The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Understanding Intimate Partner Stalking: 

Implications For Offering Victim Services 

Author: Shelly Botuck, Ph.D. ; Patricia Berretty, Ph.D. ; 

Sarah Cho ; Corey A. Tax ; Michele Archer ; 

Lauren Bennett Cattaneo, Ph.D.

Document No.: 227220 

Date Received: June 2009 

Award Number: 2005-WG-BX-0007 

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to 

traditional paper copies. 

 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 
Understanding Intimate Partner Stalking: Implications For 

Offering Victim Services 

Report Authors: 

Shelly Botuck, Ph.D. 

Patricia Berretty, Ph.D. 

Sarah Cho 

Corey A. Tax 

Michele Archer 

Safe Horizon 

2 Lafayette Street, 3rd Floor 

New York, NY 10007 

Phone: 212.577.7700 

Fax: 212.577.3897 

http://www.safehorizon.org/

& 

Lauren Bennett Cattaneo, Ph.D.

George Mason University 

Department of Psychology 

Fairfax, VA 22030-4444 

Phone: 703-993-4728 

Email: lcattane@gmu.edu

Submitted 

May 27, 2009 

This project was supported by Grant No. 2005-WG-BX-0007 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the 

authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

i

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Acknowledgements 

The authors would like to acknowledge the committed and caring leadership of Safe 

Horizon’s Community & Criminal Justice Programs, Maureen Curtis, Paula Calby and 

Louise Voccoli who provided assistance throughout the project in their explication of 

specific criminal justice and law enforcement procedures and by sharing their reflections 

on nearly 100 years of victim assistance practice, as both advocates and administrators. 

We thank them and Bea Hanson, Safe Horizon’s Chief Program Officer, for thoughtful 

comments on various drafts of this report. Shea Donato provided assistance in literature 

searches and checking citations.

ii

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Abstract 

Statement of Purpose: There is a dearth of information to guide best practices in dealing 

with victims of intimate partner stalking. To help fill this knowledge gap, this study 

describes the experience of intimate partner stalking, as it occurs over time, addressing a 

limitation of the largely cross-sectional and retrospective body of research on the topic. 

Goals and Objectives: The study had six objectives: 

1. Describe the stalking behaviors the participants experienced over the course of the 

study. 

2. Describe participants’ stalking-related experiences in terms of perceived safety 

and stalking-related distress. 

3. Describe participants’ physical and mental health status over the course of the 

study. 

4. Describe the relationships among these experiences and their relationship to 

stalking behavior over time. 

5. Describe the extent of participants’ contacts with criminal justice and victim 

assistance sources over the course of the study. 

6. Describe the relationships between stalking and contacts with criminal justice and 

victim assistance sources. 

Description of Research Participants: An outreach protocol designed to ensure client 

safety was used to recruit participants experiencing stalking from among those who 

sought assistance from Safe Horizon programs co-located in police precincts and 

criminal, family, and integrated domestic violence courts in New York City. Of those 

who consented to participate in the study (n=101), 88 had experienced stalking by 

intimates. Six participants had experienced stalking at some point in their past but not 

during the time frame of the study (beginning one month before baseline and continuing 

over the next 12 months), and were removed from analyses. The final sample size 

consisted of 82 women. 

Methods: Participants were interviewed at baseline and again monthly, for a possible 

total of 13 interviews (including baseline). 

Data Analysis: Descriptive and single-time point analyses were conducted at baseline and 

growth curve models were estimated using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to 

examine change over time. The model for this study had a two-level nested structure: 

time at Level 1 (within-subject variation), and the outcome variables at Level 2 (betweensubject variation). The slope at Level 2, our primary interest, reflects the rate of change in 

the outcome variables in the sample over time. 

Results: The findings of the study reveal that even within this help seeking sample, 

stalking did not significantly decrease over the course of the study even though the 

trajectory of stalking behavior differs significantly among individual participants. Similar 

to their individual experiences of stalking over time, the rate of change of perceived 

safety is significantly different among participants. Moreover, significant relationships 

iii

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
among the trajectories of safety, distress and stalking over time were found. Finally, 

findings indicate that there is no uniform effect of contact with either criminal justice or 

victim assistance sources of help. 

Conclusions: Victims have a good understanding of their own level of risk; they do not 

appear to be in denial. There is no consistently effective intervention across time points; 

neither contact with victim service nor with criminal justice professionals is uniformly 

effective. What is helpful to victims appears to change over time. Practice should be 

conducted with an explicit understanding that what works today may not work tomorrow, 

and contingencies for future contact with sources of help should be outlined. 

iv

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Executive Summary

Background 

 Within the past 20 years, stalking has become illegal in all 50 states, the District 

of Columbia, and at the federal level. The increase in legislation has been accompanied 

by an increase in research on the topic, which has established some basic facts. Stalking 

is understood to be prevalent in the general population (from eight to 32 percent for 

females will experience stalking during their lifetimes), with the majority of stalkers 

known to victims and the majority of these relationships currently or formerly intimate 

(Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). Even within relationships that are otherwise abusive 

stalking signals particular risk, as it has been linked with repeat violence (including lethal 

violence), increased psychological distress and diminshed physical and mental health 

(Logan & Cole, 2006; Logan, Walker, Stewart & Allen, 2006; Mechanic, Uhlmansiek, 

Weaver & Resick, 2000). 

 Despite the understanding that stalking presents particular risks to victims, there is 

no consensus among victim-assistance providers about standards of practice in how to 

help them (Logan, Walker, et al., 2006; Spence-Diehl & Potocky-Tripodi, 2001). In 

identifying best practices, scholarly research in the related field of domestic violence has 

recently expressed renewed support for a victim-centered assistance model (Goodman & 

Epstein, 2008; Tax, Vigeant & Botuck, 2008). Researchers argue for an approach that 

builds on the client’s understanding of her own situation and views service providers as 

consultants in the client’s decision-making process. A small body of research supports 

the contention that allowing victims more voice and more control leads to more positive 

outcomes (Zweig & Burt, 2007; Belknap & Sullivan, 2002; Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003). 

v

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Translating these concepts into practice is a challenge, and requires the development of a 

knowledge base about victims’ experiences. Such information has been lacking in the 

area of stalking, and there is insufficient knowledge base about stalking behaviors or 

victim experiences. The field also needs more data about how victim contact with the 

criminal justice system interacts with stalking behavior. Taken together, such information 

would provide critical context for how efforts of victim assistance should be modified. 

Study Objectives 

 Safe Horizon is acutely aware of the dearth of information to guide best practices 

in dealing with victims of stalking. To help fill the knowledge gaps, we designed a study 

to describe the experience of a sample of crime victims who experience stalking but may 

or may not recognize it as such. A central aim of the study was to describe these 

experiences over time, as they occur, addressing a limitation of the largely cross-sectional 

and retrospective body of research on the topic. The resulting data are intended to inform 

staff training about what to expect when interacting with victims of stalking; support 

efforts to seek out appropriate funding, resources, and referral networks; and identify 

approaches that are more or less likely to help victims deal with particular experiences. 

 The 13-month study had six objectives: 

1. Describe the stalking behaviors the participants experienced over the course of the 

study. 

2. Describe participants’ stalking-related experiences in terms of perceived safety 

and stalking-related distress. 

vi

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
3. Describe participants’ physical and mental health status over the course of the 

study. 

4. Describe the relationships among these dimensions of participants’ experiences 

and their relationship to stalking behavior over time. 

5. Describe the extent of participants’ contacts with criminal justice and victim 

assistance sources over the course of the study. 

6. Describe the relationships between stalking and contacts with criminal justice and 

victim assistance sources. 

Study Design & Participants 

 In pursuit of our study goals, we recruited participants from among a cohort that 

sought assistance from Safe Horizon’s criminal justice programs, which are co-located in 

police precincts and criminal, family, and integrated domestic violence courts throughout 

New York City, during 2006 and 2007. An outreach protocol designed to ensure clients’ 

safety reached 199 women; approximately 75 percent consented to participate. Our final 

sample totaled 101 women. Data collection began January 2007 and ended June 2008. 

Trained personnel attempted to interview participants monthly, for a possible total of 13 

interviews per participant, and asked questions pertaining to the stalking behavior, 

participants’ response to the stalking and physical and mental health, and their 

interactions with victim services and criminal justice staff. All participants received small 

amounts of financial compensation. 

 As suggested in prior research, the vast majority of the study participants (86.3%) 

were stalked by a current or former intimate partner, and our final analysis is thus 

vii

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
restricted to these women (n= 82). This group represents an oversampling of the adult 

victim Hispanic population that sought assistance from Safe Horizon during 2006-2007 

because we wanted to ensure the representation of monolingual Spanish-speaking 

victims, a traditionally underserved and under researched population (DuBard & Gizlice, 

2008). The sample largely consisted of mothers (96.3%), of whom more than two-thirds 

have a young child in common with the stalker. Nearly 90% were women of color, 

almost half (44%) were born outside of the US, and almost two-thirds (62%) had a high 

school education or less. Less than half engaged in paid employment and most suffered 

from physical and mental health problems. 

Results 

Objective 1: Describe the stalking behaviors the participants experienced over the course 

of the study. 

• The most commonly reported behaviors in our study included the stalker trying to 

obtain information about the victim from a family member, friend or 

acquaintance, and the stalker making unwanted phone calls to the participant. 

• Overall, technology-related stalking behaviors were uncommon in this study. 

• An overwhelming majority of participants experienced a constellation of stalking 

behaviors. 

• Mean stalking behavior trended downward over time, but the decrease was not 

statistically significant. 

• The trajectory of stalking behavior, however, did differ significantly among 

individual participants. 

viii

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Objective 2: Describe participants’ stalking-related experiences in terms of perceived 

safety and stalking-related distress.

• Average perceived safety among participants increased over time, but not 

significantly. 

• There was statistically significant variation among individual participants in the 

rate of change of perceived safety. 

• The mean level of distress fell over time; here the decrease was statistically 

significant. 

• There was no significant variation among participants in the rate of change of 

distress. 

Objective 3: Describe participants’ physical and mental health status over the course of 

the study. 

• There was a significant downward trend in the number of days participants 

suffered from poor mental health over the course of the study. 

• However, there was no significant variation among participants in this rate of 

change. 

• There was no change in the number of days (eight) participants suffered from 

poor physical health over the course of the study. 

Objective 4: Describe the relationships among these dimensions of participants’ 

experiences and their relationship to stalking behavior over time. 

• As the stalking frequency decreased over time, stalking distress decreased and 

perceived safety increased. 

ix

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• The number of days participants suffered from poor physical health and mental 

health were strongly positively correlated with one another, and their trajectories 

decreased in tandem over time. 

• Among the dimensions of stalking-related experiences, the strongest relationship 

was between safety and mental health: As safety increased, the number of poor 

mental health days decreased. 

Objective 5: Describe the extent of participants’ contacts with criminal justice and victim 

assistance sources over the course of the study. 

• Nearly all participants reported having an order of protection at least once during 

the study period; participants on average had an order of protection 45% of the 

time they were involved in the study. 

• A slight majority of participants reported contacting the police at least once 

during the study and two-thirds indicated they had a case in court at one or more 

points during the study. 

• During these contacts, responses by criminal justice authorities could best be 

characterized as minimal; that is, they took no action, referred the victim to court 

services, or suggested she obtain an order of protection. 

• Less than one half of the participants reported seeking or receiving help from 

either a victim advocate or counselor over the course of the study. 

Objective 6: Describe the relationships between stalking and contacts with criminal 

justice and victim assistance sources. 

x

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• During months when participants reported contact with criminal justice sources, 

they also reported significantly higher stalking frequency and lower perceived 

safety. 

• Contact with the criminal justice system had no association with the trajectory of 

stalking or with the trajectory of perceived safety. 

• Contact with victim assistance had no relationship with stalking behavior at the 

point of contact or over time. 

• Victims varied in whether they felt orders of protection were effective, with the 

majority reporting that stalking remained the same or that the order decreased the 

behavior without stopping it. 

• Victim perceptions of protection order effectiveness were not consistent across 

time, in that a participant might report at one follow-up that the order of 

protection was helpful, and at a later follow-up might report that it was counterproductive. 

Discussion and Implications for Research and Practice 

 These data echo previous studies in finding that stalking tends to continue over 

time. It builds on prior work by showing that on average, stalking does not significantly 

decrease even among a help seeking sample, and that neither contact with victim service 

nor with criminal justice professionals is uniformly effective. Instead, what is helpful to 

victims appears to change over time. Because research traditionally has looked at stalking 

and victim reactions retrospectively (adding up the number of occurrences over a 

particular time period), the dynamic nature of stalking—the specifics of each episode, the 

xi

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
point-in-time perspective—has not received the attention it requires. Further research 

should attempt to tease apart what makes an intervention effective at a particular point in 

time, rather than for a particular case, perpetrator, or victim profile. Practice should be 

conducted with an explicit understanding that what works today may not work tomorrow, 

and contingencies for future contact with sources of help should be outlined. 

 Within this challenging context, where there is no consistently effective 

intervention across time points, the field needs to gain a better understanding of how it 

can be useful to victims who are most likely to come for help when they are in high 

distress, feel unsafe, and are struggling with their physical and mental health. For 

example, these data support the existence of co-located criminal justice and victim 

service providers who can collaborate to address these needs, and suggest that physical 

and mental health barriers to using or following through on referrals should be actively 

considered. 

Finally, these data add to a handful of studies in the domestic violence literature 

showing that victims have a good understanding of their own level of risk; they do not 

appear to be in denial. This finding supports the relevance of a victim-centered 

framework, suggesting that we need to pay close attention to victims’ assessment of their 

own safety and offer assistance in ways that honor individual victim’s circumstance and 

personal understanding of risk. 

xii

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1

Method ..................................................................................... 11

Results .............................................................................................................. 24

Discussion and Future Research ............................................................. 39

Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 47 

Appendices .......................................................................................................... 51

Appendix A: Stalking Behaviors in Screen ......................................................... 51 

Appendix B: Intake Interview.............................................................................. 52

Appendix C: Baseline Interview.......................................................................... 60

 Appendix D: Monthly Interview...........................................................................71 

xiii

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Introduction 

 Two recent surveys of professional responses to stalking victims’ service needs 

found that both victim service providers and criminal justice professionals view stalking 

as a serious concern for which specific resources and victim services should exist (Logan, 

Walker, Stewart & Allen, 2006; Spence-Diehl & Potocky-Tripodi, 2001). However, both 

surveys indicate that among victim service providers there is disagreement about which 

strategies might best address stalking victims’ risk and safety, which services such clients 

might need, which approaches work best with which victims, and how to engage stalking 

victims so that they pursue referrals (Logan, Walker, et. al, 2006; Spence-Diehl & 

Potocky-Tripodi, 2001). 

Some of the differences in perspectives between victim service providers in 

different settings are dramatic. Depending upon the location of the victim service 

provider (i.e. co-located in the criminal justice system or in a specialty victim assistance 

program), they have divergent and at times contradictory ideas about what should be the 

priority of victim assistance work with stalking victims (Spence-Diehl & PotockyTripodi, 2001). This general lack of consensus leaves victim assistance providers without 

standards of practice that might guide staff training, supervision, and advocacy. 

 It is possible that the lack of clarity about best practices also accounts for some of 

the variability among studies examining the efficacy of victim assistance and criminal 

justice interventions for victims of stalking (Dietz & Martin, 2007; Spitz, 2003). When 

this literature is considered with studies showing that most victims of crime who do seek 

assistance do not follow-through with criminal justice referrals or recommendations for 

other services (Jaycox, Marshall, & Schell, 2004; Smith, Kilpatrick, Falsetti, & Best, 

1

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2002), it suggests that the seemingly straightforward task of helping victims to assess 

their safety and manage their risk remains unclear. 

