U.S. Department of Justice
Oce of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bulletin
February 2022, NCJ 301735
Stalking Victimization, 2019
Rachel E. Morgan, Ph.D., and Jennifer L. Truman, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians
I
n 2019, an estimated 1.3% (3.4 million) of all
U.S. residents age 16 or older were victims
of stalking (gure 1). is was a statistically
signicant decrease from 2016 (1.5%) that was
largely driven by a decline in stalking with
technology only, from 1.3 million victims in 2016
to 1.1 million in 2019. (See appendix table 1.) In
comparison, the number of victims of traditional
stalking only or both traditional and technology
stalking did not change signicantly during this
period. Stalking includes repeated unwanted
contacts or behaviors that caused the victim
to experience fear or substantial emotional
distress or would cause a reasonable person to
experience fear or substantial emotional distress.
Findings are based on the 2019 Supplemental
Victimization Survey (SVS) to the National
Crime Victimization Survey. From July 2019
to December 2019, the SVS asked persons
age 16 or older about their experiences with
stalking during the 12 months preceding the
interview. is report details the demographic
characteristics of victims who were stalked
Figure 1
Prevalence of stalking, by type of stalking, 2016
and 2019
Percent of all persons age 16 or older
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Both traditional
stalking and stalking
with technology
Stalking with
technology only
Traditional
stalking only
Total
2019*
2016
†
†
Note: Estimates include 95% condence intervals. See appendix
table 1 for denitions. See appendix table 2 for estimates,
standard errors, and stalking denitions.
*Comparison year.
†Dierence with comparison year is signicant at the 95%
condence level.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization
Survey, Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2016 and 2019.
HIGHLIGHTS
About 1.3% (3.4 million) of all persons age 16 or
older were victims of stalking in 2019.
The percentage of persons who experienced
stalking declined from 1.5% in 2016 to 1.3%
in 2019.
Less than a third (29%) of all stalking victims
reported the victimization to police in 2019.
In 2019, females (1.8%) were stalked more than
twice as often as males (0.8%).
In 2019, an estimated 67% of victims of both
traditional stalking and stalking with technology
were fearful of being killed or physically harmed.
Most (67%) stalking victims knew their stalker.
Victims of both types of stalking in 2019 were
more likely to be stalked by an intimate partner
(35%) than victims of only traditional stalking
(11%) or only stalking with technology (18%).
Victims of both stalking types were more than
twice as likely to have applied for a restraining,
protection, or no-contact order as victims of
traditional or technology stalking only.
In 2019, about 16% of all stalking victims sought
victim services and 74% of the victims who
sought services received them.
STALKING VICTIMIZATION, 2019 | FEBRUARY 2022 2
during a 12-month period. It also describes the
characteristics of stalking victimization, including the
victim-oender relationship, self-protective actions
taken by the victim, patterns of reporting to police, and
whether the victim contacted a victim service provider
aer the victimization.
Two-thirds of victims of stalking with technology
received unwanted phone calls, voice messages, or
text messages in 2019
e most frequently reported traditional stalking
behaviors in 2019 included the oender following and
watching the victim (58%) or showing up at, riding
by, or driving by places where the oender had no
business being (49%) (table 1). Nearly 42% of victims
of traditional stalking said the oender harassed their
friends or family for information on their whereabouts.
Almost a third (31%) of traditional stalking victims said
the oender waited for them at home, school, or another
place. More than a h (22%) said the oender le or
sent unwanted items. In 2019, less than a h (17%) of
victims said that the oender snuck into their home,
car, or another place to let them know the oender had
been there.
Stalking with technology victims most commonly
received unwanted phone calls, voice messages, or text
messages (66%) in 2019, followed by unwanted emails or
messages via the Internet (55%). About 32% of victims of
this type of stalking said their activities were monitored
using social media. Twenty-nine percent experienced the
oender posting or threatening to post inappropriate,
unwanted, or personal information about them on
the Internet.
Twenty-two percent of stalking with technology victims
said the oender spied on them or monitored their
activities using technologies such as listening devices,
cameras, or computer or cellphone monitoring soware.
About 14% were tracked with an electronic tracking
device or application.
Table 1
Persons age 16 or older who were victims of stalking, by type of stalking behavior, 2019
Type of stalking behavior
Number
of stalking
victims
a
Percent
of stalking
victims
Percent of
all persons
b
Total 3,419,710 100% 1.3%
Any traditional stalking 2,300,830 67.3% 0.9%
Followed or watched 1,344,250 58.4 0.5
Showed up at/rode by/drove by places 1,122,720 48.8 0.4
Harassed/repeatedly asked friends/family for information 955,470 41.5 0.4
Waited at home/work/school/any other place 718,100 31.2 0.3
Left/sent unwanted items 507,800 22.1 0.2
Sneaked into home/car/any other place 391,880 17.0 0.2
Any stalking with technology 2,738,470 80.1% 1.1%
Made unwanted phone calls/left voice messages/sent text messages 1,802,160 65.8 0.7
Sent unwanted emails/messages using the Internet or social media 1,493,980 54.6 0.6
Monitored activities using social media 873,850 31.9 0.3
Posted/threatened to post inappropriate/unwanted/personal information
c
802,040 29.3 0.3
Spied on or monitored activities using technology 610,180 22.3 0.2
Tracked whereabouts with an electronic device/application 394,000 14.4 0.2
Note: Details may not sum to totals because victims could experience more than one type of stalking behavior. The total population age 16 or older was
260,731,490 in 2019. See appendix table 3 for standard errors. See Methodology for question wording for the types of stalking behaviors.
a
Number of persons age 16 or older who experienced stalking victimization in the past year.
b
Percentage of persons age 16 or older who experienced stalking victimization in the past year.
c
Includes posting private photographs, videos, or rumors.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2019.
