to stalking by an 
acquaintance. Prior to the training, 46.1 percent of officers in 
Northeast Division reported that they would have recorded the 
'acquaintance' scenario as a stalking case. This rose to 71.3 percent 
among officers who attended training. However, it also rose to 63.8 
percent among officers from Northeast Division who did not attend 
training, and there was an increase from 54.7 percent to 64 percent in 
the Comparison Division. This suggests an overall increase in filing of 
stalking cases across Philadelphia, with the effect most concentrated 
among those officers who received training. The departmental wide 
effect may have been due to the fact that this was a relatively high 
profile demonstration project involving the public support of the 
Commissioner. 

Both the qualitative and quantitative indicators provide evidence of 
some increase in awareness of stalking and knowledge of stalking, 
among police officers who were trained. It was also evident however, 
that the extent and nature of change was less than might ideally have 
been hoped for: Where change could be detected it was often 
relatively small in size and scope. Perhaps the most encouraging 
indicator related to the increase in stalking charges discussed earlier, 


even though that may reflect administrative add-on charges (this is not 
to say that these are a bad thing) to existing criminal cases rather than 
the detection of 'new' stalking cases that would have otherwise gone 
unnoticed by the police. 

8. Subsequent Views from Other Officials 

Earlier in this report, views of officials were reported which suggested 
that they felt the protocol looked good on paper, but could prove 
difficult in practice. Two months after the protocol had gone live, a 
different official reinforced this view, noting that there seemed to have 
been few if any cases where tactics other than arrest or charging could 
be introduced: 

"Philadelphia [police department] has really been fantastic. Everything 
moved along. But in terms of the model [protocol], they did not need to use 
the model for a safety plan or anything else yet." 

Views on the degree of specialization required within the police 
department to tackle stalking were mixed. The possibility of 
developing specialized stalking response teams, in fitting with the 
police department's frequent practice of developing specialized units, 
had been mooted. One official was clearly skeptical about the 
requirement: 

"I spoke with [a representative from the National Center for Victims of 
Crime] who said [that their report would be] saying 'Set up a stalking 
response team'. That's ridiculous. Are you going to have a robbery response 
team? Are you going to have a larceny response team?" 

Difficulties in gaining momentum in the implementation of anti-
stalking tactics may have been related to issues relating to the 
identification of stalking. After two months of implementation, an 
official observed that measures other than arrest and charging had not 
yet been used: 

" . . [The police department] have safety plan, a cocooning process. . . 
they know what that's about. But they don't have an example to put it in 
place yet." 

It is difficult to reconcile this official's statement with the earlier 
statements from VAOs and detectives who reported that they had 
been working on stalking cases, as well as the District Attorneys 
Office who reported receiving some improved case reports. The 
statement is perhaps cast in a more revealing light when the official 


noted that, since there had not yet been the opportunity to test the 
range of preventive interventions, the possibility existed that the range 
of measures might not be effective in preventing stalking: 

"So someday down the line, if it's there [the protocol], and we use it the first 
time, and we find out it's the stupidest thing we can think of." 

This statement highlights the need for, a future evaluation should 
assess the impact of the preventive components of the protocol. 

The consultants to the National Center for Victims of Crime reported 
difficulties instituting the protocol's preventive aspects other than 
improved efforts to increase arrests and charges for stalking. Thus, 
although progress was clearly made, it cannot be said with certainty 
that the degree of change achieved was sufficient to alter police 
practices in the longer term. Perhaps, however, the two month 
implementation period was simply too short and further time was 
needed to establish the less-traditional preventive tactics. 

IV. Conclusions and Recommendations 

Much was achieved in the process of launching the new anti-stalking 
protocol in Philadelphia. A significant amount of officer training, 
some evidence of greater awareness and identification of stalking, 
preliminary indication of increased stalking charges against offenders, 
and potential for the introduction of a range of new preventive 
measures, including safety planning for victims, were all apparent. 
However, notwithstanding the clearly documented evidence of 
stalking, there was still no routine use by the police of less traditional 
preventive tactics two months after the protocol was rolled out. 
(Progress may have been made subsequently, but a longer-term 
assessment would be needed to ascertain this.) It is therefore arguable 
that, at the end of the evaluation period, full implementation of the 
policy had still not taken place. If methodologically feasible, an impact 
evaluation should be undertaken in Philadelphia to establish the 
effectiveness of the protocol in preventing stalking and, perhaps, 
identify other helpful tactics. However, it would not be appropriate to 
assess the impact of the protocol until all its preventive aspects are 
implemented. If an impact evaluation is not methodologically feasible 
in Philadelphia since much has already changed there, then one should 
be conducted in another department. 