Lack of certainty about best practices is not only a problem among those who 

provide services for victims of stalking. In the field of domestic violence, a gap in the 

knowledge about how to best serve victims has recently been noted more generally. 

Scholars taking stock of the state of the art in this area have written convincingly about 

the need for a return to a victim-centered model – an approach that puts the client’s 

understanding of her own situation at the center of victim assistance work, and views 

service providers as consultants in the client’s decision making process (Goodman & 

Epstein, 2007). A small body of data now supports the idea that such practice, where 

clients report a greater degree of voice and control over interventions, is associated with 

positive outcomes (Belknap & Sullivan, 2002; Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003; Zweig & Burt, 

2007). A major challenge facing the field is in translating this theory into best practices. 

This translation requires more than staff expertise in criminal justice systems and 

interventions. It also calls for staff to have knowledge of the range of victim responses to 

specific victimizations. Most significantly, staff must also possess client engagement 

skills that enable victims to communicate assessments of their own safety so that they can 

be assisted to choose options and take actions to reduce their personal risk (Tax, Vigeant 

& Botuck, 2008). At the heart of a victim-centered model of victim-assistance work is the 

provider’s ability to let a victim tell her story, listen and assess her safety, respond to this 

assessment in a nonjudgmental manner, and use a range of criminal justice expertise that 

honors each individual victim’s circumstance and personal understanding of risk. 

2

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
However, the need for such a personalized approach does not obviate the need for 

research on general trends. Indeed, the field needs a knowledge base about what victims’ 

experiences, difficulties, and responses are likely to be in order to achieve several aims: 

to inform staff training about what to expect; to support efforts to seek appropriate 

funding, resources, and referral networks; and to identify approaches that are more or less 

likely to help victims deal with particular experiences. Ideally, such a knowledge base 

provides context for practitioners to listen and respond to the stories of individual 

victims, and provides working hypotheses that can be shared with victims and tested 

within their particular case. Because stalking is a realm that lacks such foundational 

understanding, however, practitioners are left to fend for themselves. 

As a large agency that provides a range of victim assistance services to 

approximately 350,000 people each year, Safe Horizon is acutely aware of the lack of 

information to guide best practices in this area. This study was an effort to contribute to 

this knowledge base through describing the experience of a sample of crime victims who 

are experiencing stalking but may or may not have recognized it as such. Before 

describing our specific objectives and the particulars of the study, we briefly review the 

literature that informed our work. 

The Nature and Prevalence of Stalking Behavior 

 Over the past 18 years (i.e., since the enactment of the Nation’s first anti-stalking 

legislation), there has been an increase not only in legislation and criminal justice 

interventions but also in the attention of researchers to the crime of stalking (Spitzberg & 

Cupach, 2007). In 1990 California enacted the Nation’s first state stalking laws. To date, 

3

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government have enacted laws that 

make stalking a crime. 

While stalking is considered a crime throughout the country, definitions of what 

constitutes stalking vary from state to state. In an effort to offer guidance and legislative 

language so that states may be better able to define and address the crime of stalking, the 

National Center for Victims of Crime (1/2007) published the revised Model Stalking 

Code. The Code defines stalking as: 

Any person who purposefully engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific 

person and knows or should know that the course of conduct would cause a 

reasonable person to fear for his or her safety or the safety of a third person or 

suffer emotional distress is guilty of the crime of stalking. 

Nonetheless, variation in state stalking laws persists and we see a variety of definitions of 

stalking in the literature. Even with these differences, most definitions incorporate the 

concept that stalking is a course of conduct directed at a specific person and recognize 

that stalking is crime consisting of repeated behavior or multiple incidents occurring over 

time directed at a specific person. 

 In a recent meta-analysis of 175 studies of stalking, Spitzberg & Cupach (2007) 

reported that stalking is a relatively common occurrence. The prevalence of stalking by 

males ranged from two percent to 13 percent over the course of their lifetimes while the 

prevalence of victimization among women ranged from eight percent to 32 percent, with 

rates varying for both males and females based on the nature of the sample and the 

definition of stalking. (Studies using victim fear as part of the definition generally report 

lower prevalence figures.) While the literature initially focused on cases of stalking by 

4

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
strangers, there is now a clearly established connection between violence in intimate 

relationships and stalking behavior (Davis & Frieze, 2000; Davies, Block & Campbell, 

2007; Henning & Klesges, 2002; Logan, Shannon, Cole & Walker, 2006; Logan, Walker, 

et al., 2006; Meloy, Davis & Lovette, 2001; Melton, 2007; Spitz, 2003; Sullivan & 

Bybee, 2004; Turmanis & Brown, 2006; Wiist & McFarlane, 1998). Spitzberg and 

Cupach’s (2007) meta-analysis documents the prevalence of stalking within this context: 

across studies, 80 percent of stalkers were known by the victim, and approximately half 

occurred in the context of “romantic entanglements” (p.70). 

 Despite such compelling statistics, research on stalking in the context of current 

or former intimate relationships is just beginning to emerge. Spitzberg and Cupach 

(2007) noted in their meta-analysis that only nine percent of their 175 stalking studies 

were specific to intimate partner violence (IPV). In research that focuses on abuse in 

intimate relationships, physical violence often takes center stage, with other forms of 

abuse, such as stalking, receiving far less attention (Stark, 2007). More work is needed, 

then, to deepen the field’s understanding of the nature of stalking; exploration of the way 

stalking behavior changes over time would be a significant addition to a largely crosssectional literature. In the next section we describe the literature on victim responses to 

stalking, which provides further evidence that the field needs to develop a greater 

understanding of how to serve this group. 

The Experience of Stalking Victims 

Emotional and Physical Health Responses. Research has documented farreaching negative consequences of stalking for victims’ well-being, both in general and 

within the context of relationships that are abusive in other ways as well. In separate 

5

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
studies, Davis & Frieze (2000) and Turmanis & Brown (2006) found that stalking victims 

often report suffering from depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder 

(PTSD) as a result of being stalked. Spitz (2003) found that the distress stalking victims 

experience often affects their ability to perform normal daily functions. 

 Recently, T.K. Logan and colleagues have added substantively to this literature, 

longitudinally investigating stalking and distress among 662 IPV victims seeking 

protection orders. In their comparison of women in this group who had and had not 

experienced stalking, Logan, Walker, et al. (2006) found that those who had been stalked 

reported greater distress and fear, as has been shown in other studies (e.g. Bjerregaard, 

2000; Mechanic, Weaver & Resick, 2000). Specifically, they reported that stalking 

victims may be overwhelmed with feelings of fear, hopelessness, loss of confidence, 

insomnia, paranoia, and increased psychological problems, and are often less trusting, 

more cautious, and more aggressive (Logan, Shannon, et al., 2006; Spitz, 2003). In a 

follow-up study, Logan and colleagues attempted to disentangle the effect of stalking 

from the effect of other forms of abuse likely to go with it. They followed up with victims 

who had filed for protection orders one year after petitioning, and found that baseline 

stalking was uniquely predictive of psychological distress. One limitation of the work by 

Logan and colleagues is that stalking was assessed with a single item, which among other 

things did not allow them to investigate changes in severity over time, and how such 

changes might be related to distress. 

There has been limited research conducted on the physical health consequences of 

stalking beyond the deleterious effects of battering and abuse that so often accompany it. 

In a recent study, Carbone-Lopez, Kruttschnitt & Macmillan (2006) found that female 

6

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
victims of systematic abuse, a type of IPV that is highly associated with stalking, were 

significantly more likely to report poor health than women who had not experienced 

abuse. In addition, they were 40 percent more likely to report disability from illness 

(excluding injury). Such findings support the possibility of an association between 

stalking and chronic health problems, but this possibility has not been studied 

systematically. 

 Victim Interactions with Sources of Help. The field of interpersonal violence has 

moved away from the notion that distress at the level noted above is paralyzing to 

victims. Instead, the literature on helpseeking has shown consistently that more severe 

violence (and presumably the distress that goes along with it) is related to greater 

helpseeking from all sources (Cattaneo & Goodman, 2005; Goodman, Dutton, Weinfurt 

& Cook, 2003). For example, using a sample of battered women who participated in the 

Chicago Women’s Health Risk study, Davies and colleagues (2007) found positive 

relationships among the severity of physical violence between intimate partners and the 

level of harassment that women experienced with the likelihood that these women 

contacted the police. Similarly, Wiist & McFarlane (1998) found a positive relationship 

between police usage and severity of violence and threats in their sample of pregnant 

Hispanic women surveyed at health clinics. Henning & Klesges (2002) reported that 

increased severity of violence can also increase helpseeking behaviors that do not involve 

the police. In a sample of 1,746 women who reported an assault by a male intimate 

partner, they found a strong positive relationship between the severity of physical 

violence and the likelihood of women seeking out formal counseling and support 

services. 

7

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 While the connection between greater levels of intimate partner abuse and 

helpseeking seems clear, the connection between distress about stalking in particular and 

helpseeking is more equivocal. Davis and Frieze’s review of the stalking literature 

parallels findings in the IPV literature more generally; that is, the more stalking women 

experience, the more coping strategies they employ. However, Turmanis & Brown (2006) 

found that distress sometimes adversely affects victims’ perceptions of how serious the 

stalking behavior might be and can lead victims to minimize the danger of their situation. 

The relationship among stalking, distress, and helpseeking deserves further attention; as 

in the research on the nature of stalking, because the phenomenon of interest is a pattern 

of behavior rather than a one-time event, it is important to explore this relationship over 

time. 

 Understanding victim interactions with sources of help requires research both on 

what leads them to reach out for help, as just described, and on what tends to happen 

when they do. As mentioned earlier, the general literature on services for IPV raises 

questions about the effectiveness of current interventions in stopping violence. Recently, 

in a study of 320 women recruited from hospitals and clinics and reinterviewed an 

average of 10 months later, Perez & Johnson (2008) reported that PTSD symptoms 

predicted severity of future violence while helpseeking and social support did not. Within 

the context of stalking in particular, studies are consistent in finding that stalkers often 

violate protective orders. The National Violence Against Women Survey (Tjaden & 

Thoennes, 1998) found that 68 percent of protection orders obtained by female victims of 

stalking were violated. Similarly, 60 percent of women in the study by Harrell & Smith 

(1996) reported that the order had been violated. In their sample of women seeking 

8

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
protection orders, Logan, Shannon, et al. (2006) reported that those women with a history 

of stalking had more protection order violations than did women who reported other 

kinds of abuse. 

Such findings have fueled considerable debate among service providers about the 

use of orders of protection in protecting victims of stalking, but neither practitioners nor 

criminal justice personnel have a great deal of clarity about what to do instead of or in 

addition to seeking protective orders (Logan, Walker, et al., 2006). To inform this critical 

debate, the field needs more information about how victim contact with the system 

interacts with the stalking behavior over time. Such information would provide important 

context for considering if and how our efforts should be modified. 

Conclusions and Proposed Study 

 There is a small but significant body of research suggesting that stalking is 

widespread, that it happens disproportionately at the hands of current or former intimate 

partners, and that it is linked to even greater distress than other forms of psychological 

abuse or physical abuse within such relationships. Few studies have examined stalking as 

it relates to the experience of the victim over time, and even fewer have focused on 

interactions between stalking victims and the sources of help they seek, as the 

longitudinal nature of stalking warrants. Clearly, we need to broaden our understanding 

in order to develop appropriate and victim-centered services. This study attempts to make 

a contribution in this area by following a sample of crime victims who are experiencing 

stalking, who may or may not have recognized it as such, over a 13-month period. 

Following this sample over time, the objectives of the study are as follows: 

Objective 1: Describe the stalking behaviors the participants experienced over the course 

of the study. 

9

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Objective 2: Describe participants’ stalking-related experiences in terms of perceived 

safety and stalking-related distress. 

Objective 3: Describe participants’ physical and mental health status over the course of 

the study. 

Objective 4: Describe the relationships among these dimensions of participants’ 

experiences and their relationship to stalking behavior over time. 

Objective 5: Describe the extent of participants’ contacts with criminal justice and 

(victim) assistance sources over the course of the study. 

Objective 6: Describe the relationships between stalking and contacts with criminal 

justice and victim assistance sources. 

10

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Method 

Procedure

Recruitment. Approval was obtained from Safe Horizon’s Institutional Review 

Board (IRB) before participants were recruited for the study. An opportunity sample of 

crime victims seeking assistance was recruited from Safe Horizon’s criminal justice 

programs, which are co-located in police precincts and criminal, family, and integrated 

domestic violence courts throughout New York City.1 The recruitment procedure made 

use of guidelines Safe Horizon implemented prior to the study in order to ensure the 

identification of stalking behaviors when they are not initially reported by victims. 

Particularly in the context of intimate partner violence, victims often report only a subset 

of multiple victimizations (Turmanis & Brown, 2006; Logan, Walker, et al., 2006). These 

guidelines set out several ways clients might be identified as stalking victims, which was 

the first criterion for eligibility for the study: 1) the client is identified as a stalking victim 

by either NYPD or the courts, 2) the client reports having experienced stalking, 3) the 

client reports a pattern of two or more unwanted behaviors within the previous six 

months (behaviors listed in Appendix A). 

Clients who met the inclusion criteria above were informed that an intake staff 

member might be calling them for a more thorough assessment and were asked to provide 

information regarding safe and convenient times for intake staff to call, whether it was 

safe to leave messages, and any other instructions about being contacted. For those 

 

1

 These programs serve a racially and ethnically diverse population, the majority of whom are poor women. 

In addition to offering information and practical assistance to more than 60,000 people annually, Safe 

Horizon’s criminal justice programs provide approximately 15,000 individuals with actual case services. 

Approximately 82 percent of the clients are between the ages of 18 and 49, 85 percent of clients are female, 

and of those 20 percent are monolingual Spanish-speaking. 

11

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
clients who agreed to be contacted, this information was forwarded to the research team 

along with any additional information about the stalking behaviors listed in Appendix A. 

A member of the team reviewed the information and screened potential 

participants according to the remaining criteria for eligibility: being female, 18 to 65 

years old, English or Spanish speaking, with access to a telephone. Telephone contact 

was attempted with the first 437 clients eligible for the study. The final sample of 82 

women represents an oversampling of the adult victim Hispanic population that sought 

assistance from Safe Horizon during 2006-2007 (approximately 30-40% overall) because 

we wanted to ensure representation for monolingual Spanish-speaking victims, a 

traditionally underserved and under-researched population (DuBard & Gizlice, 2008) that 

makes up a large number of Hispanic crime victims. Successful attempts to contact a 

client five times during a two-week period, varying the day and time, at the telephone 

number(s) and safe times specified by the client, yielded a sample of 199 (46 percent). As 

can be seen in Figure 1, of those clients reached, 146 (73 percent) answered intake 

questions. Of the clients who answered the initial intake questions, 101 (69.2 percent) 

agreed to participate in the research study. Thus, out of all clients who were reached, 

approximately 50 percent consented to participate in the study. 

Data collection began January 2007 and for administrative reasons (i.e., 

interviewer staffing/scheduling) ended June 2008. As a result, participants recruited in 

Round 2 completed a total of seven interviews instead of the scheduled 13 (see Figure 1). 

12

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Figure 1. Procedure Flowchart and Participation

437 intake screens collected 

from eligible participants 

199 participants contacted 

and 146 successfully 

interviewed 

Round 1 of recruitment 

(Jan 2007 – Jul 2007): 

83 baseline interviews 

completed out of 115 intake 

interviews conducted 

6 participants removed from 

the analysis because they did 

not report any stalking 

behaviors throughout the 

course of the study 

10 participants removed from 

the analysis because the 

offender was not a current or 

former intimate partner 

Round 2 of recruitment 

(Nov 2007 – Jan 2008): 

18 baseline interviews 

completed out of 31 intake 

interviews conducted 

3 participants removed from 

the analysis because the 

offender was not a current or 

former intimate partner 

82 participants were included 

in the final analysis 

Safety Protocols. Potential participants were assigned an alpha-numeric 

identification number to allow their information to be separate from their name, and 

interviewers were randomly assigned a list of clients to contact. All interviewers received 

extensive training on safety protocols, as well as on the study instruments. The safety 

protocols covered issues related to leaving messages, caller ID, talking to someone other 

than the participant, how to handle interruptions, clients in crisis, and mandated reporting. 