STALKING VICTIMIZATION, 2019 | FEBRUARY 2022 3
Measuring stalking victimization
To be classied as a victim of stalking in the
Supplemental Victimization Survey (SVS), the respondent
must have experienced a repeated course of conduct (i.e.,
experienced the same behavior or contact more than
once or experienced two or more dierent behaviors one
time) that either—
caused them substantial emotional distress or to fear
for their safety or the safety of someone they know
(actual fear)
would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety
or the safety of someone they know.
Reasonable fear includes victimizations where the victim
reported that they experienced either—
damage, attempted damage, or destruction
of property
threatened, attempted, or completed attacks on the
victim, someone close to them, or a pet.
The SVS measured 12 types of stalking behaviors,
incorporating both traditional stalking and stalking
with technology.
Traditional stalking includes the following
unwanted behaviors:
following and watching
sneaking into a place
waiting at a place
showing up at a place
leaving or sending unwanted items
harassing friends or family about the
victim’s whereabouts.
Stalking with technology includes the following
unwanted behaviors:
making unwanted phone calls, leaving voice messages,
or sending text messages
spying using technology
tracking the victim’s whereabouts with an electronic
tracking device or application
posting or threatening to post unwanted information
on the Internet
sending unwanted emails or messages using
the Internet
monitoring activities using social media.
See Methodology for the SVS questions used to measure
actual fear, substantial emotional distress, reasonable
fear, and the types of unwanted behaviors that
victims experienced.
STALKING VICTIMIZATION, 2019 | FEBRUARY 2022 4
Less than a third of all stalking victims reported the
victimization to police in 2019
In 2019, 29% of all stalking victims reported the
stalking victimization to police (gure 2). Victims who
experienced both traditional stalking and stalking with
technology reported to police more oen (32%) than
victims who experienced stalking with technology only
(23%) (statistical testing performed and not shown).
From 2016 to 2019, reporting to police declined among
traditional stalking victims (from 39% to 30%) but
increased among stalking with technology victims
(from 16% to 23%). During this period, there was no
statistically signicant change in police reporting among
all stalking victims or victims who experienced both
types of stalking.
Crime victims chose not to report their victimization
to police for a variety of reasons. One of the most
common reasons was feeling that the victimization was
not important enough to report to police. In 2019, this
reason was cited by about 40% of all stalking victims,
traditional stalking victims, stalking with technology
victims, and victims who experienced both traditional
stalking and stalking with technology (table 2).
From 2016 to 2019, increasing shares of all stalking
victims and traditional stalking victims who did not
report to police said they did not think the police could
do anything to help. e portion of all stalking victims
citing this reason grew from 27% to 33% during this
period, while the percentage of traditional stalking
victims citing this reason rose from 21% to 39%.
Figure 2
Percent of stalking victims who reported to police, by
type of stalking, 2016 and 2019
Percent of stalking victims
0
10
20
30
40
50
Both traditional
stalking and stalking
with technology
c
Stalking with
technology only
b
Traditional
stalking only
a
Total
‡
†
2019*
2016
Note: Estimates include 95% condence intervals. See appendix table 4 for
estimates and standard errors.
*Comparison year.
†Dierence with comparison year is signicant at the 95% condence level.
‡Dierence with comparison year is signicant at the 90% condence level.
a
Includes the following types of unwanted behaviors: following; sneaking
into, waiting, or showing up at a place; leaving or sending unwanted
items; or harassing friends or family about the victim’s whereabouts.
b
Includes the following types of unwanted behaviors: making unwanted
phone calls, leaving voice messages, or sending text messages; spying
using technology; tracking the victim’s whereabouts with a tracking
device or application; posting or threatening to post unwanted
information on the Internet; sending emails or messages using the
Internet; or monitoring activities using social media.
c
Includes victims who experienced both types of stalking.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2016 and 2019.
STALKING VICTIMIZATION, 2019 | FEBRUARY 2022 5
Table 2
Percent of stalking victims, by type of stalking, reporting to police, and reason for not reporting, 2016 and 2019
Total stalking Traditional stalking only
a
Stalking with
technology only
b
Both traditional
stalking and stalking
with technology
c
2016 2019* 2016 2019* 2016 2019* 2016 2019*
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Reported to police 28.1% 28.7% 38.9% ‡ 29.6% 15.9% † 22.7% 32.9% 32.3%
Not reported to police 70.2% 70.9% 59.9% † 70.3% 83.5% † 77.1% 64.4% 66.9%
Reason not reported
d
Not important enough to report 40.6 41.6 47.7 43.8 42.0 43.0 36.8 39.5
Dealt with it another way 37.8 40.3 38.4 34.7 36.0 39.1 39.2 43.8
Police couldn’t do anything 26.5 † 32.9 20.6 † 39.0 30.9 33.0 24.5 30.3
Police wouldn’t help 15.5 ‡ 19.4 19.9 24.3 12.9 15.1 16.3 20.8
Other/unknown reason
e
13.2 15.5 16.3 12.3 7.4 6.7 17.7 ‡ 24.0
Feared oender 6.3 7.8 7.2 11.3 3.8 5.0 8.5 8.5
Number of victims 3,788,800 3,419,710 703,250 681,240 1,316,360 1,118,890 1,769,190 1,619,580
Note: Details may not sum to totals due to missing data and because victims could select more than one reason for not reporting to police. Data on
reporting to police were missing for 1.7% of all stalking victimizations in 2016 and 0.4% in 2019. See appendix table 5 for standard errors.