Thirteen key recommendations emerged as a result of the findings 
and conclusions presented in this report. They are grouped into four 
broad categories. 

Recommendations for Police Management and Training 

Police departments have a strict hierarchical structure. As a result, the 
actual and perceived support of the highest-ranking officers is 
essential to effect change in departmental policy and practice. In the 
case of stalking, which is often dismissed as a trivial offense, such high 
level support must be patently visible to all officers within the 
department. Recommendation 1: Future efforts to implement anti-
stalking protocols in police departments should be conducted only 
with the support of the chief of police. Recommendation 2: Supporting 
video statements by chiefs, and repeated public verbal support for 
anti-stalking efforts, might be considered for formal inclusion as part 
of the model anti-stalking protocol. 

The crime of stalking can be both complex to comprehend and 
readily dismissed by police officers and others. Although the 
Philadelphia training did emphasize definitional issues, these often 
appear disarmingly simple. The survey suggested that many officers 
did not full attain a clear understanding of the nature of the crime 
most notably the fact that physical violence need not occur, and 
strangers need not be involved. Recommendation 3: Future training 
should give an even greater emphasis to definitional issues, particularly 
the facts that the crime of stalking need not necessarily involve 
physical violence or strangers. Tests of officer knowledge of these 
fundamental issues may be an appropriate component of training. 

Approximately seven of every ten police officers attended training 
from the division in which it was intended to train all officers. 
Recommendation 4: Consideration should be given to follow-ups and 
checks to ensure that all the officers targeted for training on the 
protocol are reached. 

Initial and continuing skepticism about stalking, its extent and 
significance as a crime is not uncommon. It may persist even in the 
face of training, both among police officers and officials from other 
agencies. Statements and questions including as 'This is not a problem 
here'; 'This is not really a crime'; Where is the evidence?'; 'We should 
be addressing more serious crimes'; 'We have a response to domestics, 
so why do we need this?' 'Stalking is just the same as domestic 
violence'' 'We have been doing this for years!'; 'Isn't this a waste of my 
time?' are likely to arise. Such skepticism may spread within the 


department if it is not specifically addressed. Recommendation 5: 
Consideration should be given to the development of FAQ sheets for 
trainers and key players involved in implementation efforts, to address 
skepticism and the range of frequently asked questions and statements 
that it can produce. 

Recommendations for Enhancing Crime Prevention Impact 

Introducing nontraditional tactics into police work, as demonstrated in 
Philadelphia, can be difficult. Whereas the police may readily adapt 
charging and, perhaps, even arrest practices, other crime prevention 
measures such as safety planning, are often significantly outside the 
range of their normal working practices. Recommendation 6: Future 
efforts to implement anti-stalking protocols should significantly 
emphasize non-traditional crime prevention measures to tackle 
stalking. Recommendation 7: A phased implementation plan should be 
adopted to facilitate the institution of an anti-stalking protocol. First, 
traditional practices, such as charging and arrests, should be the focus, 
using data to provide feedback on these spearhead issues. Later, 
additional preventive measures and tactics should be highlighted. 

The was some evidence that the recognition of stalking might be 
improved through improved information technology designed to link 
repeated calls from the same victim, the same location, and involving 
the same offenders. Efforts to integrate the tracing of repeat instances 
of victims, locations and offenders into police IT is a key issue in the 
prevention of repeat victimization generally, and specifically in relation 
to stalking. Recommendation 8: Police information technologies should 
be designed to allow the tracking and cross-referencing of repeat 
callers, locations, victims, and offenders. 