13

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
These procedures were developed for this study to integrate both best-practices service 

provision and IRB-approved funded research practices with Safe Horizon clients. 

Interviewer Training. To ensure that initial contact was made by interviewers who 

would be able to engage with participants in various degrees of distress and to ensure the 

integrity of the protocol, the stalking intake questions and baseline interviews were 

conducted by experienced intake interviewers. Training included a review of the study 

instruments, practice with the protocol, and supervised one-on-one role plays that were 

observed by the project manager. 

Interview Procedures. Participants were interviewed via phone at baseline and 

then completed up to 12 monthly follow-up interviews, for a possible maximum of 13 

interviews. Intake interviews began with basic information about the victim, her current 

situation, and her service needs. If the client specifically requested, the interviewer 

contacted the victim’s case manager on her behalf. To ensure that any issues discussed 

that needed follow-up were addressed, each victim was provided with the crime victims’ 

hotline telephone number and/or the address and phone number of a Safe Horizon 

community office in an area where the victim would be unlikely to encounter the stalker. 

At the end of the intake assessment, victims were informed about the study, the informed 

consent was read and explained to interested participants, and the remaining protocol 

measures were administered (this latter step took approximately 40 minutes). 

Follow-up Interviews. Telephone interviews took place from private and secure 

Safe Horizon locations. The interviews took approximately 15 minutes to administer. As 

part of the interview, each participant was asked whether she would like a case manager 

to contact her about any issues that had arisen in the previous month. At the end of each 

14

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
interview, each participant was provided with the crime victims’ hotline telephone 

number and/or the address and phone number of the Safe Horizon community office in 

the victim’s safe borough. 

Follow-up interviews occurred via telephone approximately every four weeks 

based upon the date of the baseline interview, with a window of one week before and one 

week after the exact four-week due date. If these contacts were unsuccessful (despite five 

calls at different hours and on different days within the participant’s specifications), the 

interviewer ceased contact for that month and attempted to contact the participant again 

during the next appropriate period. When wrong numbers, disconnected telephones, or 

out-of-service lines were encountered, a letter was sent to the participant's mailing 

address asking her to call a confidential, toll-free telephone line associated with the study 

and leave her updated contact information. As a safety precaution, the outgoing message 

on the 1-800 line played a generic greeting in case someone other than the participant 

called the number. Despite these procedures, participants were “lost to follow-up” at 

different points throughout the study. When lost-to-follow-up participants were 

subsequently recovered, monthly interviews resumed. If at the final interview the 

interviewer failed to contact the participant by the predetermined due date, she attempted

to contact the participant until one month after the original due date. Any interview not 

completed by the new due date was considered to be not completed. 

Participant Payment. Participants were paid $25 for the baseline interview, $40 

for the first, second, and third quarter of interviews (the third month, sixth, and ninth 

months), and $60 for the fourth quarterly interview (the twelfth month). Participants 

received the full quarterly payment if they completed at least two out of the three 

15

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
interviews during a quarter, and received half of the quarterly payment if one out of three 

interviews were completed during the quarter. A postal money order was mailed to a safe 

address within two weeks of the interview. 

Sample 

Because the dynamics of stalking by current or former intimates is acutely 

different from stranger stalking (Sheridan, Blaauw & Davies, 2003) and the vast majority 

of our participants (86.3%) were stalked by a current or former partner, we restricted our 

final analysis to those who were stalked by a current or former intimates (N=88) and the 

remaining participants’ data were removed from further analyses. Additionally, to ensure 

that participants were recent victims of stalking, only participants who reported stalking 

behaviors at least once throughout the course of the study were included. Six women did 

not report any stalking behaviors throughout the course of the study (including the one 

month prior to participation) and were subsequently removed from the sample, bringing 

the total number of participants to 82. Figure 1 above shows how the recruitment process 

resulted in this final sample. 

As can be seen in Table 1, our sample largely consisted of mothers (96.3%), of 

whom nearly 90% are women of color, many of whom were born outside of the US 

(44%) and have a high school education or less (62%). The sample suffered from worse 

health than the larger population of women in their age and racial group living in New 

York City, with nearly 40% rating their health as fair or poor (NYCDOHMH, 2005). Not 

surprisingly, less than half were engaged in any paid employment (48.8%). In fact, when 

compared to women in their age and racial group (NYCDOHMH, 2005), they were more 

likely to be unemployed and unable to work. 

16

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 To determine if monolingual Spanish-speaking and English-speaking participants 

differed significantly on baseline demographic or victimization-related characteristics we 

conducted chi-square and T-tests. After adjusting for family-wise error using the 

Bonferroni adjustment, no significant differences were found; consequently data from 

both groups were combined. 

Table 1 

Baseline Demographic Characteristics and Health Status for Participants Stalked by a 

Former or Current Intimate Partner (n=82) 

Variable 

Age 

 Mean (sd) 33.34 (8.44) 

 median (range) 32.50 (20-53) 

Children n (%) 

 Have children 79 (96.34) 

 Do not have children 3 (3.66) 

Children in common with stalker n (%) 54 (65.43) 

 Have children in common with stalker 54 (65.85) 

 Do not have children in common with stalker 28 (34.15) 

Race n (%) 

 Hispanic 40 (48.78) 

 Black 27 (32.93) 

 White 8 (9.76) 

 Other 7 (8.54) 

Language of Interview n (%) 

 English 65 (79.27) 

 Spanish 17 (20.73) 

Country of Birth n (%) 

 USA 46 (56.10) 

 Other 36 (43.90) 

Employment Status n (%) 

 Employed 40 (48.78) 

 Unemployed 31 (37.80) 

 Students, Homemakers, Retirees 11 (13.41) 

Education Level n (%) 

 Less than high school 24 (29.27) 

 High school 27 (32.93) 

 College or greater 31 (37.80) 

Marital Status n (%) 

 Ever married 53 (64.63) 

 Never married 27 (32.93) 

 Other 36 (43.90) 

Self-report of general health n (%) 

 Excellent 10 (12.20) 

 Very good 21 (25.61) 

17

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 Good 17 (20.73) 

 Fair 24 (29.27) 

 Poor 10 (12.20) 

Measures 

At baseline only, we collected information regarding demographics, the 

participant’s relationship with the stalker and prior abuse in that relationship and general 

health. At baseline and at each follow-up, we collected information about offender 

stalking behaviors/actions and participant stalking-related experiences, i.e., safety, 

distress, number of days of poor physical or mental health and participant interactions 

with sources of help. Unless otherwise specified, questions always referred to the 30 days 

prior to the interview date. All of the measures were translated into Spanish through an 

iterative process involving translation, back-translation, and review by three different 

bilingual victim assistance staff members. 

Demographics. Demographic information was collected using questions drawn 

from the New York City Community Health Survey (NYCDOHMH, 2005). 

Relationship with stalker and prior abuse. Information regarding any prior 

relationship with the stalker, whether there had been physical, sexual or verbal abuse in 

the past month, and whether the participant had a child(ren) in common with the stalker 

was obtained through open-ended and fixed alternative questions that were based on or 

directly taken from “The Supplemental Victimization Survey” (SVS) from the 2006 

National Crime Victimization Survey (USDOJ, 2006). 

Stalking. Behaviors from the SVS (USDOJ, 2006) formed the core of our measure 

of stalking frequency. To maximize our understanding of the specific types of behaviors 

individual victims were experiencing over time we created single items for distinct 

18

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
actions/behaviors perpetrated by the offender. For example, “waiting outside or inside 

places for you such as home, school, workplace or recreational place” (USDOJ, 2006), 

became “drive by your home, work, school, etc.” and “come to your home, work, school, 

etc.” Participant reports of the occurrence and frequency of these 32 possible offender 

actions/behaviors were obtained by asking participants if they had experienced each of 

the items during the past month and if yes, to rate its occurrence on a scale of one to four 

(with one representing 1-2 times per month, two representing weekly, three representing 

2-3 times per week, and four representing daily). The sum of the total number of 

behaviors reported, each multiplied by the frequency of occurrence, was then computed 

for a total monthly stalking frequency score (Turmanis & Brown, 2006). 

Safety. To assess safety in relation to participant’s experience of stalking we 

asked participants to rate how safe they felt using a seven-point, single-item question: 

“On a scale from 1 to 7, how safe do you feel these days? Would you say you are: 

Completely unsafe(1) , Somewhat unsafe, Slightly unsafe, Neither safe nor unsafe, 

Slightly safe, Somewhat safe, Completely safe(7)?” This rating was based on the Life 

Experiences Survey (LES) rating scale (Sarason, Johnson & Siegel, 1978). 

Distress. In any given month it was possible for a participant not to experience 

stalking but to experience distress related to the stalking experience overall. Therefore

each month we asked participant’s to rate their overall distress level in regards to stalking 

on a scale of one through nine (with one representing not at all distressing and nine 

representing very distressing). In addition, we asked participants to rate the distress 

associated with each of the 32-stalking behaviors they may have experienced in the 

previous month on a scale of one through nine, and calculated the total of these individual 

19

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
distress items. As the two measures were highly correlated at each time point and in their 

rate of change over time, we used the single item as the measure of overall stalking 

distress. 

 Physical and Mental Health. We used three questions from the New York City 

Community Health Survey (NYCDOHMH, 2005) to assess physical and mental health: 

• “Would you say that in general your health is: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair or 

Poor?”

• “Thinking about your physical health, which includes physical illness and injury, for 

about how many days during the past 30 days was your physical health not good?” 

• “Now thinking about your mental health, which includes stress, depression, and 

problems with emotions, for about how many days during the past 30 days was your 

mental health not good?” 

Contact with Sources of Assistance. To understand the sources of assistance 

participants sought or received during the course of the study, participants were asked if 

they had contacted or received help from a list of criminal justice sources (CJ) (i.e., 

police, district attorney, prosecutor, lawyer), or victim assistance sources (VA) (i.e., 

clergy, counselor, victim advocate). A score of 1=assistance or 0=no assistance was given 

for each category, resulting in two dichotomous items: any contact with criminal justice 

sources, and any contact with victim services. The list of sources was drawn directly 

from items in the SVS (USDOJ, 2006). 

Interactions with Criminal Justice Authorities. Each month, those participants 

who answered yes to seeking or receiving contact from criminal justice sources were 

asked about the authorities’ response after being contacted. Eleven possible responses 

20

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
(e.g., “Referred you to family court”, “Referred you to criminal court (DA)”) from the 

SVS (USDOJ, 2006) were read to the participants, who answered yes or no for each 

response. 

Participants were also asked each month whether they had an order of protection 

(yes/no), which court (criminal, family, don’t know which court) issued the order, if the 

order had been violated (yes/no), and their perception of the effect of order on their 

experience of the offenders’ stalking behaviors (1=stopped the stalking, 2= stalking 

decreased but did not stop, 3=stalking remained the same, 4= increased the stalking). We 

asked about orders each month because it was possible that participants’ orders at the 

beginning of the study would not be valid throughout the study (e.g., the order may have 

expired or a new one was issued). For example, in felony cases, the prosecution may have 

about six months before they have to proceed with the case; the order of protection is 

granted at arraignment and is renewed at each adjourned date. In misdemeanor cases, the 

prosecution must proceed at a much sooner time, adjournments are shorter, and the order 

is generally valid from one adjournment date to the next. 

Data Analysis 

SPSS version 16.0 (SPSS, 2007) was used for all descriptive and single-time point 

analyses. To determine whether interview completion rates were associated with specific 

baseline demographic and victimization-related characteristics, we examined whether 

participants who completed baseline interviews only (n=9) differed from participants who 

completed at least one follow-up interview (n=73) using chi-square and T-tests. All tests 

were adjusted for family-wise error and no significant differences were found between 

the two groups. Therefore, we included all participants’ data in the longitudinal analyses 

21

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
regardless of the number of interviews they completed and assumed that the data were 

missing at random. 

To describe stalking and participants’ stalking-related experiences (safety, 

distress, and number of days of poor physical health and mental health) over time, growth 

curve models were estimated using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). In order to 

account for the variability in follow up and missing data (see Table 2), we restricted our 

growth curve analyses to the baseline interview and first six follow-up interviews. Of the 

methods available to conduct growth curve analyses, the strengths of HLM include its 

ability to account for missing data and unequally spaced time points (Raudenbush & 

Bryk, 2001). These strengths made HLM a good choice for this dataset, since over the 

course of the study, there was a large amount of missing data and unequally spaced 

interviews. 

To describe the relationship among the dependent variables (stalking, safety, 

distress, physical health, and mental health), the scores were standardized. HLM was run 

using Mplus (Muthen & Muthen, 1998-2007). With respect to questions about how the 

dependent variables changed over time, we utilized a two-level nested structure: time at 

Level 1 (within-subject variation), and the outcome variables at Level 2 (between-subject 

variation). The intercept at Level 2 explains the variation between participants at 

baseline. The slope at Level 2 was our primary interest, in that it describes the variation 

in the rate of change in the variable between participants. The fixed effect for the 

intercept depicts the overall mean of the outcome variable at baseline while the fixed 

effect for the slope describes the change of the outcome variable over time for the group. 

Table 2 

Number of participants who completed each monthly interview 

22

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Month Frequency Total N Percent 

0 82 82 100.00 

1 36 82 43.90 

2 38 82 46.34 

3 36 82 43.90 

4 25 82 30.49 

5 24 82 29.27 

6 39 82 47.56 

7 27 68 39.71 

8 28 68 41.18 

9 27 68 39.71 

10 31 68 45.59 

11 28 67 41.79 

12 34 65 52.31 

Total 455 978 46.52 

In order to answer questions about the relationships among dependent variables, 

the estimated slope for each participant in the prior analysis was saved. This step yielded 

an estimated trajectory for each participant on each dependent variable, which we then 

used to calculate correlations among slopes. Since scores on all variables were 

standardized, we were able to evaluate the relative strength of these relationships. 

In order to examine the relationship between stalking and contact with criminal 

justice (CJ) and victim assistance (VA) sources, both CJ and VA contacts were treated as 

time-varying covariates. To account for the change of participant contact with CJ and VA 

over the course of the study, two additional models were developed. The first model 

included an interaction term between contact with CJ and time and the second model 

included an interaction term between contact with VA and time. Each model evaluated 

the relationship between stalking and the respective contact source. 

23

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Results 

We begin this section by describing the relationship between the participants and 

stalkers at baseline and then describe the stalking behaviors experienced over the course 

of the study (Objective 1). We continue by describing the participants’ stalking-related 

experiences in terms of perceived safety and stalking-related distress (Objective 2). Next 

we describe participants’ physical and mental health status (Objective 3). The 

relationship among these dimensions of participants’ experiences and their relationship 

with stalking are explicated (Objective 4). Contact with criminal justice and victim 

assistance sources are detailed (Objective 5) and we conclude the section by describing 

the relationships between stalking and contacts with criminal justice and victim sources 

(Objective 6). 

As can be seen in Table 3, the majority of participants (84%) were stalked by a 

former intimate partner. Approximately 16% of the participants were being stalked by a 

current intimate partner. Over half reported their stalker was an ex-boyfriend and 33% 

reported their stalker was an estranged or ex-spouse. A salient aspect of the relationship 

between the participants and their stalkers is whether they have at least one child in 

common. The majority of participants (65.43%) reported having a young child in 

common with the stalker. 

Table 3 

Relationship Between Participant and Stalker. 