*Comparison year.
†Dierence with comparison year is signicant at the 95% condence level.
‡Dierence with comparison year is signicant at the 90% condence level.
a
Includes the following types of unwanted behaviors: following; sneaking into, waiting, or showing up at a place; leaving or sending unwanted items; or
harassing friends or family about the victim’s whereabouts.
b
Includes the following types of unwanted behaviors: making unwanted phone calls, leaving voice messages, or sending text messages; spying using
technology; tracking the victim’s whereabouts with a tracking device or application; posting or threatening to post unwanted information on the Internet;
sending emails or messages using the Internet; or monitoring activities using social media.
c
Includes victims who experienced both types of stalking.
d
Includes victims who did not report the stalking to police. Details do not sum to totals because victims could select more than one reason for not
reporting to police.
e
Includes victims who said they did not trust police, felt ashamed or embarrassed, or did not want to get the oender in trouble with the law; the oender
was an ex-spouse or ex-partner; they obtained a protection order instead; the victim or oender moved away; it was for their children’s well-being; the
unwanted contacts or behaviors stopped; some other reason; or the reason was unknown.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2016 and 2019.
STALKING VICTIMIZATION, 2019 | FEBRUARY 2022 6
Cyberstalking victimization
There is no uniform denition of cyberstalking victimization
in the United States. However, the federal denition and
many state denitions include similar elements. The federal
legal denition of cyberstalking was expanded under
the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act of 2005 to include all communications
via software that use the Internet or Internet-based
technologies.
1
In 2013, the denition of cyberstalking was
expanded to include “any interactive computer service or
electronic communication service,” including interstate and
foreign electronic communication.
2
Throughout this report, estimates are reported for victims
of stalking with technology. In the 2019 Supplemental
Victimization Survey (SVS), stalking with technology
includes unwanted phone calls or text messages,
as well as unwanted behaviors using electronic
communication or technology (e.g., social media or GPS).
Cyberstalking includes stalking through any form of
information technology, like online platforms or location
tracking devices, and excludes making unwanted phone
calls, leaving voice messages, or sending text messages.
Denitions and laws vary for cyberstalking and may or
may not include sending text messages using mobile
devices. However, the SVS cannot separate making
phone calls or leaving voice messages from sending text
messages. (See Methodology for details on the wording of
SVS items.)
In 2019, an estimated 0.4% (936,310 persons) of all U.S.
residents age 16 or older were victims of cyberstalking,
and about 0.2% (538,690 persons) received unwanted
emails or messages using the Internet or social
media (table 3). Approximately 0.1% of all persons
age 16 or older were monitored using social media
(304,890 persons) or had unwanted information posted
about them on the Internet (326,540 persons). About
0.1% of all persons age 16 or older were spied on using
technologies (310,350 persons) or had their whereabouts
tracked with an electronic device or application
(168,150 persons).
1
Violence Against Women and Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act of 2005, 109 U.S.C. § 3402 et seq. (2005).
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr3402enr/pdf/BILLS-
109hr3402enr.pdf
2
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, 113 U.S.C.
§ 2261A et seq. (2013). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-
113s47enr/pdf/BILLS-113s47enr.pdf
Table 3
Prevalence of cyberstalking, by type of cyberstalking behavior, 2019
Type of cyberstalking behavior
Number of
cyberstalking victims
a
Percent of all persons
b
Total 936,310 0.4%
Sent victim unwanted emails/messages using the Internet or social media 538,690 0.2
Monitored activities using social media 304,890 0.1
Posted/threatened to post inappropriate/unwanted/personal information
c
326,540 0.1
Spied on or monitored activities using technology 310,350 0.1
Tracked whereabouts with an electronic device/application 168,150 0.1
Note: Estimates in this table include victims who experienced cyberstalking, which includes stalking through any form of information technology
and excludes making unwanted phone calls, leaving voice messages, or sending text messages. Details may not sum to totals because victims could
experience more than one type of cyberstalking behavior. The total population age 16 or older in 2019 was 260,731,490. See appendix table 6 for
standard errors. See Methodology for question wording for the types of cyberstalking behaviors.
a
Number of persons age 16 or older who experienced cyberstalking victimization in the past year.
b
Percentage of persons age 16 or older who experienced cyberstalking victimization in the past year.
c
Includes posting private photographs, videos, or rumors.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2019.
STALKING VICTIMIZATION, 2019 | FEBRUARY 2022 7
Persons ages 20 to 24 were stalked more often than
persons ages 35 or older
In 2019, the prevalence of stalking was higher among
females (1.8%) than males (0.8%) (table 4). Compared
to white persons, stalking prevalence was higher among
persons of two or more races (3.9%) and persons who
were American Indian or Alaska Native (3.3%). Rates
of stalking were lower for black persons (1.1%) and
persons who were Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Other
Pacic Islander (1.1%) compared to white persons
(1.3%). ere was no statistically signicant dierence
in the prevalence of stalking between white persons and
Hispanic persons.
Persons ages 20 to 24 (2.0%) were stalked more oen
than persons in age groups over 35. Separated persons
were stalked more oen (3.8%) than persons of all other
marital statuses. Persons living in households earning
less than $25,000 annually (2.1%) were stalked more
oen than persons living in households earning $25,000
or more annually.