Recommendations for Inter-Agency Work 

Judges are key decision-makers when stalking cases go to court. There 
were suggestions that anti-stalking efforts might benefit from the 
inclusion of judges and other court officials in the process of 
developing and implementing a protocol. However it cannot be 
assumed that all judges and officials from other agencies have a full 
understanding of the nature of stalking. Recommendation 9:Judges, 
other court officials, and representatives from other local agencies 
(such as housing and social services) that encounter stalking cases, 
should be considered for inclusion in multi-agency groups seeking to 
prevent stalking. Recommendation 10: Consideration should be given to 
the inclusion of court officials and officials from other agencies in 
training sessions relating to stalking, perhaps as attendees at trainings 


for police officers. Recommendation 11: Non-police agencies should be 
consulted as early as possible during the process of tailoring a model 
protocol to suit local needs. 

Recommendations for Future Research and Practice 

An evaluation of the impact of the tactics recommended in the anti-
stalking protocol is a critical next step in progressing the work begun 
in Philadelphia. The present report did not, and never set out to, 
determine whether or not the anti-stalking protocol assisted victims 
and reduced crime. Recommendation 12: An impact evaluation, or series 
of impact evaluations, should identify the measures in the protocol 
that result in the greatest reductions in the frequency of stalking and 
its effect upon victims. 

The findings of the survey of police officer knowledge and views 
relating to stalking, the first of its type, may well be representative of 
a national problem. Although validation work would be needed, it 
suggested a significant need for stalking awareness training and anti-
stalking protocols in police departments. Recommendation 13:A 
nationally representative survey of police officer knowledge and views 
relating to stalking should be commissioned by the Department of 
Justice. Should the findings concur with those of the Philadelphia 
survey (Farrell, Weisburd and Wyckoff 2000), the development of a 
national program of work relating to stalking could be the next logical 
step. 

References 

Farrell, G., L.Wyckoff and D. Weisburd. 2001. Process Evaluation of 
The Implementation of an Anti-Stalking Protocol By Philadelphia 
Police Department. Final Report to the National Center for Victims of 
Crime and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 
December 2001. 

Farrell, G., D. Weisburd and L. Wyckoff. 2000. 'Survey suggests need 
for stalking training' The Police Chief, 62, 10, 162-167. 


Appendix II: Principal Findings and 
Recommendations: Adapting and 
Implementing the Model Stalking 
Protocol 

1. 
There must be leadership at all levels in the police department to 
implement a new anti-stalking protocol. A conscious effort has to 
be made to ensure the necessary internal coordination and 
unified outlook needed launch and implement the new policy. 

2. 
Before the process gets underway, the police department must 
assess which community agencies, organizations, or programs are 
currently responding to the needs of stalking victims and which 
additional community stakeholders have a part to play in a more 
community oriented approach. The police must develop a special 
operational relationship with prosecuting attorneys. As key 
players in the criminal justice process charged with the task of 
securing convictions against stalkers, prosecutors need to be 
viewed as primary partners in efforts to create comprehensive 
community responses to stalking. 

3. 
Key community stakeholders should be invited to join the 
process at the earliest possible stage. Even if they cannot 
participate in discussions about internal police department issues, 
they should be informed about the initiative and made part of 
the process. Representatives of the community stakeholders 
should become members of the task force, planning committee, 
or other body charged with developing and implementing the 
new policy, as soon as practicable. 

4. 
Participation by community stakeholders should be as broad as 
possible. They can be involved in creating the protocol and 
training curricula, conducting training sessions, assisting the 
implementation process within the department, and promoting 
understanding of the new policy among the wider community 
through public education initiatives. 

5. 
The Model Protocol created by the National Center for Victims 
of Crime can be used as the basis for a departmental directive 
(omitting sections that conflict with other departmental policies 
or which are unsuited to the local environment) or as a tool to 
ensure that all the essential requirements for an effective anti-
stalking protocol get included. 



6. 
Given the high percentage of stalking cases linked to former 
intimate partner relationships, an operational directive governing 
police responses in domestic violence cases should complement 
the stalking protocol. 

7. 
Sufficient time and resources must be devoted to training, initially 
and throughout the first year the new protocol is operational. 
Adequate training for officers and detectives is critical to success. 
It should be repetitive and progressive and should not be viewed 
as a one-time event. It should emphasize the definition and 
meaning of stalking and convey the fact that it does not 
necessarily involve physical violence or strangers. 

