U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

www.cops.usdoj.gov

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 i

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

ii Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
Executive Summary 1

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 victimization–behavior 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 victim–by 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 police–difficult to investigate, prosecute, and prevent–and 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.

Executive Summary
2 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol

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 3

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.

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:

Research–collecting information about promising practices and

stalking policies from police agencies throughout the United

States and elsewhere.
4 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol

Development–creating a model protocol that could be tailored to the

requirements of police agencies in different jurisdictions.

Implementation–adapting and field-testing the model protocol by the

Philadelphia Police Department.

Evaluation–assessing 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 stakeholders–all 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.
Introduction 5

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 antistalking 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.

The Meaning of Stalking 7

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 perpetrator–it is, by its very nature, a series

of acts rather than a single incident. Second, it is partly defined by its

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.

3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

8 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol

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 strangers–twenty-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
The Meaning of Stalking 9

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.

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
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 crime–from 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

noncriminal–such as sending letters, delivering unwanted gifts, or

making phone calls to the victim–if 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.

10 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol

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
12Stalking and Domestic Violence Series:

Report to Congress, Violence Against

Women Office, Office of Justice

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice,

May 2001

The Meaning of Stalking 11

Many victims talk about the strain of constantly being on the alert–for

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, longterm 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 hypervigilance. Sometimes, the victim's reaction manifests itself in a form of

denial–of 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 information–phone 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 identity–notwithstanding the consequences that

may include uprooting children, leaving behind close relatives and

friends, and abandoning careers.
12 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol

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.

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 nonvictims 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 stalking–thirty 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.
Stalking and Community Policing 13

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."

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 victim–the fear it induces–is 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.
14 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol

• 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

perpetrator–especially 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.
Stalking and Community Policing 15

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.

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 officers–problems

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 realities–into the policies and protocols that achieve these

goals.
16 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol

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 jurisdictionwide 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.20These characteristics
Stalking and Community Policing 17

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 candidates–victims, victims' neighbors, victim

advocates–but 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 evidence–the foundation of all successful

prosecutions–depends 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.
18 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol

22Neal Miller: Report on a 1998 National Survey

of Law Enforcement and Prosecution Initiatives

Against Stalking, Institute of Law and Justice

October 1999.

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.
Stalking and Community Policing 19

23 Violence Against Women Online Resources.

Assessing Justice System Responses to

Violence Against Women. www.vaw.umn.edu

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid.

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 wideranging creativity of local initiatives involving law enforcement

agencies and the communities they serve. The following examples give

a glimpse of the possibilities–of 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.
20 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol

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.

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 noncriminal 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.
Stalking and Community Policing 21

27Scott, Michael S. (October 2000) ProblemOriented 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

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 selfdefense.

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 department–from 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.
22 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol

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. 3–4 available at

www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=583

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

Supra.

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

doing–less than their best–both 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.
Model Protocol for Community Oriented Police Response to Stalking 23

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,
24 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol

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.
Model Protocol for Community Oriented Police Response to Stalking 25

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
26 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol

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
Model Protocol for Community Oriented Police Response to Stalking 27

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.
28 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol

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
Model Protocol for Community Oriented Police Response to Stalking 29

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.)
30 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol

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).
Model Protocol for Community Oriented Police Response to Stalking 31

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.
32 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol

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 locations–and 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.
Model Protocol for Community Oriented Police Response to Stalking 33

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.
34 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol

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?
Model Protocol for Community Oriented Police Response to Stalking 35

Level 2

Second incident

that qualifies

stalking charges or

indicates an

escalation in

behavior

Level 3

Subsequent

incidents

Emergency

Intervention

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.

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.

Arrest under

stalking statute or

other appropriate

statutes.

Review 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.

Intervention Level Victim Perpetrator

Level 1

First police 

awareness

Gather information.

Assist victim with

initial safety plan

development and

implementation.

Assist with

obtaining a

protective order.

Refer to support

services.

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).
36 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol

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:
Model Protocol for Community Oriented Police Response to Stalking 37

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.

38 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
Model Protocol for Community Oriented Police Response to Stalking 39

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 nonthreatening, 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:

40 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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 suicides–the 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?

Model Protocol for Community Oriented Police Response to Stalking 41
e) Does the stalker have the means to carry it out?

Again, consider the parallel to assessing potential suicides–there'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?

42 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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.

Model Protocol for Community Oriented Police Response to Stalking 43
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 walkthrough 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.

44 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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.

Model Protocol for Community Oriented Police Response to Stalking 45
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.

46 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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

Model Protocol for Community Oriented Police Response to Stalking 47
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

48 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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).

Model Protocol for Community Oriented Police Response to Stalking 49
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

50 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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 systems–i.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 systems–i.e., cameras and/or human systems

that maintain a lookout for the stalker.

c. Monitoring of telecommunications–i.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

Model Protocol for Community Oriented Police Response to Stalking 51
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.

52 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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.