Relationship Frequency Percent 

Spouse 9 10.98 

Estranged Spouse (Married but Separated) 16 19.51 

Ex-spouse 11 13.41 

Boyfriend/Girlfriend 4 4.88 

Ex-boyfriend/Ex-girlfriend 42 51.22 

Total 82 100.0 

24

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The relationship between participants and their stalkers also includes both past 

and recent history of intimate partner violence. As can be seen in Table 4, the course of 

conduct of stalking behavior is part of a larger course of conduct of intimate partner 

violence. At baseline, a substantial number of participants reported intimate partner abuse 

occurring within the past month. 

Table 4 

Number of Participants Reporting Abuse Behaviors at Baseline 

Behavior Number Reporting n(%) 

Verbally abuse you 34 (41.46) 

Physically harm you 11 (13.41) 

Sexually abuse you 6 (7.32) 

Objective 1: Describe the stalking behaviors the participants experienced over the 

course of the study 

Behaviors Committed by the Offender 

There was a wide range in the amount of time participants were aware of (0 – 264 

months), and concerned about (0 – 264 months) the stalking behaviors they experienced. 

Table 5 displays the 32 stalking behaviors participants experienced over the course of the 

study, the number of participants who reported experiencing the behavior at any point 

during the study and the average percent of time in the study they experienced the 

behavior. As can be seen in Table 5, stalking is a collection of behaviors that include 

legal and illegal actions. The most commonly reported behaviors were that the stalker 

tried to obtain information about her from a family member, friend or acquaintance, and 

that he made unwanted phone calls to the participant. These two behaviors were also 

most frequently experienced over time. Among participants who reported unwanted 

phone calls, on average, they experienced this behavior 59% of the time they were 

involved in the study. 

25

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
In this sample, technology-related stalking behaviors were uncommon, with 15% 

of participants reporting stalking through E-mail or Internet and 12.5% reporting othertechnology-related stalking behaviors. None of the participants reported being stalked via 

a GPS locator during the course of the study. 

An overwhelming majority of the participants experienced a constellation of 

stalking behaviors. Over 90% of the participants experienced two or more different 

stalking behaviors during the study awhile over half (53.7%) experienced 10 or more 

different stalking behaviors throughout the course of the study. 

Table 5 

Number of Participants Reporting Ever Having Experienced Specific Stalking Behaviors 

and the Average Percent of Time in the Study They Experienced the Behavior 

Behavior 

Number Ever 

Reporting 

Behavior 

Average 

Percent of 

Time Reported 

Tried to obtain information about you from a family member, 

friend or acquaintance 68 55.6 

Made unwanted phone calls (including hang-up calls) to you or 

left a message 61 59.2 

Violated an order of protection 50 30.8 

Approached you or made face to face contact 49 43.3 

Spread rumors or posted information about you 49 41.5 

Driven by your home, work, or school 46 42.5 

Came to your home, work, or school 43 46.4 

Engaged or hired others to gather information about you or harass 

you 

43 36.1 

Threatened to harm you 42 34.5 

Followed you 41 36.0 

Spied on you or watched you from a distance 40 43.8 

Threatened to report you or reported you to the authorities (e.g., 

police, child welfare, other) 36 41.9 

Threatened to harm your children, family member, or other 

person you know 34 36.0 

Initiated court proceedings against you (e.g., civil court, family 

court) 31 39.2 

Threatened to harm him/her self 27 39.4 

Sent unwanted notes, letters, e-mails, or other forms of written 

communication 27 25.1 

Damaged or attempted to damage or destroy your personal 

property (e.g., home, car, other) 23 33.8 

Entered or attempted to enter your home without your knowledge 

or permission 21 34.2 

26

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolen something of yours 20 42.2 

Left unwanted items, gifts, or flowers for you 19 34.4 

Reported you to the police or had you arrested 18 29.9 

Used/attempted to use your personal information to open/close 

accounts in your name (e.g., bank account) 16 32.0 

Gone through or tampered with your mail 15 33.1 

Monitored your phone calls (bug, scanner, etc) or computer use 

(hacking, spyware, or other methods) 13 31.7 

Sent emails about you to your friends, family, co-workers, etc 12 22.8 

Used the internet to stalk and or harass you 11 32.2 

Enrolled you in activities you did not want (e.g., a dating service, 

mailing list, subscription, etc.) 10 36.6 

Used a website, blog, bulletin board, or other to harass you or 

stalk you 10 33.8 

Called your bank or utility to try to obtain information about you 9 28.9 

Posted information about you on list serves, electronic message 

boards, online personal dating sites, etc 7 21.3 

Injured or killed your pets 4 63.3 

Installed hidden cameras or other recording devices in or around 

your home 1 33.3 

Used global positioning system (GPS) to track your position 0 0.0 

Table 6 provides mean stalking experienced for each month. A downward trend 

can be seen in mean stalking over time. The results of the HLM for stalking (see Table 7 

for the parameter estimates) show the trajectory of stalking from baseline to Month 6. It 

is important to note that the data were standardized and therefore, zero represents the 

average score. The estimate for the intercept is not significantly different from zero, 

indicating that at baseline stalking was not different from the average stalking from 

baseline to Month 6. Although the estimate for the rate of change indicated that in the 

aggregate, stalking behaviors decrease over time, this decrease was not statistically 

significant. Considering the amount of variance among participants, the level 2 rate of 

change parameter estimate (σ

2

1) demonstrates that the trajectories of stalking frequency 

among the women are significantly different from each other (p = 0.021) and the level 2 

intercept (σ

2

0)shows that stalking at baseline also varies between the participants (p < 

0.001). 

27

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 6 

Mean Stalking Frequency Over Time 

Month Stalking Frequency 

0 10.66 

1 9.44 

2 10.00 

3 8.78 

4 6.36 

5 7.88 

6 6.85 

Table 7 

Results of Hierarchical Linear Model for Stalking Frequency 

Parameter Coefficient SE t(280) 

Fixed Effects 

Composite 

Intercept (initial status) β0 0.127 0.112 1.135 

Month (rate of change) β1 -0.044 0.027 -1.649 

Variance Components 

Level 1 Within Person σ

2

ε 0.407 0.05 8.155**

Level 2 In intercept σ

2

0 0.736 0.163 4.505**

In rate of change σ

2

1 0.024 0.01 2.309* 

Goodness-of-fit 

Deviance 713.064 

AIC 725.064 

BIC 746.873 

*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. 

Objective 2: Describe participants’ stalking-related experiences in terms of 

perceived safety and stalking-related distress.

Safety and Distress. 

The means for perceived safety by interview month are presented in Table 8. As 

can be seen in Table 8 over time, average safety increases. The results of the HLM for 

overall safety (see Table 9 for the parameter estimates) also shows that average safety 

increases over time, but this increase was not found to be statistically significant (p = 

0.633). Similar to stalking, the course of safety was found to vary significantly among 

28

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
individuals, both in terms of overall safety at baseline and the rate of change (p = 0.001, p

= 0.036 respectively). 

Table 8 

Mean Distress and Safety Over Time 

Month Safety Distress 

0 3.90 8.33 

1 3.58 7.00 

2 4.26 6.26 

3 4.00 6.83 

4 3.48 6.20 

5 4.12 5.75 

6 4.31 6.45 

Table 9 

Results of the Hierarchical Linear Model for Perceived Safety 

Parameter Coefficient SE t(280) 

Fixed Effects 

Composite 

Intercept (initial status) β0 -0.045 0.104 -0.435 

Month (rate of change) β1 0.014 0.03 0.478 

Variance Components 

Level 1 Within Person σ

2

ε 0.588 0.07 8.349**

Level 2 In intercept σ

2

0 0.474 0.149 3.227**

In rate of change σ

2

1 0.025 0.012 2.092* 

Goodness-of-fit 

Deviance 761.392 

AIC 773.392 

BIC 795.2 

*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. 

The means for distress for each interview month are displayed in Table 8. Similar 

to stalking, a decreasing trend can be seen in the mean distress as time progresses. Table 

10 shows the parameter estimates from the HLM for distress. The intercept is 

significantly different from zero (p < 0.001), indicating that the average distress at 

baseline was significantly different from the average distress from baseline to month 6. 

Unlike stalking, distress over time significantly decreases (p < 0.001). Additionally, 

29

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
distress at baseline and the rate of change of distress are not significantly different among 

the women (p = 0.567, p = 0.06 respectively). 

Table 10 

Results of the Hierarchical Linear Model for Distress 

Parameter Coefficient SE t(277) 

Fixed Effects 

Composite 

Intercept (initial status) β0 0.347 0.072 4.805** 

Month (rate of change) β1 -0.135 0.029 -4.635**

Variance Components 

Level 1 Within Person σ

2

ε 0.542 0.057 9.449** 

Level 2 In intercept σ

2

0 0.048 0.83 0.571 

In rate of change σ

2

1 0.02 0.011 1.884 

Goodness-of-fit 

Deviance 705.745 

AIC 717.745 

BIC 739.489 

*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. 

Objective 3: Describe participants’ physical and mental health status over the 

course of the study. 

Table 11 

Mean Number of Days of Poor Physical Health and Poor Mental Health Over Time 

Month Physical Health Mental Health

0 8.89 15.66 

1 9.58 14.39 

2 8.24 12.57 

3 8.50 11.33 

4 7.92 10.76 

5 7.38 14.63 

6 7.97 10.90 

Number of Days Suffering from Poor Physical and Poor Mental Health

As can be seen in Table 11, the number of days participants suffered from poor 

physical health was similar from baseline to Month 6. The parameter estimates of the 

HLM for number of days participants suffered from poor physical health are displayed in 

Table 12, and show that that the slope is negative, but the decrease is not statistically 

30

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
significant (p = 0.251). Although physical health differs among the participants at 

baseline (p < 0.001), the rate of change of physical health does not (p = 0.593).

Table 12 

Results of the Hierarchical Linear Model for Physical Health 

Parameter Coefficient SE t(277) 

Fixed Effects 

Composite 

Intercept (initial status) β0 0.051 0.11 0.469 

Month (rate of change) β1 -0.027 0.023 -1.148 

Variance Components 

Level 1 Within Person σ

2

ε 0.555 0.066 8.385**

Level 2 In intercept σ

2

0 0.583 0.16 3.646**

In rate of change σ

2

1 0.004 0.008 0.534 

Goodness-of-fit 

Deviance 728.743 

AIC 740.743 

BIC 762.487 

*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. 

As can be seen in Table 11, the mean number of poor mental health days 

participants experience decreases over time. Similar to the experience of distress, days 

suffering from of poor mental health decreases significantly over time (p = 0.001). 

Additionally, the individual rate of change of poor mental health between the participants 

is not significant (p = 0.693), revealing that change in mental health over time does not 

vary significantly among participants (see Table 13).

Table 13 

Results of the Hierarchical Linear Model for Mental Health 

Parameter Coefficient SE t(277) 

Fixed Effects 

Composite 

Intercept (initial status) β0 0.132 0.113 1.177 

Month (rate of change) β1 -0.062 0.019 -3.251**

Variance Components 

Level 1 Within Person σ

2

ε 0.399 0.049 8.211** 

31

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Level 2 In intercept σ

2

0 0.749 0.165 4.534** 

In rate of change σ

2

1 0.002 0.005 0.395 

Goodness-of-fit 

Deviance 674.241 

AIC 686.241 

BIC 707.985 

*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. 

Objective 4: Describe the relationships among these dimensions of participants’ 

experiences and their relationship to stalking behavior overtime.

In evaluating the relationships among slopes, we found that all of the dependent 

variables were significantly correlated with one another and with stalking frequency (see 

Table 14 for correlation results). The results indicate that as the rate of change of stalking 

frequency decreased over time, the rate of change of stalking distress decreased and 

safety increased. The number of days participants suffered from poor physical health and 

mental health were strongly positively correlated with one another, and their trajectories 

decreased together over time. The strongest relationship among the dimensions of 

stalking-related experiences we examined was between safety and mental health. As the 

slope of overall safety increased over time, the slope of the number of poor mental health 

days decreased. In fact, 32% of the variance in the rate of change of poor mental health 

days can be accounted for by the change in safety. 

Table 14 

Pearson Correlations for Stalking, Distress, Safety, Number of Days with Poor Physical 

Health and Mental Health 

Safety Distress 

Physical 

Health 

Mental 

Health 

Safety 

Distress -0.474** 

Physical Health -0.396** 0.270* 

Mental Health -0.564** 0.416** 0.476** 

Stalking -0.366** 0.364** 0.311** 0.280* 

*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. 

32

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
A visual representation of the relationships among the trajectories of stalking, 

safety, distress, physical health and mental health can be seen in Figure 2. The greatest 

change over time was in distress, followed by mental health. The other trajectories, 

safety, stalking and days suffering from poor physical health, remain relatively stable and 

do not exhibit a large change over time. These results mirror the HLM results discussed 

above. 

Figure 2. Stalking Frequency, Safety Distress, Poor Physical Health, and Poor Mental 

Health over Time 

Stalking Frequency, Stalking Distress, Safey, Physical Health, 

and Mental Health Over time

-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0123456

Month

Stalking Frequency

Stalking Distress

Safety

Physical Health

Mental Health

Objective 5: Describe the extent of participants’ contacts with criminal justice and 

victim assistance sources over the course of the study. 

Each month participants were asked if they sought or received help from various 

agents, e.g., the police, district attorney/prosecutor, lawyer, counselor, clergy, victim 

advocate, and other. Table 15 shows the number of participants who reported seeking or 

33

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
receiving help from a criminal justice or victim assistance agent at any point in the study. 

Somewhat surprisingly, less than one-third of the participants reported seeking or 

receiving help from either a victim advocate or counselor. In contrast, the majority of 

participants (57%) reported contacting the police regarding stalking at least once during 

the study. Moreover, two-thirds of the participants (67%) indicated they had a case in 

court at one or more points in time during the course of the study. 

Table 15 

Number of Participants Seeking Help from a Particular Agency Throughout the Course 

of the Study 

Agency 

Number of Participants 

ever receiving help Percent 

Police 47 57.32 

District Attorney 9 10.98 

Lawyer 12 14.63 

Counselor 24 29.27 

Clergy 5 6.10 

Victim Advocate 27 32.93 

Other 12 14.63 

Table 16 displays the number of participants who sought or received help at any 

time over the course of the study from criminal justice sources or victim assistance 

sources, and the number of participants who ever had an order of protection (OP). Almost 

all the participants (92%) reported having an order of protection at one or more points in 

time during the study. Furthermore, participants had an order of protection for 45% of 

their participation in the study. Forty-nine participants indicated that they had contact 

with CJ sources and of those 46 (93.8 %) indicated that they initiated that contact at least 

once in the study. As can be seen in Table 16, fewer participants sought or received help 

from criminal justice or victim assistance sources than had an OP. Further, the percentage 

of time during the study that they received help from these sources was also less than that 

for which they had an order of protection in effect. 

34

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 16 

Number of Participants Ever Seeking a Particular Type of Help and the Average Time in 

the Study the Participants Received Help 

Type of Help 

Number reporting ever 

receiving help (%) 

Average percent of 

time in study received 

Criminal Justice 49 (59.76) 24.16 

Victim Assistance 37 (45.12) 20.42 

OP 75 (91.46) 45.32 

Objective 6: Describe the relationships between stalking and contacts with criminal 

justice and victim sources. 

During a month when participants reported contact with criminal justice sources, 

they also reported significantly higher stalking frequency than participants who did not 

have such contact (p < 0.001). However, as can be seen in Table 17, help from criminal 

justice sources was not associated with the trajectory of stalking (p = 0.075). There was 

no association between seeking help from victim services and stalking (see Table 18), 

either during the month of contact (p = 0.633) or over time (p = 0.141). 

Because of the correlated changes among stalking, safety and distress over time, 

and our interest in how changes in one may affect the others, after examining the 

relationship between stalking and contact with CJ sources, we performed a post-hoc 

analysis to examine the association between contact with CJ sources and safety over time. 