8. 
Implementation of the stalking protocol can only be effective if 
it reaches beyond the confines of the police department to all 
criminal justice agencies, victim service programs, and beyond. 
Everyone who has a role to play in translating the new guidelines 
into day-to-day actions on the ground must have access to proper 
training and information. Public awareness and education about 
stalking and the new policy directive must also be treated as an 
important aspect of the implementation process. 

9. 
Appropriate technical support is essential to the proper 
implementation of the new protocol. Ability to track cases 
through computerized records is vital for any police department 
dealing with large numbers of stalking cases. Only with proper 
technical support can officers follow protocol guidelines and 
respond effectively to victim needs. 

10. 
Monitoring the protocol once it becomes operational is a critical 
component of the implementation process, not a luxury. 
Implementing a new policy, especially one that seeks to address a 
problem as complex as stalking, is always a learning process. 
There will inevitably be issues that do not surface during the 
planning phase and can only be addressed later, with the benefit 
of experience and hindsight. 



Appendix III: Copy of Model Stalking 
Code 

The model antistalking code development project has sought to 
formulate a constitutional and enforceable legal framework for 
addressing the problem of stalking. 

The model code encourages legislators to make stalking a felony 
offense; to establish penalties for stalking that reflect and are 
commensurate with the seriousness of the crime; and to provide 
criminal justice officials with the authority and legal tools to arrest, 
prosecute, and sentence stalkers. 

Section 1. For purposes of this code: 

(a) 
"Course of conduct" means repeatedly maintaining a visual or 
physical proximity to a person or repeatedly conveying verbal or 
written threats or threats implied by conduct or a combination 
thereof directed at or toward a person. 
(b) 
"Repeatedly" means on two or more occasions. 
(c) 
"Immediate family" means a spouse, parent, child, sibling, or any 
other person who regularly resides in the household or who, 
within the prior six months, regularly resided in the household. 


Section 2. Any person who 

(a) 
Purposefully engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific 
person that would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily injury 
to himself or herself or a member of his or her immediate family, 
or to fear the death of himself or herself or a member of his or 
her immediate family 
(b) 
Has knowledge or should have knowledge that the specific person 
will be placed in reasonable fear of bodily injury to himself or 
herself or a member of his or her immediate family or will be 
placed in reasonable fear of the death of himself or herself or a 
member of his or her immediate family 
(c) 
Whose acts induce fear in the specific person of bodily injury to 
himself or herself or a member of his or her immediate family or 
induce fear in the specific person of the death of himself or 
herself or a member of his or her immediate family; is guilty of 
stalking 



Analysis and Commentary on Code Language 

Prohibited Acts 

Unlike many state stalking statutes, the model code does not list 
specific types of actions that could be construed as stalking. Examples 
of specific acts frequently proscribed in existing stalking statutes 
include following, non-consensual communication, harassing, and 
trespassing. 

Some courts have ruled that if a statute includes a specific list, the list 
is exclusive. The model code, therefore, does not list specifically 
proscribed acts, because ingenuity on the part of an alleged stalker 
should not permit him to skirt the law. Instead, the model code 
prohibits defendants from engaging in a course of conduct that would 
cause a reasonable person fear. 

Credible Threat 

Unlike many state stalking statutes, the model code does not use the 
language "credible threat." Stalking defendants often will not threaten 
their victims verbally or in writing but will instead engage in conduct 
which, taken in context, would cause a reasonable person fear. The 
model code is intended to apply to such threats implied by conduct. 
Therefore, the "credible threat" language, which might be construed as 
requiring an actual verbal or written threat, was not used in the model 
code. 

Immediate Family 

A stalking defendant may, in addition to threatening the primary 
victim, threaten to harm members of the primary victim's family. 
Under the provisions of the model code, such a threat to harm an 
immediate family member could be used as evidence of stalking in the 
prosecution for stalking of the primary victim. 

The model code uses a definition of immediate family similar to one 
currently pending in the California legislature. This definition is 
broader than the traditional nuclear family, encompassing "any other 
person who regularly resides in the household or who within the prior 
six months regularly resided in the household." 

If states want to consider further expanding the definition of 
immediate family, they should be aware that broadening it too much 
may lead to challenges that the statute is overly broad. 