Table 4
Prevalence of stalking, by demographic characteristics of
victims, 2019
Victim demographic characteristic
Number
of victims
a
Percent of
all persons
b
Total 3,419,710 1.3%
Sex
Male* 982,080 0.8%
Female 2,437,630 † 1.8 †
Race/ethnicity
White
c
* 2,188,360 1.3%
Black
c
342,430 † 1.1 ‡
Hispanic 515,110 † 1.2
Asian/Native Hawaiian/
Other Pacic Islander
c,d
179,840 † 1.1 ‡
American Indian/Alaska Native
c
48,940 † 3.3 †
Two or more races
c
145,030 † 3.9 †
Age
16–19 239,650 † 1.5% ‡
20–24* 426,840 2.0
25–34 796,270 † 1.7
35–49 942,610 † 1.5 †
50–64 690,500 † 1.1 †
65 or older 323,830 ‡ 0.6 †
Marital status
Never married 1,394,440 † 1.7% †
Married 973,100 † 0.8 †
Widowed 126,680 ‡ 0.8 †
Divorced 719,900 † 2.5 †
Separated* 197,250 3.8
Household income
Less than $25,000* 891,650 2.1%
$25,000–$49,999 816,730 1.3 †
$50,000–$99,999 1,024,140 1.2 †
$100,000–$199,999 536,110 † 1.1 †
$200,000 or more 151,080 † 0.9 †
Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. See appendix table 7
for standard errors.
*Comparison group.
†Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 95% condence level.
‡Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 90% condence level.
a
Number of persons age 16 or older who experienced stalking
victimization in the past year.
b
Percentage of persons age 16 or older who experienced stalking
victimization in the past year.
c
Excludes persons of Hispanic origin (e.g., “white” refers to non-Hispanic
white persons and “black” refers to non-Hispanic black persons).
d
Categories are not shown separately due to small numbers of sample cases.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2019.
STALKING VICTIMIZATION, 2019 | FEBRUARY 2022 8
Most stalking victims knew their stalker
In 2019, about 67% of victims of stalking knew their
stalker in some capacity (table 5). Victims were more
likely to be stalked by a well-known or casual acquaintance
(38%) or current or ex-intimate partner (25%) than by a
relative (5%) (statistical testing performed and not shown).
Victims of both traditional stalking and stalking with
technology were more likely to be stalked by a known
oender (81%) than victims of traditional stalking only
(56%) or stalking with technology only (54%). Victims
of both stalking types were three times as likely to
be stalked by an intimate partner (35%) as victims of
traditional stalking only (11%) and two times as likely as
victims of stalking with technology only (18%).
In 2019, about 18% of victims were stalked by a stranger
and 14% were unable to identify their relationship to the
oender. Victims of traditional stalking were more likely
to be stalked by a stranger (30%) than victims of stalking
with technology (19%) or both types of stalking (12%).
Victims of stalking with technology were more likely to
not know their relationship to the oender (26%) than
victims of traditional stalking (13%) or both stalking
types (6%).
Table 5
Percent of stalking victims, by type of stalking and victim-oender relationship, 2019
Type of victim-oender relationship Total stalking Traditional stalking only
a
Stalking with
technology only
b
Both traditional
stalking and stalking
with technology
c
*
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Known 67.2% 55.8% † 54.3% † 80.9%
Intimate partner
d
24.8 11.2 † 17.6 † 35.5
Current partner 5.8 2.8 ! 5.6 7.2
Ex-partner 19.0 8.4 † 12.0 † 28.3
Other relative 4.8 6.2 4.6 4.3
Well-known/casual acquaintance 37.6 38.4 32.1 † 41.1
Friend/ex-friend 7.2 6.6 9.3 6.0
Acquaintance/in-law or relative of spouse
or ex-spouse/friend of one of the
oenders/other 12.6 9.6 ‡ 11.1 15.0
Roommate/housemate/boarder/neighbor 8.4 14.4 ‡ 4.3 † 8.8
Professional acquaintance
e
9.4 7.9 7.5 ‡ 11.4
Stranger 18.1% 30.1% † 19.3% † 12.2%
Unknown
f
13.9% 12.8% † 26.0% † 6.0%
Number of victims 3,419,710 681,240 1,118,890 1,619,580
Note: Details may not sum to totals due to missing data, which occurred in about 1% of all stalking victimizations. See appendix table 8 for standard errors.
*Comparison group. Percentage of victims by victim-oender relationship compared to each stalking type and not total stalking.
†Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 95% condence level.
‡Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 90% condence level.
! Interpret data with caution. Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coecient of variation is greater than 50%.
a
Includes the following types of unwanted behaviors: following; sneaking into, waiting, or showing up at a place; leaving or sending unwanted items; or
harassing friends or family about the victim’s whereabouts.
b
Includes the following types of unwanted behaviors: making unwanted phone calls, leaving voice messages, or sending text messages; spying using
technology; tracking the victim’s whereabouts with a tracking device or application; posting or threatening to post unwanted information on the Internet;
sending emails or messages using the Internet; or monitoring activities using social media.
c
Includes victims who experienced both types of stalking.
d
Includes current or former spouses or partners, boyfriends or girlfriends, or other romantic or sexual partners.
e
Includes schoolmates, supervisors (current or former), coworkers (current or former), teachers or school sta, customers or clients, patients, students, and
employees (current or former).
f
Includes unknown victim-oender relationships and unknown number of oenders.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2019.
STALKING VICTIMIZATION, 2019 | FEBRUARY 2022 9
Twenty-four percent of victims said the stalking
behaviors lasted 2 years or more
In 2019, nearly 44% of stalking victims experienced
stalking behaviors that lasted 1 month to less than
1 year (table 6). Twenty-four percent of victims said the
stalking behaviors lasted 2 years or more. A greater share
of traditional stalking victims (28%) and stalking with
technology victims (20%) experienced stalking behaviors
for less than 1 month compared to victims of both types
of stalking (12%).