Contact with CJ sources and safety was similar to Contact with CJ sources and stalking: 

months when participants had contact with CJ sources, safety was lower (p<.001) and 

contact with CJ sources had no impact on the trajectory of safety. A similar analysis with 

distress could not be conducted because there was no variation in the rate of change of 

distress between participants. 

Table 17 

Results of the Hierarchical Linear Model for Stalking Frequency with Help from CJ 

Sources 

Parameter Coefficient SE t(280) 

35

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Fixed Effects 

Composite 

Intercept (initial status) β0 -0.067 0.120 -0.558 

Month (rate of change) β1 -0.012 0.03 -0.383 

Help from CJ Sources β2 0.608 0.168 3.625**

Help from CJ Sources by 

Month 

β3 -0.099 0.056 -1.781 

Variance Components 

Level 1 Within Person σ

2

ε 0.388 0.048 8.093**

Level 2 In intercept σ

2

0 0.672 0.152 4.427**

In rate of change σ

2

1 0.025 0.011 2.387* 

Goodness-of-fit 

Deviance 702.638 

AIC 714.638 

BIC 743.716 

*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. 

Table 18 

Results of the Hierarchical Linear Model for Stalking Frequency with FVS Helpseeking 

Parameter Coefficient SE t(280) 

Fixed Effects 

Composite 

Intercept (initial status) β0 0.144 0.121 1.187 

Month (rate of change) β1 -0.027 0.029 -0.946 

FVS Helpseeking β2 -0.090 0.188 -0.478 

FVS Helpseeking by Month β3 -0.056 0.058 -1.474 

Variance Components 

Level 1 Within Person σ

2

ε 0.404 0.050 8.160**

Level 2 In intercept σ

2

0 0.727 0.162 4.495**

In rate of change σ

2

1 0.018 0.009 1.974* 

Goodness-of-fit 

Deviance 710.763 

AIC 722.763 

BIC 751.841 

*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. 

As we described in Objective 6, throughout the course of the study, 46 

participants (56%) reported having contacted criminal justice sources (e.g., police, district 

attorney, lawyer). Table 19 displays the response of these sources, as well as the number 

36

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
of participants who reported the specific response. Most frequently, the authorities 

responded by taking a report of the stalking behaviors. Of the participants in contact with 

criminal justice sources, over 20% indicated that the authorities “took no action”. 

Criminal justice sources also frequently responded by referring participants to court 

services or recommending that the participant obtain an order of protection. 

Table 19 

Responses of Criminal Justice Sources When Contacted by Participants 

Number of Participants Percent

Took report 22 47.83 

Told to get an order of protection 11 23.91 

Arrested the offender 10 21.74 

Took no action 10 21.74 

Referred to family court by authorities 9 19.57 

Referred to criminal court by authorities 9 19.57 

Provided advice 9 19.57 

Asked for more information 7 15.22 

Referred to victim services 7 15.22 

Talked to the offender 7 15.22 

Other 3 6.52 

Referred to another location 0 0.00 

Figure 3 presents participant reports of the perceived change in offender behavior. 

In many instances, having an OP was perceived by the participants either as having no 

influence or decreasing the stalking behaviors they experienced. There were, however, in 

16% of the overall cases, participants who reported that the OP was associated with 

increased stalking behaviors. 

37

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Figure 3. Perceived Change in Stalking Behavior 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Increased

stalking

Stalking

remained the

same

Decreased

stalking, but

stalking has

not stopped

Stopped the

stalking

Perceived Change in Stalking Behavior

38

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Discussion and Future Research 

This study attempts to add to the knowledge base practitioners have available 

when considering how best to assist victims who have experienced intimate partner 

stalking. It augments the current literature by echoing some findings and expanding 

others. Similar to prior literature on this topic, the findings from this study show that in a 

sample of urban women seeking assistance in courts and police precincts throughout New 

York City, the vast majority of stalking victims (86 percent) were stalked by current or 

former intimates (Davis & Frieze, 2000; Davies, Block & Campbell, 2007; Henning & 

Klesges, 2002; Logan, Shannon, et al., 2006; Logan, Walker, et al., 2006; Meloy, Davis 

& Lovette, 2001; Melton, 2007; Spitz, 2003; Sullivan & Bybee, 2004; Turmanis & 

Brown, 2006; Wiist & McFarlane, 1998). Moreover, within this group, at baseline there 

was considerable individual difference in the amount of time study participants were 

aware of the stalking behavior and had been concerned about it. Notably, neither the 

length of time a victim was aware of the stalking nor the length of time she was 

concerned about the stalking was related to the stalking behavior over time. 

The data reveal considerable variation in the types of behaviors and frequencies 

perpetrated by the stalkers, e.g., a single behavior perpetrated daily, multiple behaviors 

perpetrated monthly or multiple behaviors perpetrated at varying frequencies. While both 

legal and illegal stalking behaviors were reported, the most commonly reported behaviors 

in our study included the stalker trying to obtain information about the victim from a 

family member, friend or acquaintance, and the stalker making unwanted phone calls to 

the study participant; technology-related stalking behaviors were uncommon in this 

study. An overwhelming majority of study participants experienced a constellation of 

stalking behaviors. 

39

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This study describes stalking behavior at a series of points in time, during which 

the aggregate trajectory moves downward. And yet, stalking does not stop; for individual 

victims, the level of stalking behaviors may rise, persist, or fall during the 13 months of 

the study. This suggests that victims’ actual experience with stalking varies from one 

point in time to the next, and that the behaviors participants experienced were not static; 

they are equally likely to be the same or different from one time to the next. 

This study adds to the literature that questions the impact of common 

interventions in intimate partner violence. Overall, contact with the criminal justice 

system was not associated with the rate of change in stalking behavior over time in the 

aggregate. When participants in our sample had contact with criminal justice sources 

their stalking frequency was higher than when they had no contact. However, contact 

with sources of help did not have a statistically significant effect on the stalking behavior 

they experienced overtime. This finding further suggests that stalking is dynamic—that 

different sanctions and interventions may work at different points in time but overall, the 

result of contact with the justice system is inconsistent. For researchers, this suggests the 

need to examine explicitly the instances where something worked and the instances 

where it did not work. Future research on stalking involving intimates will need to be 

designed to identify and understand what those differences are rather than focus 

exclusively on predictions based on offender or case profiles that are predicated on a 

pattern of behavior occurring systematically over time. The findings from this study 

indicate the need to shift away from research which predicts a stable pattern of behavior 

from static risk factors over a course or trajectory to one that drills down at discrete 

moments across a trajectory. 

40

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The study’s findings with respect to orders of protection also deserve emphasis. 

During the course of the 13-month study, 91 percent of the study participants had an 

order of protection (OP). On average, participants had a protective order 45 percent of the 

time; in other words, the average participant had an order of protection for 45 percent of 

the interview time points. The efficacy of an order of protection as a means to increase 

stalking victim safety is a question that has created considerable debate among service 

providers. Study participants commonly attributed a slight decrease or no change in 

stalking behavior to the order of protection. Some, however, reported an increase in the 

behavior and some reported that the OP stopped the behavior. Taken together with the 

findings of other researchers (Logan, Shannon, et al., 2006; Logan & Walker, 2009; 

Nicastro, Cousins, & Spitzberg, 2000; Spitzberg; 2002), this study confirms that there is 

no systematic impact of orders of protection on stalking behavior, although at the 

individual case level there is a potential effect at different points in time. Victims 

reported feeling that an OP was effective sometimes and other times not. This result 

supports the need for a victim-centered, individualized approach to addressing stalking 

risk, as it is unclear when an order of protection will have the desired impact. Moreover, 

when victims have children in common with the offender, as over 65% of this study’s 

participants had, there are more avenues for the offender to gather information, attempt or 

succeed in unwanted contact, and make threats that impact the effect of an order. 

Over the course of the study less than half of the participants (45%) reported 

contact with a victim assistance agent and there was no effect of such contact on the 

stalking they experienced. Taken together with the findings on the effects of contact with 

criminal justice sources the question we might ask is: How do victims of intimate partner 

41

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
stalking have any confidence that the assistance they seek will have a beneficial effect? It 

is possible that over time they lack an experiential predictive foundation for 

“helpseeking”. Without a history of successful risk reduction, will they have little 

incentive to turn to seek help? 

Thus far our discussion has focused on the stalking behavior and the effect of 

criminal justice and victim assistance contact on the behavior. The implication is that 

stalking is episodic and that the nature and quality of stalking behavior is neither 

consistent nor predictive of what will happen next, and is as much a part of the victim’s 

experience as the behaviors themselves. We now discuss the findings regarding the 

victim’s experience in terms of her safety, distress, physical and mental health and the 

challenges we face as victim assistance providers to meet her needs. 

The results of the study clearly demonstrate that victims are not in denial about 

their safety. In fact, the findings reveal that the rate of change among victim safety, 

distress, mental and physical health fluctuate along with the stalking behavior. From the 

victim services perspective, the finding of this significant interrelationship suggests that 

we need to pay close attention to victims’ assessment of their own safety. This finding 

supports the findings from several recent studies that victims of domestic violence are 

acutely aware of their risk (Cattaneo & Goodman 2007, Cattaneo, Bell, Goodman & 

Dutton, 2007; Heckert & Gondolf, 2004; Kropp, 2004; Weisz, Tolman & Saunders, 

2000). Victims surely know they are in danger and live with the reality that they know 

best when, whether, or how the stalker’s behavior will escalate, change, or diminish. 

For victim assistance providers the challenges in working with victims of IPV and 

stalking are great: What interventions work, and under what circumstances? What type of 

42

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
“assistance” can be provided in the absence of any consistent expectation of reprieve if 

help-seeking had no effect the last time or inconsistent effect over time? The findings of 

this study indicate that to respond effectively to victims of intimate partner stalking we 

need more information on the individual case level to understand what strategies work, 

and identify when why and how they work. Future research will be most beneficial if it is 

conducted at discrete points in time longitudinally. 

The findings from this study also reveal important health disparities for 

participants in this study. Consideration of statistics from the New York City Community 

Health Survey (NYCDOHMH, 2005) reveals that when compared to a subsample of 

Black and Hispanic women aged 20-50, with similar levels of education, the participants 

in this study suffer from significantly more days of poor physical and mental health. 

The strongest relationship among the dimensions of stalking-related experiences 

was between safety and mental health: As perceived safety increased over time, the 

number of poor mental health days decreased. Safety accounted for more than 30% 

variance in the rate of change of mental health over time. These findings have 

ramifications for both research and practice. On the research side, there is an urgent need 

for increased cross-disciplinary collaboration to understand the immediate and 

prospective consequences of stalking on the physical and mental health of victims of 

intimate partner violence, particularly with regard to interplay among distress, safety, 

physical illness and mental health. On the victim services side, the findings suggest that 

the victim’s health is a factor to consider when listening to her needs and assessing her 

safety concerns. Assessing a client’s health, particularly poor health, through questions 

43

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
like the three in this study, provides important information about her day-to-day 

functioning. 

The large number of days participants reported suffering from poor physical and 

mental health each month could easily present obstacles to helpseeking or following 

through with risk-management options (e.g., follow-up with referrals and court 

appearances, and/or the commitment and ability to maintain a journal that could help 

prosecutors prove stalking had occurred). Such potential barriers should be part of the 

conversation between client and victim services provider. 

Examination of the trajectories of safety, distress and stalking over time reveal 

that they are moderately correlated with one another. This suggests that when victims 

present for services at criminal justice agencies they are feeling particularly unsafe and 

distressed, which fits with prior research showing that victims tend to reach out for 

multiple types of help at once (Bennett Cattaneo et al., 2007), and underlines the 

importance of co-located victim service providers within criminal justice agencies. 

Indeed, some victim services organizations have built strong and long-standing alliances 

within the criminal justice system; examples include partnering with police departments, 

probation and parole offices, and the courts. Although prosecutors typically hire staff 

within their offices to provide counseling and case management services for crime 

victims, some service agencies like Safe Horizon share locations with prosecutors but 

operate independently when offering their services to victims. 

Our findings suggest that victims who seek help from programs co-located with 

criminal justice agencies may present with high levels of distress, a self-assessment of 

low safety, and high frequency of stalking behaviors. While the expectation of victim 

44

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
distress within the criminal justice setting is not news, this study’s documentation of the 

distress associated with stalking at the time of criminal justice contact has implications 

for staff training. Specifically, staff members should be prepared to address all of these 

issues for a victim population that is culturally diverse and spans a wide range of ages. 

Taken together the findings from this study suggest the need for ensuring ongoing 

relationships between victims and sources of help are built into the service structure. An 

integrated, coordinated victim-centered standard of practice among all systems involved 

should expect for there to be repeated contact over time. And, within the constraints of 

our current knowledge base, realize that risk management strategies will change over 

time and expect that what works today might not work in the future. 

Limitations 

Several limitations to this study deserve attention. First, the survey sample reflects 

a particular demographic profile: urban and poor. Although we captured data from a 

cohort found in many jurisdictions throughout the country and that seeks services at a 

high rate, it is certainly not representative of all victims of IPV stalking who seek 

services; more research is needed to generalize the results. A study in other locales 

seeking to replicate the health status of our sample would be of particular interest. 

Second, our study participants sought services within the criminal justice system. 

It is likely that women who experience stalking but do not have contact with the criminal 

justice system differ from our sample in important ways. Also, contact in this study was 

assessed by asking about formal system-level agents, e.g., police, district attorneys, 

victim advocates, etc. It is quite likely that participants accessed informal supports and 

developed individual risk-management strategies about which we did not inquire and 

45

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
which may have had over time an effect on the trajectories. Finally, as with most 

longitudinal work with a transient population, the level of attrition must be acknowledged 

as having a possible impact on results; women who were lost to follow-up may have 

differed from those who were retained in ways that we did not measure. 

46

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Bibliography 

Belknap, J. & Sullivan, C.M. (2002). Longitudinal study of battered women in the 

system: the victims’ and decision-makers perceptions, final report. Rockville, 

Maryland: National Institute of Justice/NCJRS Paper Reproduction Sales. 

Bjerregaard, B. (2000). An empirical study of stalking victimization. Violence and 

Victims, 15(4): 389-406. 

Carbone-Lopez, K., Kruttschnitt, C., & Macmillan, R. (2006). Patterns of intimate partner 

violence and their associations with physical health, psychological distress, and 

substance use. Public Health Reports, 121(4): 382-392. 

Cattaneo, L.B. & Goodman, L.A. (2005). Risk factors for reabuse in intimate partner 

violence: A cross-disciplinary critical review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6(2): 

141-175. 

Cattaneo, L.B., Bell, M.E., Goodman, L.A. & Dutton, M.A. (2007). Intimate partner 

violence victims’ accuracy in assessing their risk of re-abuse. Journal of Family 

Violence, 22(6): 429-440. 

Cattaneo, L.B. & Goodman, L.A. (2007). New directions in IPV risk assessment: an 

empowerment approach to risk management. In Kendall-Tacket, K.A. & 

Giacomoni, S.M., Intimate Partner Violence (p. 1-31). Kingston, NJ: Civic 

Research Institute. 

Davies, K., Block, C.R., & Campbell, J. (2007). Seeking help from the police: battered 

 women’s decisions and experiences. Criminal Justice Studies, 20(1): 15-41. 

Davis, K.E., & Frieze, I.H. (2000). Research on stalking: What do we know and where do 

 we go? Violence and Victims, 15(4): 473-487. 

Dietz, N.A., & Martin, P.Y. (2007). Women who are stalked: questioning the fear 

 standard. Violence Against Women, 13(7): 750-776. 

DuBard, C.A., & Gizlice, Z. (2008). Language spoken and differences in health status, 

access to care, and receipt of preventive service among US Hispanics. American 

Journal of Public Health, 98(11): 2021-2028. 