Classification as a Felony 

States should consider creating a stalking felony to address serious, 
persistent, and obsessive behavior that causes a victim to fear bodily 
injury or death. The felony statute could be used to handle the most 
egregious cases of stalking-type behavior. Less egregious cases could 
be handled under existing harassment or intimidation statutes. As an 
alternative, states may wish to consider adopting both misdemeanor 
and felony stalking statutes. 

Since stalking defendants' behavior often is characterized by a series of 
increasingly serious acts, states should consider establishing a 
continuum of charges that could be used by law enforcement officials 
to intervene at various stages. Initially, defendants may engage in 
behavior that causes a victim emotional distress but does not cause the 
victim to fear bodily injury or death. For example, a defendant may 
make frequent but non-threatening telephone calls. Existing 
harassment or intimidation statutes could be used to address this type 
of behavior. States also may want to consider enacting aggravated 
harassment or intimidation statutes that could be used in situations in 
which a defendant persistently engages in annoying behavior. The 
enactment of a felony stalking statute would allow law enforcement 
officials to intervene in situations that may pose an imminent and 
serious danger to a potential victim. 

Classification as a felony would assist in the development of the 
public's understanding of stalking as a unique crime , as well as permit 
the imposition of penalties that would punish appropriately the 
defendant and provide protection for the victim. 

Of utmost importance is a state's decision to require the criminal 
justice system and related disciplines to take stalking incidents 
seriously. A state's decision on how to classify stalking and how to 
establish its continuum of charges is of less importance. 

Conduct Directed at a Specific Person 

Under the model code's language, the stalking conduct must be 
directed at a specific person. Threatening behavior not aimed at a 
specific individual would not be punishable under a statute similar to 
the model code. For example, a teenager who regularly drives at high 
speed through a neighborhood scaring the residents could not be 
charged under a stalking statute based upon the model code. 


Fear of Sexual Assault 

It is likely that victims who fear that a defendant may sexually assault 
them most likely also fear that the defendant would physically injure 
them if they resisted. Furthermore, because the human 
immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which causes acquired 
immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), could be contracted through a 
sexual assault, a victim is more likely to fear bodily injury or death, as 
well as psychological injury. Nevertheless, due to the nature of stalking 
offenses, states may want to consider expanding the language of their 
felony stalking statutes to explicitly include behavior that would cause 
a reasonable person to fear sexual assault in addition to behavior that 
would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily injury or death. 

Intent Element 

Under the provisions of the model antistalking code, a defendant 
must purposefully engage in activity that would cause a reasonable 
person fear, and the defendant must have knowledge, or should have 
knowledge, that the person toward whom the conduct is directed will 
be placed in reasonable fear. In other words, if a defendant 
consciously engages in conduct that he knows or should know would 
cause fear in the person at whom the conduct is directed, the intent 
element of the model code is satisfied. 

A suspected stalker often suffers under a delusion that the victim 
actually is in love with him or that, if properly pursued, the victim will 
begin to love him. Therefore, a stalking defendant actually may not 
intend to cause fear, he instead may intend to establish a relationship 
with his victim. Nevertheless, the suspected stalker's actions cause fear 
in his victim. As long as a stalking defendant knows or should know 
that his actions cause fear, the alleged stalker can be prosecuted for 
stalking. Protection orders can serve as notice to a defendant that his 
behavior is unwanted and that it is causing the victim to fear. 

Fear Element 

Since stalking statutes criminalize what otherwise would be legitimate 
behavior based upon the fact that the behavior induces fear, the level 
of fear induced in a stalking victim is a crucial element of the stalking 
offense. The model code, which treats stalking as a felony, requires a 
high level of fear - fear of bodily injury or death. Acts that induce 
annoyance or emotional distress would be punishable under statutes 
such as harassment or trespassing, which do not rise to the felony 
level and carry less severe penalties. 


In some instances, a defendant may be aware, through a past 
relationship with the victim, of an unusual phobia of the victim's and 
use this knowledge to cause fear in the victim. In order for such a 
defendant to be charged under provisions similar to those in the 
model code, the victim actually must fear bodily injury or death as a 
result of the defendant's behavior and a jury must determine that the 
victim's fear was reasonable under the circumstances. 