For more than half (58%) of stalking victims, the
stalking behaviors occurred 2 to 10 times during the
victimization. A smaller share of victims of both types
of stalking (49%) said the behaviors happened 2 to 10
times during the victimization compared to victims
of traditional stalking only (81%) and stalking with
technology only (57%). Victims of both stalking types
(25%) were more than three times as likely to say the
stalking behaviors happened 11 to 50 times as victims
of traditional stalking only (7%). Fourteen percent of
victims of both stalking types said the stalking behaviors
happened too many times to count.
Table 6
Percent of stalking victims, by type of stalking and duration and frequency of stalking, 2019
Stalking duration and frequency Total stalking Traditional stalking only
a
Stalking with
technology only
b
Both traditional stalking and
stalking with technology
c
*
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Duration
Less than 1 month 17.6% 27.8% † 20.0% † 11.6%
1 month to less than 1 year 43.7 39.1 42.6 46.4
1 year to less than 2 years 12.5 10.2 13.2 12.9
2 years or more 24.0 21.5 21.5 26.8
Unknown 2.1 1.4 ! 2.7 1.9
Frequency
2 to 10 times
d
58.1% 81.1% † 57.1% † 49.1%
11 to 50 times 19.2 6.8 † 18.7 ‡ 24.8
More than 50 times 7.2 3.0 ! 8.3 8.1
Too many times to count 10.8 2.8 ! 11.4 13.8
Don’t know/don’t remember 4.3 5.4 4.5 3.7
Number of victims 3,419,710 681,240 1,118,890 1,619,580
Note: Details may not sum to totals due to missing data, which occurred in less than 1% of all stalking victimizations. See appendix table 9 for standard errors.
*Comparison group. Percentage of victims by duration and frequency of stalking compared to each stalking type and not total stalking.
†Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 95% condence level.
‡Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 90% condence level.
! Interpret data with caution. Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coecient of variation is greater than 50%.
a
Includes the following types of unwanted behaviors: following; sneaking into, waiting, or showing up at a place; leaving or sending unwanted items; or
harassing friends or family about the victim’s whereabouts.
b
Includes the following types of unwanted behaviors: making unwanted phone calls, leaving voice messages, or sending text messages; spying using
technology; tracking the victim’s whereabouts with a tracking device or application; posting or threatening to post unwanted information on the Internet;
sending emails or messages using the Internet; or monitoring activities using social media.
c
Includes victims who experienced both types of stalking.
d
Unwanted contacts or behaviors had to happen more than once for the respondent to screen into the Supplemental Victimization Survey.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2019.
STALKING VICTIMIZATION, 2019 | FEBRUARY 2022 10
Victims of both stalking types were more than twice
as likely as other stalking victims to have applied for
a restraining, protection, or no-contact order
Stalking victims took a variety of actions to protect
themselves from the oender. In 2019, about 24% of
stalking victims changed their day-to-day activities to
protect themselves or stop the unwanted contacts or
behaviors (table 7). A greater percentage of victims of
both traditional stalking and stalking with technology
(34%) than victims of traditional stalking only (21%)
or stalking with technology only (13%) changed their
day-to-day activities.
Victims of both stalking types (28%) and victims of
traditional stalking only (28%) were more likely to
have engaged in self-defensive actions or other security
measures than victims of stalking with technology only
(12%). Victims of both types of stalking were more than
two times as likely to have applied for a restraining,
protection, or no-contact order (13%) as victims of
traditional stalking only (6%) or stalking with technology
only (5%).
Table 7
Percent of stalking victims, by type of stalking and victim’s self-protective actions, 2019
Self-protective action taken Total stalking Traditional stalking only
a
Stalking with
technology only
b
Both traditional
stalking and stalking
with technology
c
*
Any self-protective action taken 77.7% 51.2% 81.5% 86.2%
Changed day-to-day activities 24.2 20.8 † 12.5 † 33.6
Blocked unwanted calls/messages/other
communications 62.6 20.2 † 73.8 72.6
Self-defensive action/security measure
d
22.9 27.5 12.3 † 28.3
Changed personal information 26.8 7.2 † 28.3 34.1
Applied for a restraining/protection/
no-contact order 8.8 5.9 † 5.0 † 12.5
Number of victims 3,419,710 681,240 1,118,890 1,619,580
Note: Details may not sum to 100% because victims could take more than one self-protective action. See appendix table 10 for standard errors.
*Comparison group. Percentage of victims who took self-protective actions compared to each stalking type and not total stalking.
†Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 95% condence level.
a
Includes the following types of unwanted behaviors: following; sneaking into, waiting, or showing up at a place; leaving or sending unwanted items; or
harassing friends or family about the victim’s whereabouts.
b
Includes the following types of unwanted behaviors: making unwanted phone calls, leaving voice messages, or sending text messages; spying using
technology; tracking the victim’s whereabouts with a tracking device or application; posting or threatening to post unwanted information on the Internet;
sending emails or messages using the Internet; or monitoring activities using social media.
c
Includes victims who experienced both types of stalking.
d
Includes taking self-defense or martial arts classes, getting pepper spray, getting a gun or other weapon, or changing or installing new locks or security
system.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2019.
STALKING VICTIMIZATION, 2019 | FEBRUARY 2022 11
67% of victims of both types of stalking were fearful
of being killed or physically harmed
More than three-hs (61%) of stalking victims were
fearful of not knowing what would happen next as a
consequence of the stalking victimization (table 8).
A greater share of victims of both traditional stalking
and stalking with technology (67%) than victims
of traditional stalking only (52%) or stalking with
technology only (30%) were fearful of being killed or
physically harmed as a result of the stalking. Victims of
both stalking types were also more fearful of someone
close to them being harmed; losing their job, social
network, peers, friends, or freedom; the behaviors never
stopping; not knowing what would happen next; or
losing their mind.