Goodman, L., Dutton, M.A., Weinfurt, K., & Cook, S. (2003). The intimate partner 

violence strategies index. Violence Against Women, 9(2): 163-186. 

Goodman, L.A. & Epstein, D. (2007). Listening to battered women: A survivor-centered 

approach to advocacy, mental health, and justice. American Psychological 

Association. 

47

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Harrell, A. & Smith, B.E. (1996). Effects of restraining orders on domestic violence 

victims. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications: 214-242. 

Heckert, D.A. & Gondolf, E.W. (2004). Battered women’s perceptions of risk versus risk 

factors and instruments in predicting repeat reassault. Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence, 19(7): 778-800. 

Henning, K.R., & Klesges, L.M. (2002). Utilization of counseling and supportive 

 services by female victims of domestic abuse. Violence and Victims, 17(5): 623-

 636. 

Hotaling, G.T., & Buzawa, E.S. (2003). Forgoing criminal justice assistance: The nonreporting of new incidence of abuse in a court sample of domestic violence 

victims. Rockville, Maryland: National Institute of Justice/NCJRS Paper 

Reproduction Sales. 

Jaycox, L.H., Marshall, G.N., & Schell, T. (2004). Use of mental health services by men 

injured through community violence. Psychiatric Services, 55: 415-420. 

Kropp, P.R. (2004). Some questions regarding spousal assault risk assessment. Violence 

Against Women, 10(6): 676-697. 

Logan, T.K., Shannon, L., Cole, J., & Walker, R. (2006). The impact of differential 

 patterns of physical violence and stalking on mental health and help-seeking 

 among women with protective orders. Violence Against Women, 12(9): 866-886. 

Logan, T.K., Walker, R., Stewart, C., & Allen, J. (2006). Victim services and justice 

 system representative responses about partner stalking: what do professionals 

 recommend? Violence and Victims, 21(1): 49-66. 

Logan, T.K., & Walker, R. (2009). Civil protective order outcomes: Violations and 

perceptions of effectiveness. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(4): 675-692. 

Mechanic, M.B., Weaver, T.L., & Resick, P.A. (2000). Intimate partner violence and 

stalking behavior: exploration of patterns and correlates in a sample of acutely 

battered women. Violence and Victims, 15: 55-72. 

Meloy, J.R., Davis, B., & Lovette, J. (2001). Risk factors for violence among stalkers. 

Journal of Threat Assessment, 1(1): 3-16. 

Melton, H. (2007). Predicting the occurrence of stalking in relationships characterized by 

 domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(1): 3-25. 

Muthen, L.K., & Muthen, B.O. (2007). MPlus (version 5.2) [Computer software]. Los 

 Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen. Retrieved December 10, 2008 from 

 http://statmodel.com/index.shtml. 

48

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene (2005). 2005 Community 

 Health Survey Questionnaire. Retrieved December 13, 2006 from 

 http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/neighborhood-2005.pdf. 

Nicastro, A.M., Cousins, A.V., & Spitzberg, B.H. (2000). Tactical face of stalking. 

Journal of Criminal Justice, 28(1): 69-82. 

Perez, S., & Johnson, D.M. (2008). PTSD compromises battered women’s future safety. 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(5): 635-651. 

Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (2001). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and 

data analysis methods. Sage Publications. 

Sarason, I.G., Johnson, J.H., & Siegel, J.M. (1978). Assessing the impact of life changes: 

Development of the life experiences survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical 

Psychology, 46(5): 932-946. 

Sheridan, L.P., Blaauw, E., & Davies, G.M. (2003). Stalking: Knowns and unknowns. 

Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 4(2): 148-162. 

Smith, D.W., Kilpatrick, D.G., Falsetti, S.A., & Best, C. (2002). Postterrorism services 

for victims and surviving family members: lessons from Pan Am 103. Cognitive 

and Behavioral Practice, 9: 280-286. 

Spence-Diehl, E., Potocky-Tripodi, M. (2001). Victims of stalking. Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 16(1):86-94. 

Spitz, M.L. (2003). Stalking: Terrorism at our doors – how social workers can help 

 victims fight back. Social Work, 48(4): 504-512. 

Spitzberg, B.H. (2002). Tactical topography of stalking victimization and management. 

Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 3(4): 261-288. 

Spitzberg, B.H. & Cupach, W.R. (2007). The state of the art of stalking: Taking stock of 

the emerging literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(1): 64-86. 

SPSS, Inc. (2007). SPSS (version 16.0) [Computer software]. Chicago, Illinois: SPSS 

 Inc. Headquarters. Retrieved December 10, 2008 from http://www.spss.com. 

Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: how men entrap women in personal life. Oxford 

University Press. 

Sullivan, C.M., & Bybee, D.I. (2004). Using longitudinal data to understand the 

 trajectory of intimate violence over time. Violence Against Women and Family 

49

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Violence: Developments in Research, Practice, and Policy. Rockville, Maryland: 

 National Institute of Justice/NCJRS Paper Reproduction Sales. 

Tax, C., Vigeant, M., & Botuck, S. (2008). Integrating safety assessment with risk 

management: A dynamic victim centered approach [White paper]. Retrieved 

December 10, 2008 from Safe Horizon: http://www.safehorizon.org. 

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence 

against women: findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. 

 Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 

Turmanis, S.A., & Brown, R.I. (2006). The stalking and harassment behavior scale: 

 measuring the incidence, nature, and severity of stalking and relational 

 harassment and their psychological effect. Psychology and Psychotherapy: 

 Theory, Research, and Practice, 79: 183-198. 

U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2006). Supplemental 

 Victimization Survey (SVS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey 2006. 

 Retrieved February 6, 2006, from 

 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/svs1_06.pdf. 

Weisz, A., Tolman, R. & Saunders, D.G. (2000). Assessing the risk of severe domestic 

violence: the importance of survivors’ predictions. Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence, 15(1): 75-90. 

Wiist, W.H., & McFarlane, J. (1998). Utilization of police by abused pregnant Hispanic 

 women. Violence Against Women, 4: 677-693. 

Zweig, J. M. and M. R. Burt (2007). "Predicting Women's Perceptions of Domestic 

Violence and Sexual Assault Agency Helpfulness: What Matters to Program 

Clients?" Violence Against Women 13(11): 1149-1178. 

50

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX A: STALKING BEHAVIORS IN SCREEN 

How often has the offender done the following: Never Once

2-3

Times

4+

Times

Violated an order of protection? 

Followed the client? 

Waited outside someplace client frequents 

(home, school, work, etc.), spied on client, other 

surveillance? 

Unwanted phone calls, pages, faxes, letters or 

e-mail? 

Approached client or made face-to-face 

confrontations? 

Made threats against client? 

Threaten client’s family or friends? 

Vandalized or destroyed property? 

Gathered information about client? 

Contacted client’s family members or friends? 

Entered/attempted to enter client’s home? 

Other? (specify): 

Other? (specify): 

51

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX B: INTAKE INTERVIEW 

Stalking Journey Intake 

1. Introduction Script 

"Hello, my name is [Your Name]. I am a stalking intake staff member at Safe Horizon, and I am 

following up about your visit to [Name of Program] on [Date] to ask you a few more questions. 

Your case manager may have mentioned that I would be calling." 

"Is this a good time to talk for a few minutes?" 

"Are you able to talk privately at this time?" 

"Is this a safe time for you to talk, a time when you will not be overheard or interrupted?" 

INTERVIEWER: If she says no, tell her you will call back at another time and ask what time would 

be best. 

2. Intake Information 

INTERVIEWER: Once you have determined that it is a safe time for the woman to talk, fill in 

these fields based on the information provided to you by the Research Department.

1. Date of Interview

The Case ID Number consists of Month + Year + Number. 

Please enter the Case ID Number using the following format [Please do not enter any dashes]: 

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ 

2. Case ID Number 

3. Interviewer Name

4. Language of Interview 

• English

• Spanish 

3. Safe Horizon Program Information 

INTERVIEWER: Fill in these fields based on the information provided to you by the Research 

Department.

5. Program Name (i.e., program where client is seeking services)

6. Program Borough (i.e., borough where program is located)

7. Safe Horizon Staff Name

4. Client Demographics I 

52

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
We would like to start by asking you a few questions about yourself.

Can you tell me the year and month you were born?

8. Month 

9. Year

INTERVIEWER: If she was born after December 1988, check her age. If she is under 18, 

continue with the Intake, but do NOT seek her participation in the research study (as a minor, she 

is not eligible to be a part of the study).

5. Client Demographics II 

10. Are you Hispanic or Latina? 

• Yes 

• No 

• Don't know/Not sure 

• Refused 

11. Which one or more of the following would you say is your race... 

• White? 

• Black or African American? 

• Asian? 

• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander? 

• American Indian, Alaska Native? 

• Don't know/Not sure 

• Refused 

• Other (please specify) 

 6. Client Contact Information 

INTERVIEWER: If client says that she's already given someone all of this information, assure her 

that you are just making sure that all of the information we have is current and up-to-date. 

12. Safe number for contact 

13. Best time to contact you at this number 

14. Safe cell phone number at which to contact you 

15. Best time to contact you at that number 

16. Safe alternate contact number 

17. Best time to contact you at that number 

7. Client’s Address

18. What is a safe address to mail you information if needed? 

• Street Address 

• City 

• Zip Code 

53

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
19. What is your living situation (e.g., live alone, with family, etc.)

20. What is a safe alternate address to mail information to you if needed?

• Street Address 

• City 

• Zip Code

8. Any Children? 

INTERVIEWER: Please note, this question asks about ANY children the client has -- not just 

children with the stalker. 

21. Do you have any children? 

• Yes 

• No 

9. Children 

22. Do they live with you? 

• Yes 

• No 

23. What are their ages?

10. Presenting Problems 

24. Why did you come to Safe Horizon? 

25. What kinds of services do you need right now? 

• Advocacy 

• Information 

• Referrals 

• Child services (e.g., child care, custody assistance, visitation assistance, child protection) 

• Concrete services (e.g., food voucher, transportation, clothing, crime victim 

compensation) 

• 911 cell phone 

• Lock change 

• Counseling (e.g., individual or group) 

• Safety planning 

• Accompaniment (e.g., sexual assault forensic accompaniment, court accompaniment, 

law enforcement accompaniment) 

• Shelter (e.g., domestic violence or homeless shelter) 

• Housing transfer (e.g., emergency or other subsidized housing transfer) 

• Subsidized housing application 

• Physical health services 

• Mental health services 

• Substance abuse services 

• Legal services 

• Court services 

• Other (please specify)

11. Relationship With Stalker 

54

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
INTERVIEWER: Please note, you should already know this information based on the information 

provided by the Case Manager. But please confirm these pieces of information with the client.

26. Based on information provided by your case manager, it sounds to me like your stalker is...

• Male 

• Female 

• Other (please specify) 

27. It also sounds to me like your stalker is your...

• Spouse 

• Estranged spouse (married but separated) 

• Ex-spouse 

• Boyfriend/Girlfriend 

• Ex-boyfriend/Ex-girlfriend 

• Family member 

• Non-relative or non-intimate partner 

• Unknown to victim/stranger

12. Relationship to Stalker: Duration

28. When did you first become aware of the stalking behavior? (INTERVIEWER: Specify number 

of weeks, months or years)

29. When did this behavior become a concern to you? (INTERVIEWER: Specify number of 

weeks, months or years) 

13. Stalking Background

30. Please tell me a brief background of the stalking you've experienced. 

INTERVIEWER: Prompt for history of abuse if the stalker was an intimate partner of the victim. 

31. Have there been threats made? 

INTERVIEWER: Include a description of threats including how they were made.

32. On a scale of 1 through 9, with 1 being not at all distressing and 9 being very distressing, how 

would you rate your overall distress level in regards to the stalking behaviors you have 

experienced? 

14. Stalker Weapon Information

33. Does s/he own or have access to a weapon? 

• Don't know/Not sure 

• No 

• Yes. What type of weapon?

15. Order(s) of Protection 

34. Do you currently have an order of protection against him/her from the Criminal Court or the 

Family Court?

• Yes, with Criminal Court 

55

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• Yes, with Family Court 

• Yes, but doesn't know which court 

• No 

• Don't know/Not Sure 

16. Criminal Justice Intervention 

Now I will ask you about police, courts, or any other assistance you may have received in the last 

month. 

35. In the last month, have you, or anyone on your behalf, contacted the police or any other 

authorities about the stalking? 

• Yes 

• No 

17. Criminal Justice Intervention: Actions 

36. Which of the following actions did the authorities take when you contacted them... 

• Referred you to family court? 

• Referred you to criminal court (DA)? 

• Referred you to services, such as victim assistance?

• Gave you advice on how to protect yourself? 

• Took you to another location such as a hospital or shelter? 

• Asked you for more information or evidence? 

• Took a report? 

• Talked to or warned the perpetrator? 

• Told you to get a protection order? 

• Arrested the perpetrator? 

• Took no action 

• Other (please specify)

18. Criminal Justice Intervention: Court Case I 

37. Is this case in court now? 

• Yes 

• No

19. Criminal Justice Intervention: Court Case II 

38. What happened in that case? What was the outcome? 

• Case is still pending 

• Case was dismissed 

• Case went to trial 

• ACD (Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal) 

• S/he was found not fit to stand trial 

• S/he was found not guilty by reason of insanity 

• S/he was committed to a psychiatric institution 

• S/he pled guilty to charges 

• S/he was acquitted 

• S/he was convicted 

• S/he was sent to jail or prison 

• Don't Know 

56

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• Other (please specify)

20. Stalking Documentation

39. Have you been documenting stalking incidents and/or collecting evidence? If so, please 

describe this for me.

21. Offender Information 

Now I am going to ask you a few questions about the person who is stalking you, as far as you 

know. 

INTERVIEWER: If the client does not know who is stalking them, or does not know this 

information, please type "Don't Know" in the spaces below.

40. Please tell me the full name of the stalker and any other names used.

41. Please tell me the date of birth of the stalker if you know it.

42. Please tell me the age of the stalker if you know it.

22. Participate in Study? 

"Thank you for taking the time to talk to me today. I would also like to tell you a little bit about a 

study we are conducting. Would you be interested in hearing about the study and what it 

involves? 

"The study is being conducted by Safe Horizon about women's well-being, specifically about 

stalking and harassment. It is funded by the National Institute of Justice. We would really like to 

talk to you about your experience. 

"The purpose of the study is to get a better understanding of the patterns of behavior of people 

who stalk others. We also want to learn whether different strategies are effective in discouraging 

or stopping stalkers. This would involve asking some questions now (or as soon as possible), and 

having a Safe Horizon researcher following up with you once per month for 12 months with short 

phone calls. You will be paid $25 for completing this interview, $40 after 3 months, $40 after 6 

months, $40 after 9 months, and $60 after 12 months – that is, $205 for completing the entire 

study. These monthly follow-ups would last about 15 minutes and would be done by phone. 

"Participation in this study is entirely confidential. We will not share the information you give us 

with anyone outside of the research team, unless a child is being hurt or someone is in current 

danger of serious harm. Whether you decide to participate or not will have no impact on the 

services you receive. If you feel this is something you could participate in, I'd like to do the first 

interview right now. Or we can arrange a safe time for me to call back." 

43. Would you be interested in participating in this study? 

• Yes

• No (If reason is given, please include)

23. Informed Consent 

"The first thing we need to do is to get official 'informed consent,' which is required for all research 

studies to protect your rights as a participant. I will read you the full consent form word for word. 

57

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Please feel free to interrupt me and ask questions as we go along." 

INTERVIEWER: Read through a hard copy of the Informed Consent, indicate whether the client 

consents or not, and provide your signature on the hard copy. 

44. Client has been read the informed consent and agrees to participate in the study. 

• Yes 

• No (If client gives reason for declining, please include)

24. Next Steps 

INTERVIEWER: After obtaining her informed consent, thank the participant for agreeing to 

participate in the study. 