Appendix IVFederal Statutes


18 U.S.C.  2265; 2261; 2261 A; 2262; 922 (g) (8); 875 (c); and 47 
U.S.C.  223 (a) (1) (c). 

The Full Faith and Credit Act, 18 U.S.C.  2265 (1994, 2000), mandates 
all law enforcement authorities to recognize and enforce all valid 
orders of protection issued by all courts throughout the United States 
and its territories, including injunctions against harassment and 
stalking, in state, tribal, and territorial courts. 

The Interstate Travel to Commit Domestic Violence Act, 18 U.S.C.  2261 
(1994; 2000) states it is a federal crime to travel across state, tribal, or 
international lines with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate a 
spouse or intimate partner and to commit, or attempt to commit, a 
crime of violence against that spouse or intimate partner, and 2261 

(a) (2) makes it a federal crime to cause a spouse or intimate partner to 
cross state, tribal, international lines, by force, coercion, duress, or 
fraud, and to commit, or attempt to commit, a crime of violence 
against that spouse or intimate partner. 

The Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C.  2261 A 
(1996; 2000) makes it a federal crime to travel across state, tribal, or 
international lines to stalk another person. The defendant must have 
the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate the victim, or to place the 
victim, a family member, or a spouse or intimate partner of the 
victim, in fear of death or serious bodily injury, and 2261 A (2) 
makes it a federal crime to stalk another person across state, tribal or 
international lines, using regular mail, e-mail, or the Internet (i.e., 
datums). 

The Interstate Violation of a Protective Order Act, 18 U.S.C.  2262 (1994; 
2000), makes it a federal crime to travel across state, tribal, or 
international lines with the intent to violate a protection order and to 
subsequently engage in conduct that violates that order or to cause 
another person to cross state, tribal, or international lines by force, 
coercion, duress, or fraud and to subsequently engage in conduct that 
violates a protection order. 

The Federal Domestic Violence Firearm Prohibitions Act, 18 U.S.C.  922 (g) 

(8) (1994; 1996) makes it a federal crime to possess any firearm(s) or 
ammunition if subject to a "qualifying" protection order issued on 
behalf of a spouse or intimate partner. Seizure of these weapons 
helps ensure the safety of not only the victim, but the community as 
well. 


The Interstate Communications Act, 18 U.S.C.  875 (c), makes it a federal 
crime to transmit in interstate or foreign communications, any threat 
to kidnap or injure another person. A related federal statute, the 
Harassing Telephone Calls in Interstate Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  223 

(a) (1) (c), makes it a federal crime to use a telephone or other 
telecommunications device to annoy, abuse, harass, or threaten 
another person at the called number. 


Appendix VPromising Anti-Stalking 
Practices 

Graduated Response Strategies 

Some police departments have developed systems of graduated 
response for initial and subsequent interventions by police and 
community partners as a problem solving technique. A graduated 
response strategy is a formula to determine the appropriate level of 
intervention for an effective response to a crime incident and prevent 
repeat victimization. 

A graduated response stalking protocol would determine the 
appropriate police response to different stalking incidents and the 
allocation of resources to protect victims and curtail the behavior of 
stalkers. Since all stalking incidents are potentially life-threatening and 
stalking often escalates in terms of severity and violence, a graduated 
response approach could be developed within a stalking response 
protocol, provided threat assessment remains a constant element. 

The following summary chart illustrates how a graduated response 
stalking protocol would work. 

Intervention Level  
Level 1 
(First police 
awareness) 

Victim
Gather 
information. 
Assist victim with 
development and 
implementation of 
safety plan. 
Assist with 
obtaining 
protective order. 
Refer to support 
services. 

Perpetrator 
Deliver first official 
warning, explaining 
law and policy. 
Check for prior 
arrests and 
convictions. 
Arrest, if possible. 
Refer to counseling 
or other services 
that may control 
the offender's 
behavior. 
Conduct threat 
assessment 
(referring to next 
level if 
appropriate). 


Intervention Level 
Level 2 
(Second incident 
that qualifies 
stalking charges or 
indicates an 
escalation in 
behavior) 
Victim 
Increase home and 
personal security by 
providing 
protective devices 
such as cell phones, 
personal alarms, or 
video surveillance. 
Perpetrator 
Arrest under 
stalking statute, or 
other appropriate 
statutes.