Model Protocol for Community Oriented Police Response to Stalking 53
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.

54 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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

Model Protocol for Community Oriented Police Response to Stalking 55
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.

56 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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.)

Model Protocol for Community Oriented Police Response to Stalking 57
58 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol

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

Victim Services

Information

Safety planning 

Assistance

Support

Counseling

Follow-up

Public education

Mental Health

Counseling

Crisis intervention

Involuntary commitment

Stalker intervention

Probation and Parole

Stalker monitoring

Victim safety

Violation enforcement

Public education

Community Groups

Victim safety & services

Stalker accountability

Public education 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.

Law Enforcement and Community Collaboration Chart
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 roles–regularly 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.

Reflections on the Development and Implementation of a Model Protocol 59
60 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol

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 Districts–the 7th,

8th, 2nd and 15th Districts–and 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
Reflections on the Development and Implementation of a Model Protocol 61

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 understood–including 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)
62 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol

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 Crime–an 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.
Reflections on the Development and Implementation of a Model Protocol 63

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 cases–either 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's–the 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
30 Inspector Patricia Fox.

31 Known at that time as the "Police College."

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 detective–if 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

64 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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

session–demonstrating 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 parties–for

example, what was their relationship? Were they married or

dating? Were they coworkers? Were they strangers? What led to

the incident? 

Reflections on the Development and Implementation of a Model Protocol 65
• Document all statements made by the investigating officer as well

as the victim and the alleged perpetrator.

• Provide full details about the incident–What 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 victim–to 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,

66 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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

day–approximately 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.

Reflections on the Development and Implementation of a Model Protocol 67
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

violence–typically, 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 exgirlfriend 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

68 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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 hangups. 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 postimplementation 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 themselves–how 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

Reflections on the Development and Implementation of a Model Protocol 69
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.

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 often–but 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

70 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
34 Opinions on the use of warnings vary.

Several police departments do send warning

letters to perpetrators in certain circumstances.

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

units–the 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 officers–the VAO's and the Domestic Violence

detectives–were 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

Reflections on the Development and Implementation of a Model Protocol 71
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 pilottested, 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.

72 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
In some cases, problems were quickly solved–through 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 players–including front line

officers, Headquarters, and community partners–should

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

Reflections on the Development and Implementation of a Model Protocol 73
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.

74 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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.

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.

Appendix I 75
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. 

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 multiagency 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

76 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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

officers–that 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 semistructured 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.

Appendix I 77
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 rollcalls 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 sad...there 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."

78 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
"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 effort–arguably the first

comprehensive protocol of its kind–notwithstanding 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

Appendix I 79
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

favorable–indicated 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

80 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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.

Appendix I 81
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 great–the more visual aids the

better–brought 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 stalking–it 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." 

82 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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:

Appendix I 83
".. [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 followups 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 scheduled–you know, with the training

dates. It was a little late in the game."

84 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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

resources–notably the police having more than other agencies–were

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.

Appendix I 85
6. Courts, the Judiciary, and Other Community Agencies

Several interviewees noted that judges could contribute to the antistalking 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.

86 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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 beautiful–it

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 twomonths 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.

Appendix I 87
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 team–He 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."

88 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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 Attorney’s 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. Stalking–we have no price about [problem

with] arresting someone for stalking, and we do it." 

Appendix I 89
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 things–things 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 Attorney’s

Office. However, it highlights the possibility that some police officers

or agency officials do not take stalking seriously, that continual

90 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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 locallyrelevant 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 antistalking 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.

Appendix I 91
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:

92 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
"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,

Appendix I 93
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 antistalking 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 Attorney’s

Office who reported receiving some improved case reports. The

statement is perhaps cast in a more revealing light when the official

94 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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.

Appendix I 95
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 antistalking 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

96 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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

Appendix I 97
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 antistalking 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 antistalking 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.

98 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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 antistalking protocol get included.

Appendix II 99
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.

100 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
Appendix III 101

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.

102 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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.

Appendix III 103
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.

104 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol
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 III 105

107

Appendix IV–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).

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.

Appendix IV
108 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol

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.
109

Appendix V–Promising 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.

Appendix V

Intervention Level Victim Perpetrator

Level 1

(First police

awareness)

Gather

information.

Assist victim with

development and

implementation of

safety plan.

Assist with

obtaining

protective order.

Refer to support

services.

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).
110 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol

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.

Intervention Level Victim Perpetrator

Level 2

(Second incident

that qualifies

stalking charges or

indicates an

escalation in

behavior)

Level 3

(Subsequent

incidents)

Emergency

Intervention

Increase home and

personal security by

providing

protective devices

such as cell phones,

personal alarms, or

video surveillance.

Increase security

and safety systems

to highest level

Implement and

record reasons for

selection.

Arrest under

stalking statute, or

other appropriate

statutes.

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.
111

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.

Appendix V
112 Creating an Effective Stalking Protocol

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.

• 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.
www.cops.usdoj.gov

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