Assure the participant that her contact information will be stored by code number and kept 

separate from all other materials. This is the main way we keep an individual's answers from 

being connected to her name. 

Ask the participant if she would like to answer the Baseline Interview questions right now -- it will 

take about 40 minutes. Make sure she understands that this is different from her monthly followup interviews (which will be about 15 minutes in length). If she is amenable to doing the Baseline 

Interview immediately, go right ahead. 

If she is not able to do the interview right away, set up the time and number for the baseline 

interview and be sure to record it in the space provided. Ask the participant for a variety of days 

and times she would be available for an interview. If she does not want to schedule an 

appointment, tell her that she can call you when it is convenient for her. End the initial contact by 

thanking the participant for her willingness to participate in the study, remind her of your name 

and phone number, and review again when you will talk by phone for the Baseline Interview.

45. The client wishes to continue with the Baseline Interview now. 

• Yes 

• No. The Baseline Interview will be conducted on:

25. Conclusion for Participating 

INTERVIEWER: Please scroll through the next few pages until you the link for "Done". Click this 

link. Open up another browser to conduct the Baseline Interview.

26. Conclusion for Non-Participating 

INTERVIEWER: The Intake is now complete. Please ask the following two questions, and then 

thank the client for her time. 

If a client would like to be contacted by Safe Horizon, please send an e-mail directly to the case 

manager and cc: the program director. In the e-mail, please indicate the client's name, phone 

number, and any other relevant information. 

Please request that the case manager e-mails or calls you back when they have contacted the 

client. This is so we know that the feedback loop has been closed. If you don't hear back from the 

case manager of program director, please contact them again to see the status of the information. 

46. Is there any information about Safe Horizon that you need?

58

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
47. Would you like someone from the [Safe Horizon program client is receiving services from] to 

call you to talk about anything that has come up during our discussion?

• No 

• Yes. Please specify who:

59

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX C: BASELINE INTERVIEW 

Stalking Journey Baseline Interview 

1. Baseline Interview Information 

INTERVIEWER: Please complete this information again, even if you are immediately continuing 

from the Intake. 

1. Date of Interview 

The Case ID Number consists of Month + Year + Number. 

Please enter the Case ID Number using the following format [Please do not enter any dashes]: 

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ 

2. Case ID Number 

3. Interviewer Name 

4. Language of Interview 

• English 

• Spanish

2. Client Demographics I 

I would like to start off by asking you a few questions about yourself. 

5. Are you... 

• Married? 

• Divorced? 

• Widowed? 

• Separated? 

• Never married? 

• A member of an unmarried couple? 

• Don't know/Not sure 

• Refused 

6. Are you currently... 

• Employed for wages? 

• Self-employed? 

• Out of work for more than one year? 

• Out of work for less than one year? 

• A homemaker? 

• A student? 

• Retired? 

• Unable to work? 

• Refused 

3. Client Demographics III

7. What is the highest grade or year of school you completed? 

• Never attended school or only attended kindergarten 

60

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• Grades 1 through 8 (Elementary) 

• Grades 9 through 11 (Some high school) 

• Grade 12 or GED (High school graduate) 

• College 1 year to 3 years (Some college or technical school) 

• College graduate 

• Graduate school 

• Don't know/Not sure 

• Refused 

8. Where were you born? Please tell me the country. (We do not want to know your legal status.) 

• Refused 

• USA 

• Other country (please specify)

4. Health / Mental Distress 

9. Would you say that in general your health is: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair or Poor? 

• Excellent 

• Very Good 

• Good 

• Fair 

• Poor 

• Don't know/Not sure 

• Refused 

10. Thinking about your physical health, which includes physical illness and injury, for about how 

many days during the past 30 days was your physical health not good? 

11. Now thinking about your mental health, which includes stress, depression, and problems with 

emotions, for about how many days during the past 30 days was your mental health not good? 

5. Stalking Background 

12. You've already told me a little bit about the stalking you are experiencing. Can you tell me 

your theory on why s/he is stalking you? 

6. Relationship With Stalker 

Now I'd like to ask you a little bit more about the person who is stalking you. 

INTERVIEWER: Based on the Intake with the participant, please mark the appropriate box. 

*Only ask the question again if you do not recall this information from the Intake.* 

13. The stalker is the participant's... 

• Spouse 

• Estranged spouse (married but separated) 

• Ex-spouse 

• Boyfriend/Girlfriend 

• Ex-boyfriend/Ex-girlfriend 

• Family member (INTERVIEWER: Checking this box will prompt you to specify type of 

family member) 

61

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• Non-relative or non-intimate partner (INTERVIEWER: Checking this box will prompt you 

to specify type of non-relative or non-intimate partner) 

• Unknown to victim/stranger 

7. Relationship to Stalker: Intimate Partner/Former Intimate Partner 

14. Have you ever lived together with him/her? 

• Yes, still living together. 

• Yes, but not living together anymore. 

• No, never lived together. 

15. Do you have any children in common with him/her? 

• Yes 

• No

8. Relationship to Stalker: Children 

16. Are the children living with you? 

• Yes 

• No

17. Does s/he have ongoing contact with the child(ren)? 

• Yes 

• No

9. Relationship to Stalker: Family Member

18. Type of family member: 

• Parent or stepparent 

• Child or stepchild 

• Brother/sister, stepbrother, stepsister 

• Other relative (please specify) 

19. Have you ever lived together with him/her? 

• Yes, still living together. 

• Yes, but not living together anymore. 

• No, never lived together. 

10. Relationship to Stalker: Non-Relative or Non-Intimate Partner 

20. Type of non-relative/non-intimate partner: 

• Someone dated casually/a couple of times 

• Friend 

• Co-worker 

• Boss/supervisor 

• Classmate, someone from school 

• Neighbor 

• Roommate, housemate, boarder 

• Acquaintance 

• Person otherwise known to victim (please specify) 

62

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
21. You've told me that the person who is stalking you is your [RELATIONSHIP]. Is this a current 

or former relationship or situation (for example, no longer work at same place, neighbor moved, 

etc)? 

• Current 

• Former 

22. Have you ever lived together with him/her? 

• Yes, still living together. 

• Yes, but not living together anymore. 

• No, never lived together. 

11. Relationship to Stalker: Unknown or Stranger 

23. You said that the stalker is someone unknown to you. Would you be able to visibly identify the 

stalker?

• Yes, victim could identify stalker.

• No, victim is unable to identify the stalker.

12. Relationship to Stalker: Duration 

24. How long have you known this person? 

• The stalker is a stranger. 

• INTERVIEWER: Specify number of weeks, months, or years

13. Stalker Information I 

Now I’d like to get some information about this person, as far as you know. 

25. As far as you know, is s/he employed... 

• Full time? 

• Part time/temporary employment? 

• Unemployed? 

• Don’t Know 

14. Stalker Information II 

26. Does s/he have reason to be in your vicinity, such as live or work near your home, workplace 

or other places you go often? 

• Don't know/Not sure 

• No 

• Yes. What is the reason s/he has to be in your vicinity? 

27. Where was s/he born? Please tell me the country. 

• Refused 

• Don't know/Not sure 

• USA 

• Other country (please specify) 

15. Stalker Information III 

28. Do you know how long (in years) s/he has lived in the US? 

63

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• Don't know/Not sure 

• No 

• Yes. How long?

16. Stalker Information IV 

29. To your knowledge, has s/he ever been diagnosed with a mental illness? 

• Yes 

• No 

• Don't know/Not sure 

30. To your knowledge, has s/he ever had a substance abuse problem (including alcohol, 

prescription, non-prescription or street drugs)? 

• Yes 

• No 

• Don't know/Not sure 

17. Stalker Information V 

31. Has s/he served in the military or police or other organization that provided him/her training in 

firearms, explosives, etc.? 

• Don't know/Not sure 

• No 

• Yes. What type of organization (e.g., military or police)? 

18. Stalking Behavior, Frequency, & Distress 

Now I'd like to ask you some questions about his/her behavior toward you. I will read through a 

range of possible ways s/he may have stalked you, harassed you or tried to get information about 

you. 

For each behavior or incident, please tell me if it happened in the LAST MONTH. If it did happen 

in the last month, I will ask you how often it happened (Never, 1-2x/month, Weekly, 2-3x/week, 

Daily) and how distressing it was for you (on a scale of 1 to 9, where 1 is "not at all distressing" 

and 9 is "very distressing". 

I want to remind you that you can skip any question, and that your answers are confidential. 

32. In the past month, has s/he... 

Frequency 

Distress 

• Made unwanted phone calls (including hang-up calls) to you and/or left messages? 

• Sent unwanted notes, letters, e-mails, or other forms of written communication? 

• Followed you? 

• Spied on you or watched you from a distance? 

• Driven by your home, work, school, etc.? 

• Come to your home, work, school, etc.? 

• Approached you or made face-to-face contact? 

64

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• Left unwanted items, gifts, or flowers for you? 

• Spread rumors or posted information about you? 

• Tried to obtain information about you from a family member, friend, or acquaintance? 

• Entered or attempted to enter your home without your knowledge or permission? 

• Stolen something of yours? 

• Damaged or attempted to damage or destroy your personal property (e.g., home, car, 

other)? 

• Engaged or hired others to gather information about you or harass you? 

• Enrolled you in activities you did not want (e.g., a dating service, mailing list, subscription, 

etc.)? 

• Gone through or tampered with your mail? 

• Called your bank or a utility to try to obtain information about you? 

• Used/attempted to use your personal information to open/close an account in your name 

(e.g., bank account)? 

• Threatened to report you or reported you to authorities (e.g., police, child welfare, other)? 

• Initiated court proceedings against you (e.g., Civil Court, Family Court)? 

• Reported you to the police or had you arrested? 

• Used the internet to stalk or harass you? 

• Used a website, blog, bulletin board, or other to harass or stalk you? 

• Posted information about you on list serves, electronic message boards, online personal 

dating site, etc.? 

• Sent e-mails about you to your friends, family, co-workers, etc.? 

• Monitored your phone calls (bug, scanner, etc.) or computer use (hacking, spyware, or 

other method)? 

• Installed hidden cameras or other recording devices in or around your home? 

• Used Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to track your location? 

• Injured or killed your pets? 

• Threatened to harm him/her self? 

• Threatened to harm you? 

• Threatened to harm your children, family member, or other person you know? 

• Violate an order of protection? 

• Verbally abused you? 

• Physically harmed you? 

• Sexually abused you? 

• Other 

19. Stalking Behavior: Other 

INTERVIEWER: If other behaviors were listed on previous page, please describe them here. 

33. Please describe Other 

20. Criminal Justice Action I 

INTERVIEWER: Based on the Intake with the participant, please mark the appropriate box. 

*Only ask the question again if you do not recall this information from the Intake.* 

65

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
34. In the last month, has the participant, or anyone on the participant's behalf, contacted the 

police or any other authorities about any of the behaviors previously mentioned? 

• Yes 

• No 

• Don't know/Not sure 

21. Criminal Justice Action II 

35. You mentioned earlier that you, or someone on your behalf, has contacted the police or other 

authorities in the past month. What led you to contact the authorities? 

22. Criminal Justice Action III 

36. In the past month, specifically, what behaviors did you contact the authorities about? 

• Made unwanted phone calls (including hang-up calls) to you and/or left messages 

• Sent unwanted notes, letters, e-mails, or other forms of written communication 

• Followed you 

• Spied on you or watched you from a distance 

• Driven by your home, work, school, etc. 

• Come to your home, work, school, etc. 

• Approached you or made face-to-face contact 

• Left unwanted items, gifts, or flowers for you 

• Spread rumors or posted information about you 

• Tried to obtain information about you from a family member, friend, or acquaintance 

• Entered or attempted to enter your home without your knowledge or permission 

• Stolen something of yours 

• Damaged or attempted to damage or destroy your personal property (e.g., home, car, 

other) 

• Engaged or hired others to gather information about you or harass you 

• Enrolled you in activities you did not want (e.g., a dating service, mailing list, subscription, 

etc.) 

• Gone through or tampered with your mail 

• Called your bank or a utility to try to obtain information about you 

• Used/attempted to use your personal information to open/close an account in your name 

(e.g., bank account) 

• Threatened to report you or reported you to authorities (e.g., police, child welfare, other) 

• Initiated court proceedings against you (e.g., Civil Court, Family Court) 

• Reported you to the police or had you arrested 

• Used the internet to stalk or harass you 

• Used a website, blog, bulletin board, or other to harass or stalk you 

• Posted information about you on list serves, electronic message boards, online personal 

dating site, etc. 

• Sent e-mails about you to your friends, family, co-workers, etc. 

• Monitored your phone calls (bug, scanner, etc.) or computer use (hacking, spyware, or 

other method) 

• Installed hidden cameras or other recording devices in or around your home 

• Used Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to track your location 

66

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• Injured or killed your pets 

• Threatened to harm him/her self 

• Threatened to harm you 

• Threatened to harm your children, family member, or other person you know 

• Violate an order of protection 

• Verbally abused you 

• Physically harmed you 

• Sexually abused you 

• Other 

23. Criminal Justice Action IV 

INTERVIEWER: If other behaviors were listed on previous page, please describe them here. 

37. Please describe Other 

24. Criminal Justice Action V 

38. In terms of his/her stalking behavior, what do you think his/her response was to this/these 

criminal justice action(s) -- do you think it increased the stalking, decreased it, stopped it, or had 

no effect at all? 

• Increased stalking. 

• Stalking remained the same. 

• Decreased stalking, but stalking has not stopped. 

• Stopped the stalking. 

• Other (please specify) 

25. Order(s) of Protection I 

INTERVIEWER: Based on the Intake with the participant, please mark the appropriate box. 

*Only ask the question again if you do not recall this information from the Intake.* 

39. Does the participant currently have an order of protection against the stalker from the Criminal 

Court or the Family Court? 

• Yes, with Criminal Court 

• Yes, with Family Court 

• Yes, but doesn't know which court. 

• No 

• Don't know/Not sure 

26. Order(s) of Protection II 

67

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
40. Has s/he violated this/these order(s)? 

• Yes 

• No 

• Don't know/Not sure 

41. What do you think his/her response was to this/these order(s) in regard to the stalking -- do 

you think it increased the stalking, decreased it, stopped it, or had no effect at all? 

• Increased stalking. 

• Stalking remained the same. 

• Decreased stalking, but stalking has not stopped. 

• Stopped the stalking. 

• Other (please specify) 

27. Services & Advocacy I 

Now I am going to ask you a few questions about any services you may have received. 

42. In the past month, has anyone (other than a family member or friend) helped you with the 

stalking? 

• Yes 

• No 

• Don't know/Not sure 

28. Services & Advocacy II 

43. What kinds of services have you received in the past month to help you with the stalking? 

• Advocacy 

• Information 

• Referrals 

• Child services (e.g., child care, custody assistance, visitation assistance, child protection) 

• Concrete services (e.g., food voucher, transportation, clothing, crime victim 

compensation) 

• 911 cell phone 

• Lock change 

• Counseling (e.g., individual or group) 

• Safety planning 

• Accompaniment (e.g., sexual assault forensic accompaniment, court accompaniment, 

law enforcement accompaniment) 

• Shelter (e.g., domestic violence or homeless shelter) 

• Housing transfer (e.g., emergency or other subsidized housing transfer) 

• Subsidized housing application 

• Physical health services 

• Mental health services 

• Substance abuse services 

• Legal services 

• Court services 

68

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• Other (please specify) 

29. Services & Advocacy III 

44. Which of the following people or agencies have provided the services you just mentioned... 

• Police officer/detective? 

• DA/prosecutor? 

• Lawyer? 

• Counselor or therapist? 

• Clergy, religious, or spiritual leader? 

• Victim advocate? 