Table 8
Percent of stalking victims, by type of stalking and victim’s fears, 2019
Victim’s fear Total stalking Traditional stalking only
a
Stalking with
technology only
b
Both traditional
stalking and stalking
with technology
c
*
Being killed or physical/bodily harm 51.8% 51.6% † 29.7% † 67.0%
Being killed 15.7 13.7 † 8.0 † 22.0
Physical/bodily harm 36.0 38.0 21.8 † 45.0
Someone close to victim being harmed 32.3% 31.9% ‡ 22.1% † 39.5%
Loss of job or job opportunities/freedom/
social network/peers/friends 57.2% 37.2% † 42.3% † 76.0%
Loss of job/job opportunities 16.6 8.7 † 13.9 † 21.8
Loss of freedom 24.5 21.2 † 13.9 † 33.3
Loss of social network/peers/friends 16.1 7.3 † 14.5 † 21.0
Behaviors never stopping 55.1% 44.9% † 47.6% † 64.5%
Not knowing what would happen next 61.2% 58.9% † 50.1% † 69.7%
Losing one’s mind 19.1% 12.5% † 14.5% † 25.2%
Number of victims 3,419,710 681,240 1,118,890 1,619,580
Note: Details may not sum to 100% because victims could experience more than one type of fear. See appendix table 11 for standard errors.
*Comparison group. Percentage of victims by type of fear compared to each stalking type and not total stalking.
†Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 95% condence level.
‡Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 90% condence level.
a
Includes the following types of unwanted behaviors: following; sneaking into, waiting, or showing up at a place; leaving or sending unwanted items; or
harassing friends or family about the victim’s whereabouts.
b
Includes the following types of unwanted behaviors: making unwanted phone calls, leaving voice messages, or sending text messages; spying using
technology; tracking the victim’s whereabouts with a tracking device or application; posting or threatening to post unwanted information on the Internet;
sending emails or messages using the Internet; or monitoring activities using social media.
c
Includes victims who experienced both types of stalking.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2019.
STALKING VICTIMIZATION, 2019 | FEBRUARY 2022 12
About 1 in 6 stalking victims sought assistance from
a victim service provider
Victim service providers (VSPs) are public or private
organizations that provide assistance to crime victims.
In 2019, about 16% of all stalking victims sought such
services (gure 3). A greater share (21%) of victims of
both traditional stalking and stalking with technology
sought victim services than victims of traditional stalking
only (8%) or stalking with technology only (13%).
Figure 3
Percent of stalking victims who sought victim services, by
type of stalking, 2019
Percent of stalking victims
0
5
10
15
20
25
Both traditional
stalking and stalking
with technology
c
*
Stalking with
technology only
b
Traditional
stalking only
a
Total
†
†
Note: Estimates include 95% condence intervals. See appendix table 12
for estimates and standard errors.
*Comparison group. Percentage of victims who sought victim services
compared to each stalking type and not total stalking.
†Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 95% condence level.
a
Includes the following types of unwanted behaviors: following; sneaking
into, waiting, or showing up at a place; leaving or sending unwanted
items; or harassing friends or family about the victim’s whereabouts.
b
Includes the following types of unwanted behaviors: making unwanted
phone calls, leaving voice messages, or sending text messages; spying
using technology; tracking the victim’s whereabouts with a tracking device
or application; posting or threatening to post unwanted information on
the Internet; sending emails or messages using the Internet; or monitoring
activities using social media.
c
Includes victims who experienced both types of stalking.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2019.
More than 60% of stalking victims who sought
and received victim services obtained counseling
or therapy
VSPs provide a variety of services to victims of crime.
In 2019, 74% of stalking victims who sought services
received them (table 9). Of the stalking victims who
sought and received victim services, about 62% obtained
counseling or therapy from a VSP. About 1 in 3 (35%)
received legal or court services, and about 1 in 4 (26%)
received shelter/safehouse services or safety planning
services. Stalking victims also received assistance in
getting a restraining, protection, or no-contact order
(24%); a risk or threat assessment (18%); crisis hotline
counseling (14%); and medical advocacy (8%).
Nearly one-quarter (23%) of stalking victims who sought
victim services did not receive them. Victims may not
receive services for a variety of reasons, including the
services not being available in the victim’s area, the VSP
not being able to accommodate the victim, language
barriers between the victim and VSP, and the victim not
being eligible for services for some reason (not shown
in table).
Table 9
Percent of stalking victims who sought and received
victim services, by type of service received, 2019
Type of victim service
Percent of
stalking victims
Victim services were received
a,b
73.7%
Counseling/therapy 61.7
Legal/court services 34.5
Shelter/safehouse service or safety planning 26.4
Assistance getting a restraining/protection/
no-contact order 23.7
Other type of service 21.6
Risk/threat assessment 18.5
Crisis hotline counseling 13.7
Medical advocacy 7.8
Short-term/emergency nancial assistance 7.0
Federal/state victim compensation 3.1 !
Victim services were not received
a
23.3%
Number of victims who sought victim services 544,500
Note: Details may not sum to totals due to missing data and because
victims could receive more than one service. For 3% of stalking victims
who sought victim services, it was unknown whether they received any
services. See appendix table 13 for standard errors.
! Interpret data with caution. Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample
cases, or coecient of variation is greater than 50%.
a
Percentage denominator is the total number of victims who sought
victim services.
b
For all victim service types listed, percentage denominator is the total
number of victims who received victim services.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2019.