Level 3 
(Subsequent 
incidents) 
Emergency 
Intervention 
Victim 
Increase security 
and safety systems 
to highest level 
Implement and 
record reasons for 
selection. 
Perpetrator
Revise threat 
assessment and use 
to oppose or 
influence bail (if 
possible). Increase 
monitoring of 
offender. 
Increase 
prosecution and 
surveillance efforts. 
Arrest or deter in 
any way possible. 
Implement and 
record reasons for 
selection. 

Although the graduated response protocol specifies interventions 
based on the number of incidents, it also allows for more intensive 
interventions, depending on the severity of the case. For example, a 
case involving a violent attack by a stalker may be assigned a level 
three response even if the assault is the first incident. 

Other Promising Practices 

 Police action that includes: 

o Scrutiny of all reported or suspected stalking cases and arrest 
of stalkers in accordance with police department policy. 
o Regular assessment of threats and risks to victim. 
o Checks on the stalker's access to firearms. 
o Advice for victims about collecting and preserving evidence. 
o Information for victims about their rights and referrals to 
support services. 



o Assistance with safety planning (or referrals to other victim 
advocates). 
o Documentation of prior incidents/stalking behavior by the 
perpetrator. 
o Documentation of all prior and current
restraining/protection orders against the suspect.
o Surveillance of the suspect where appropriate. 
o Follow-up contact with the suspect where appropriate. 
o Provided the victim has given prior consent, communication 
with support services and others to build partnerships to 
enhance victim safety. 
o Speedy responses to repeat calls from victims including arrest 
of perpetrators for repeat or related offenses; continuous 
re-assessment of the risks that victims face and their safety 
plans; surveillance of the stalker, where appropriate; 
participation in coordinated case review meetings; and 
participation in problem-solving sessions with community 
partners on how to better identify and respond to identified 
stalking victims and repeat offenders. 


 
Interagency agreements and protocols involving community-based 
agencies designed to foster coordinated responses to the needs of 
stalking victims. 
 
Declared support by police chiefs for expanded community-based 
services to assist stalking victims. 
 
Collaborative partnerships for sharing information in the interests 
of victim safety 
 
Police involvement in community crime prevention initiatives such 
as Neighborhood Watch programs, to enhance public awareness 
through provision of information on stalking and victim safety. 
 
Training for community policing officers to ensure that their 
responses are language and culturally appropriate. 
 
Police involvement in formal and informal community 
assessments of victim needs and appropriate responses. 



 Creation of stalking response teams to ensure improved responses 
to all stalking victims, including underserved populations such as: 

o Victims with a history of mental illness or substance abuse 
o Victims with disabilities 
o Victims of same-gender stalking or violence 
o Elderly stalking victims 
o Victims from cultural, ethnic, and religious minorities 
o Victims who do not speak or read English 
o Victims with immigration issues 
o Illiterate victims 


 
Consideration of "cocoon watches" strategies with 
"Neighborhood Watch" leaders and workers, subject to the 
informed consent of the victim.40 
 
Pro-active efforts to counteract constraints on effective responses 
caused by legal inconsistencies. For example, arresting stalkers in 
accordance with the law; assisting with victim safety, rights, and 
services; collaborating with community partners to affect needed 
changes to the law; training officers to effectively implement the 
changes; and monitoring compliance and impact issues regarding 
victim safety and offender accountability.41 
 
Establishing coordination agreements with law enforcement 
agencies in the county, state, and region to more effectively 
address problems in multi-jurisdictional stalking cases. 


40 Informed consent of the victim (taking into 
account current risks) is essential. Some victims 
do not want their neighbors to know about their 
problems. For further details about the concept 
of the Cocoon Neighborhood Watch, see 
separate appendix: "A Potential Promising 
Practice for Addressing Victim Safety and 
Violence Prevention in a COP Response to 
Stalking - "The Cocoon Neighborhood Watch" 

41 For example, under jurisdictional law, 
breaking and entering with theft is a felony, 
while breaking and entering related to a current 
or former intimate partner with no theft may 
only be a misdemeanor. 


Image of United States Department of Justice seal
FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
1100 Vermont Avenue, NW 
Washington, D.C. 20530 

To obtain details on the COPS Office program, call the 
U.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 1.800.421.6770 

Visit the COPS internet web site by the address listed below. 


e09021724 Created Date: October 28, 2002 

www.cops.usdoj.gov