• Other? (please specify) 

30. Services & Advocacy: Needed 

45. Is there any kind of assistance that you need that has not been available or that you have not 

received? 

• Don't know/Not sure 

• No 

• Yes (please specify) 

46. On a scale from 1 to 7, how safe do you feel these days? Would you say you are... 

• Completely unsafe 

• Somewhat unsafe 

• Slightly unsafe 

• Neither safe nor unsafe 

• Slightly safe 

• Somewhat safe 

• Completely safe 

31. Safe Horizon Information 

INTERVIEWER: If a client would like to be contacted by Safe Horizon, please send an e-mail 

directly to the case manager and cc: the program director. In the e-mail, please indicate the 

client's name, phone number, and any other relevant information. 

Please request that the case manager e-mails or calls you back when they have contacted the 

client. This is so we know that the feedback loop has been closed. If you don't hear back from the 

case manager of program director, please contact them again to see the status of the information. 

47. Is there any information regarding Safe Horizon that you need? 

48. Would you like someone from the [Safe Horizon program client is receiving services from] to 

call you to talk about anything that has come up during our discussion? 

69

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• No 

• Yes (Please specify who) 

32. Conclusion of Baseline Interview 

We have reached the end of the Baseline Interview. Thank you for taking the time to answer our 

questions. 

[Monthly Follow-up Interviewer Name] will be calling you in about a month for your first monthly 

follow-up call. As a reminder, that phone call will last for about 15 minutes, and she will be calling 

you once a month for 12 months. 

49. Can she reach you at the phone number(s) you provided during our Intake? 

• Yes 

• No 

50. Are there any special instructions you have on how and when she can get in contact with 

you? 

• No 

• Yes (please specify) 

70

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX D: MONTHLY INTERVIEW 

Stalking Journey Monthly 

1. Introduction Script 

INTERVIEWER: Please note that the following script is only necessary during the FIRST monthly 

follow-up. After you have established a rapport with the client, the script provided here is not 

necessary. However, you do need to ask the three safety questions before beginning any 

conversation. 

"Hello, my name is -----. I am a researcher at Safe Horizon. [Name of Stalking Intake Staff] told 

me you were interested in participating in our study on stalking. 

"Is this a good time to talk for a few minutes?" 

"Are you able to talk privately at this time?" 

"Is this a safe time for you to talk, a time when you will not be overheard or interrupted?" 

INTERVIEWER: If she says no, tell her you will call back at another time and ask what time would 

be best. 

"Just as a reminder, the purpose of the study is to get a better understanding of the patterns of 

behavior of people who stalk others. We also want to learn whether different strategies are 

effective in discouraging or stopping stalkers. This would involve following up with you once per 

month for 12 months with short phone calls. You will be paid quarterly: $40 after 3 months, $40 

after 6 months, $40 after 9 months, and $60 after 12 months – that is, $205 for completing the 

entire study. These monthly follow-ups will last about 15 minutes and will be done by phone. 

"Are you able to complete the monthly follow-up interview now?" 

INTERVIEWER: If she is able to complete the monthly follow-up, go right ahead. If she is not able 

to do the monthly follow-up right away, set up the time and number for the monthly follow-up and 

be sure to record it on the Call Log. 

2. Monthly Follow-Up Information 

INTERVIEWER: Once you have determined that it is a safe time for the woman to talk, fill in 

these fields based on the information provided to you by the Research Department. 

1. Date of Monthly Follow-Up Interview 

Please enter the Case ID Number using the following format [Please do not enter any dashes]: 

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ 

2. Case ID Number 

3. Interviewer Name 

4. Language of Interview 

3. Client Contact Information I 

71

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
INTERVIEWER: Briefly run through the contact information you have for the client, and then ask 

her if any of it has changed. 

5. Has your contact information (i.e., phone numbers or mailing addresses) changed since the 

last time someone from the study spoke with you? 

• Yes 

• No

4. Client Contact Information II 

INTERVIEWER: If the client's contact information has changed, please update the fields which 

have changed. 

6. Safe number for contact 

7. Best time to contact you at this number 

8. Safe cell phone number at which to contact you 

9. Best time to contact you at that number 

10. Safe alternate contact number 

11. Best time to contact you at that number 

5. Client Contact Information III 

INTERVIEWER: If the client's contact information has changed, please update the fields which 

have changed. 

12. What is a safe address to mail you information if needed? 

• Street Address 

• City 

• Zip Code 

13. What is your living situation (e.g., live alone, with family, etc.) 

14. What is a safe alternate address to mail information to you if needed? 

• Street Address 

• City 

• Zip Code

8. Stalker Weapon Information

15. As far as you know, has s/he had access to a weapon in the last month? 

• Don't know/Not sure 

• No 

• Yes. What type of weapon? 

9. Recognition by Authorities 

16. Currently, is your situation recognized as stalking by... 

...the NYPD (DIR, police reports, etc.)? 

• Yes 

72

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• No 

...the courts (DA, court records, charges, etc.)? 

• Yes 

• No 

10. Health / Mental Distress 

Now I would like to ask you a few questions about your health. 

17. Would you say that in general your health is: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair or Poor? 

• Excellent 

• Very Good 

• Good 

• Fair 

• Poor 

• Don't know/Not sure 

• Refused 

18. Thinking about your physical health, which includes physical illness and injury, for about how 

many days during the past 30 days was your physical health not good? 

19. Now thinking about your mental health, which includes stress, depression, and problems with 

emotions, for about how many days during the past 30 days was your mental health not good? 

11. Stalking Behavior, Frequency, and Distress 

Now I'd like to ask you some questions about his/her behavior toward you. I will read through a 

range of possible ways s/he may have stalked you, harassed you or tried to get information about 

you. 

For each behavior or incident, please tell me if it happened in the LAST MONTH. If it did happen 

in the last month, I will ask you how often it happened (Never, 1-2x/month, Weekly, 2-3x/week, 

Daily) and how distressing it was for you (on a scale of 1 to 9, where 1 is "not at all distressing" 

and 9 is "very distressing". 

I want to remind you that you can skip any question, and that your answers are confidential. 

INTERVIEWER: If a behavior did not occur, you still need to indicate the frequency as "Never". 

20. In the past month, has s/he... 

Frequency 

Distress 

• Made unwanted phone calls (including hang-up calls) to you and/or left messages? 

• Sent unwanted notes, letters, e-mails, or other forms of written communication? 

• Followed you? 

• Spied on you or watched you from a distance? 

• Driven by your home, work, school, etc.? 

• Come to your home, work, school, etc.? 

• Approached you or made face-to-face contact? 

• Left unwanted items, gifts, or flowers for you? 

73

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• Spread rumors or posted information about you? 

• Tried to obtain information about you from a family member, friend, or acquaintance? 

• Entered or attempted to enter your home without your knowledge or permission? 

• Stolen something of yours? 

• Damaged or attempted to damage or destroy your personal property (e.g., home, car, 

other)? 

• Engaged or hired others to gather information about you or harass you? 

• Enrolled you in activities you did not want (e.g., a dating service, mailing list, subscription, 

etc.)? 

• Gone through or tampered with your mail? 

• Called your bank or a utility to try to obtain information about you? 

• Used/attempted to use your personal information to open/close an account in your name 

(e.g., bank account)? 

• Threatened to report you or reported you to authorities (e.g., police, child welfare, other)? 

• Initiated court proceedings against you (e.g., Civil Court, Family Court)? 

• Reported you to the police or had you arrested? 

• Used the internet to stalk or harass you? 

• Used a website, blog, bulletin board, or other to harass or stalk you? 

• Posted information about you on list serves, electronic message boards, online personal 

dating site, etc.? 

• Sent e-mails about you to your friends, family, co-workers, etc.? 

• Monitored your phone calls (bug, scanner, etc.) or computer use (hacking, spyware, or 

other method)? 

• Installed hidden cameras or other recording devices in or around your home? 

• Used Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to track your location? 

• Injured or killed your pets? 

• Threatened to harm him/her self? 

• Threatened to harm you? 

• Threatened to harm your children, family member, or other person you know? 

• Violate an order of protection? 

• Verbally abused you? 

• Physically harmed you? 

• Sexually abused you? 

• Other 

12. Stalking Behavior: Other 

INTERVIEWER: If other behaviors were listed on previous page, please describe them here. 

21. Please describe Other 

13. Overall Stalking Distress 

22. On a scale of 1 through 9, with 1 being not at all distressing and 9 being very distressing, how 

would you rate your overall distress level in regards to the stalking in the past month?

14. Criminal Justice Action I 

Now I will ask you about police, courts, or any other assistance you may have received in the last 

month. 

23. In the last month, have you, or anyone on your behalf, contacted the police or any other 

authorities about the stalking? 

74

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• Yes 

• No 

15. Criminal Justice Action II 

24. You mentioned earlier that you, or someone on your behalf, has contacted the police or other 

authorities in the past month. What led you to contact the authorities? 

16. Criminal Justice Action III 

25. In the past month, specifically, what behaviors did you contact the authorities about? 

• Made unwanted phone calls (including hang-up calls) to you and/or left messages 

• Sent unwanted notes, letters, e-mails, or other forms of written communication 

• Followed you 

• Spied on you or watched you from a distance 

• Driven by your home, work, school, etc. 

• Come to your home, work, school, etc. 

• Approached you or made face-to-face contact 

• Left unwanted items, gifts, or flowers for you 

• Spread rumors or posted information about you 

• Tried to obtain information about you from a family member, friend, or acquaintance 

• Entered or attempted to enter your home without your knowledge or permission 

• Stolen something of yours 

• Damaged or attempted to damage or destroy your personal property (e.g., home, car, 

other) 

• Engaged or hired others to gather information about you or harass you 

• Enrolled you in activities you did not want (e.g., a dating service, mailing list, subscription, 

etc.) 

• Gone through or tampered with your mail 

• Called your bank or a utility to try to obtain information about you 

• Used/attempted to use your personal information to open/close an account in your name 

(e.g., bank account) 

• Threatened to report you or reported you to authorities (e.g., police, child welfare, other) 

• Initiated court proceedings against you (e.g., Civil Court, Family Court) 

• Reported you to the police or had you arrested 

• Used the internet to stalk or harass you 

• Used a website, blog, bulletin board, or other to harass or stalk you 

• Posted information about you on list serves, electronic message boards, online personal 

dating site, etc. 

• Sent e-mails about you to your friends, family, co-workers, etc. 

• Monitored your phone calls (bug, scanner, etc.) or computer use (hacking, spyware, or 

other method) 

• Installed hidden cameras or other recording devices in or around your home 

• Used Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to track your location 

• Injured or killed your pets 

• Threatened to harm him/her self 

• Threatened to harm you 

• Threatened to harm your children, family member, or other person you know 

• Violate an order of protection 

• Verbally abused you 

• Physically harmed you 

• Sexually abused you 

75

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• Other 

17. Criminal Justice Action IV 

INTERVIEWER: If other behaviors were listed on previous page, please describe them here. 

26. Please describe Other 

18. Criminal Justice Actions V

27. Which of the following actions did the authorities take when you contacted them... 

• Referred you to family court? 

• Referred you to criminal court (DA)? 

• Referred you to services, such as victim assistance? 

• Gave you advice on how to protect yourself? 

• Took you to another location such as a hospital or shelter? 

• Asked you for more information or evidence? 

• Took a report? 

• Talked to or warned the perpetrator? 

• Told you to get a protection order? 

• Arrested the perpetrator? 

• Took no action 

• Other (please specify) 

19. Criminal Justice Action VI

28. In terms of his/her stalking behavior, what do you think his/her response was to this/these 

criminal justice action(s) -- do you think it increased the stalking, decreased it, stopped it, or had 

no effect at all? 

• Increased stalking. 

• Stalking remained the same. 

• Decreased stalking, but stalking has not stopped. 

• Stopped the stalking. 

• Other (please specify) 

20. Court Case I 

29. Is this case in court now? 

• Yes 

• No 

• Don’t Know 

21. Court Case II 

30. What is the current status of your case? What is/was the outcome? 

• Case is still pending 

• Case was dismissed 

• Case went to trial 

• ACD (Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal) 

• S/he was found not fit to stand trial 

• S/he was found not guilty by reason of insanity 

76

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• S/he was committed to a psychiatric institution 

• S/he pled guilty to charges 

• S/he was acquitted 

• S/he was convicted 

• S/he was sent to jail or prison 

• Don't Know 

• Other (please specify) 

22. Order(s) of Protection I 

31. In the past month, have you had an order of protection against the stalker from the Criminal 

Court or the Family Court?

• Yes, with Criminal Court. 

• Yes, with Family Court. 

• Yes, but doesn't know which court. 

• No 

• Don't know/Not sure 

23. Order(s) of Protection II 

32. Has s/he violated this order in the past month? 

• Yes 

• No 

• Don't know/Not sure 

33. What do you think his/her response was to this/these order(s) in regard to the stalking -- do 

you think it increased the stalking, decreased it, stopped it, or had no effect at all? 

• Increased stalking. 

• Stalking remained the same. 

• Decreased stalking, but stalking has not stopped. 

• Stopped the stalking. 

• Other (please specify) 

25. Services and Advocacy I 

34. In the past month, has anyone (other than a family member or friend) helped you with the 

stalking?

• Yes 

• No 

• Don't know/Not sure 

26. Services and Advocacy II 

35. What kinds of services have you received in the past month to help you with the stalking? 

• Advocacy 

• Information 

• Referrals 

• Child services (e.g., child care, custody assistance, visitation assistance, child protection) 

• Concrete services (e.g., food voucher, transportation, clothing, crime victim 

compensation) 

• 911 cell phone 

• Lock change 

77

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• Counseling (e.g., individual or group) 

• Safety planning 

• Accompaniment (e.g., sexual assault forensic accompaniment, court accompaniment, 

law enforcement accompaniment) 

• Shelter (e.g., domestic violence or homeless shelter) 

• Housing transfer (e.g., emergency or other subsidized housing transfer) 

• Subsidized housing application 

• Physical health services 

• Mental health services 

• Substance abuse services 

• Legal services 

• Court services 

• Other (please specify) 

 27. Services and Advocacy III 

36. Which of the following people or agencies have provided the services you just mentioned... 

• Police officer/detective? 

• DA/prosecutor? 

• Lawyer? 

• Counselor or therapist? 

• Clergy, religious, or spiritual leader? 

• Victim advocate? 

• Other (please specify) 

28. Services and Advocacy: Needed 

37. Is there any kind of assistance that you need that has not been available or that you have not 

received? 

• Don't know/Not sure 

• No 

• Yes (please specify) 

38. On a scale from 1 to 7, how safe do you feel these days? Would you say you are... 

• Completely unsafe 

• Somewhat unsafe 

• Slightly unsafe 

• Neither safe nor unsafe 

• Slightly safe 

• Somewhat safe 

• Completely safe 

29. Record Keeping 

INTERVIEWER: Based on your records, please mark the appropriate box. 

* Do NOT ask the client this question. You should use your records to mark the appropriate box. * 

39. Which monthly follow-up are you currently conducting? 

30. Monthly Follow-up Conclusion

78

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
INTERVIEWER: The Monthly Follow-Up interview is now complete. After asking the following two 

questions, remind the client you will be calling her again in one month. If possible, arrange an 

appointment for the next interview. 

If a client would like to be contacted by Safe Horizon, please send an e-mail directly to the case 

manager and cc: the program director. In the e-mail, please indicate the client's name, phone 

number, and any other relevant information. 

Please request that the case manager e-mails or calls you back when they have contacted the 

client. This is so we know that the feedback loop has been closed. If you don't hear back from the 

case manager of program director, please contact them again to see the status of the information. 

40. Is there any information about Safe Horizon that you need? 

41. Would you like someone from the [Safe Horizon program client is receiving services from] to 

call you to talk about anything that has come up during our discussion? 

• No 

• Yes. Please specify who: 

79

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.