STALKING VICTIMIZATION, 2019 | FEBRUARY 2022 13
Methodology
Data collection
e U.S. Census Bureau carries out the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS) and its Supplemental
Victimization Survey (SVS) on behalf of the Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS). e NCVS collects data on crimes
reported or not reported to police against persons age
12 or older from a nationally representative sample of
U.S. households. e sample includes persons living in
group quarters (such as dormitories, rooming houses,
and religious group dwellings) and excludes persons
living in military barracks and institutional settings (such
as correctional or hospital facilities) and persons who
are homeless.
From July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019, persons
age 16 or older in sampled NCVS households received
the SVS at the end of the NCVS interview. Proxy
responders to the NCVS interview did not receive the
SVS. All NCVS and SVS interviews were conducted
using computer-assisted personal interviewing, either
by telephone or an in-person visit. Of the 141,300
original NCVS-eligible respondents age 16 or older,
approximately 105,000 completed the SVS questionnaire,
resulting in a response rate of 74.3%.
e combined SVS unit response rate for NCVS
households, NCVS persons, and SVS persons was 51.9%.
Because of the level of nonresponse, a bias analysis was
conducted. e results indicated that there was little to
no substantive bias due to nonresponse in the nal SVS
weighted estimates.
e SVS collected individual-level data on the
prevalence of stalking victimization among persons,
the characteristics of stalking victims, and the patterns
of reporting to the police and other authorities.
Respondents were asked whether they were stalked
during the 12 months prior to the interview. For
example, persons interviewed in July 2019 were asked
about stalking victimization that occurred between
July 2018 and June 2019. Stalking victimizations were
classied by the year of the survey and not by the year of
the victimization.
Persons who reported a stalking victimization were
asked more detailed questions about their victimization
and their responses to it, such as the victim-oender
relationship, physical and emotional consequences to the
victim, self-protective measures taken, and the response
of the criminal justice system. For most sections of the
survey, the SVS asked stalking victims to think about
the person or persons who committed these unwanted
contacts or behaviors in the last 12 months when
answering questions.
Changes to the measurement of stalking
victimization in the SVS
BJS rst collected data from the SVS in 2006. e
supplement was designed in 2005, shortly before federal
stalking laws changed under the Violence Against
Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act
of 2005 (VAWA). VAWA expanded the legal denition of
cyberstalking to include all communications via soware
that use the Internet or Internet-based technologies. e
law also expanded the victim-harm requirement to
include substantial emotional harm to the victim in
addition to actual or reasonable fear.
3
In 2013, VAWA was amended to address presence,
intimidation, substantial emotional distress, and
cyberstalking.
4
First, the law was expanded to apply
to any person stalking another person within U.S.
waters, territorial jurisdictions, or states. Second, the
stalker’s intent previously had to be to kill, injure, harass,
or place a person under surveillance, and this was
expanded to include intimidation. ird, the law was
expanded to include acts that caused, were intended
to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause
substantial emotional distress. Finally, the denition of
cyberstalking was expanded to include any electronic
communication, including interstate and foreign
electronic communication.
In 2015, BJS redesigned the 2006 SVS instrument to
incorporate the 2005 and 2013 updates to VAWA. e
redesigned instrument began with a series of screener
questions about each element of VAWA’s stalking
denition. e screener included expanded questions
about unwanted contacts and behaviors associated
with traditional stalking and stalking with technology.
Separate screener questions were also developed to
measure victim responses of fear and substantial
emotional distress.
If the respondent’s answers identied them as a stalking
victim, the survey instrument included additional
questions focused on details of the stalking victimization.
In addition to the changes to the instrument, BJS lowered
the minimum age of survey respondents from 18 to 16.
3
Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization
Act of 2005, 109 U.S.C. § 3402 et seq. (2005). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
pkg/BILLS-109hr3402enr/pdf/BILLS-109hr3402enr.pdf
4
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, 113 U.S.C.
§ 2261A et seq. (2013). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-
113s47enr/pdf/BILLS-113s47enr.pdf
STALKING VICTIMIZATION, 2019 | FEBRUARY 2022 14
Due to these changes, estimates from the 2016 and 2019
SVS cannot be compared to estimates from the 2006
SVS. Minor instrument revisions were made for the 2019
SVS, so estimates from the 2019 SVS can be compared to
estimates from the 2016 SVS.
e 2019 SVS can be used to estimate stalking
prevalence for persons age 16 or older in the United
States. e stalking screener questions allow for
better measurement of the types of stalking behaviors
experienced by respondents, especially stalking with
technology. Improvements to the questions about the
stalking incident enhanced the ability to describe the
characteristics of stalking victimizations.
Dening stalking victimization
ere is no nationwide denition of stalking
victimization. However, the federal denition and
many state denitions include similar components. In
developing the SVS, BJS used the expertise of a range
of federal (including the Department of Justice’s Oce
on Violence Against Women and Oce for Victims
of Crime) and private sources in the elds of criminal
justice and victim services. See Stalking Victimization,
2016 (NCJ 253526, BJS, April 2021) for more information
on state stalking laws.
Measuring stalking with the SVS
Because the SVS denition of stalking is aligned with the
federal denition, to be classied as a victim of stalking
in the SVS, the respondent must have experienced
a repeated course of conduct that caused them to
experience fear or substantial emotional distress or that
would cause a reasonable person to experience fear or
substantial emotional distress.
e SVS screener questions collected the following
elements of that denition: (1) unwanted contacts
or behaviors, (2) a repeated course of conduct (i.e.,
experiencing the same behavior or contact more than
once or experiencing two or more dierent behaviors one
time), (3) actual fear, (4) substantial emotional distress,
and (5) reasonable fear.
Questions used to measure stalking behaviors
SQ1. In the past 12 months, have you experienced
any unwanted contacts or behaviors? By that I mean
has anyone—
a. Followed you around and watched you?
b. [Has anyone] Snuck into your home, car, or any place
else and did unwanted things to let you know they had
been there?
c. [Has anyone] Waited for you at your home, work,
school, or any place else when you didn’t want
them to?
d. [Still thinking about unwanted contacts and behaviors,
in the past 12 months, has anyone] Shown up, ridden
or driven by places where you were when they had no
business being there?
e. [Has anyone] Le or sent unwanted items, cards,
letters, presents, owers, or any other unwanted items?
f. [Has anyone] Harassed or repeatedly asked your
friends or family for information about you or
your whereabouts?
Now I want to ask about unwanted contacts or behaviors
using various technologies, such as your phone, the
Internet, or social media apps. Again, please DO NOT
include bill collectors, solicitors, or other sales people. In
the past 12 months, has anyone—
g. Made unwanted phone calls to you, le voice
messages, sent text messages, or used the phone
excessively to contact you?
h. [Has anyone] Spied on you or monitored your
activities using technologies such as a listening
device, camera, or computer or cell phone
monitoring soware?
i. [Still thinking about unwanted contacts or behaviors,
in the past 12 months, has anyone] Tracked your
whereabouts with an electronic tracking device or
application, such as GPS or an application on your
cell phone?
j. [Has anyone] Posted or threatened to post
inappropriate, unwanted, or personal information
about you on the Internet, including private
photographs, videos, or spreading rumors?
k. [Has anyone] Sent unwanted e-mails or messages
using the Internet, for example, using social media
apps or websites like Instagram, Twitter, or Facebook?
l. [Has anyone] Monitored your activities using social
media apps like Instagram, Twitter, or Facebook?
STALKING VICTIMIZATION, 2019 | FEBRUARY 2022 15
Question used to measure repetition
SQ2. Has anyone done (this/any of these things) to you
more than once in the past 12 months?
If the respondent answered ‘no’ to this question, but had
experienced more than one of the stalking behaviors, the
interview continued and they were asked about fear and
emotional distress.
Questions used to measure actual fear and substantial
emotional distress
SQ3a. Did any of these unwanted contacts or behaviors
make you fear for your safety or the safety of someone
close to you?
SQ3b. Did any of these unwanted contacts or behaviors
cause you substantial emotional distress?
Questions used to measure reasonable fear
Now I have some additional questions about the time
someone {behavior
1
}, {behavior
2
}, and {behavior
x
...}.
inking about the person or persons who committed
these unwanted contacts or behaviors in the past
12 months, did any of the following occur—
SQ4. Did this person or these people damage or attempt
to damage or destroy property belonging to you or
someone else in your household?
SQ5. [inking about the person or persons who
committed these unwanted contacts or behaviors in the
past 12 months] Did this person or these people—
Physically attack you?
Attempt to physically attack you?
reaten to physically attack you?
SQ6. [inking about the person or persons who
committed these unwanted contacts or behaviors in the
past 12 months] Did this person or these people—
Physically attack someone close to you or a pet?
Attempt to physically attack someone close to you or
a pet?
reaten to physically attack someone close to you or
a pet?
Of the 3.4 million stalking victims in 2019, more than
2.1 million (62%) experienced fear and 2.4 million (69%)
experienced substantial emotional distress (table 10).
About 1.6 million (45%) victims had an experience
that would, by denition, cause a reasonable person to
experience fear, including property damage or an attack.
Table 10
Number and percent of stalking victims, by component
of stalking denition, 2019
Component of
stalking denition
Number of
stalking victims
a
Percent of
stalking victims
Total 3,419,710 100%
Actual fear
b
* 2,131,180 62.3%
Emotional distress
c
2,373,600 ‡ 69.4% †
Reasonable fear
d
1,553,560 † 45.4% †
Damage/attempted damage
or destruction of property* 610,940 17.9
Threatened/attempted/
completed attack on victim 309,470 † 9.0 †
Threatened/attempted/
completed attack on pet or
someone close to victim 103,280 † 3.0 †
Two or more reasonable fear
components
e
529,870 15.5
Note: Details do not sum to totals because victims could experience
more than one component of the stalking denition (i.e., fear, emotional
distress, or reasonable fear). See appendix table 14 for standard errors.
*Comparison group.
†Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 95% condence level.
‡Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 90% condence level.
a
Number of persons age 16 or older who experienced stalking victimization
in the past year.
b
Includes stalking where the victim reported that the unwanted behaviors
made them fear for their safety or the safety of someone close to them.
c
Includes stalking where the victim reported that the unwanted behaviors
caused them substantial emotional distress.
d
Includes stalking that involved damage or attempted damage or
destruction of property; or threatened, attempted, or completed attacks
on the victim, someone close to them, or a pet.
e
Includes stalking that involved multiple types of reasonable fear
components (i.e., damage or attempted damage or destruction of
property; or threatened, attempted, or completed attacks on the victim,
someone close to them, or a pet).
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2019.
STALKING VICTIMIZATION, 2019 | FEBRUARY 2022 16
Standard error computations
When national estimates are derived from a sample,
caution must be taken when comparing one estimate
to another. Although one estimate may be larger
than another, estimates based on a sample have some
degree of sampling error. e sampling error of an
estimate depends on several factors, including the
amount of variation in the responses and the size of the
sample. When the sampling error around an estimate
is accounted for, dierences in estimates may not be
statistically signicant.
One measure of the sampling error associated with
an estimate is the standard error. e standard error
may vary from one estimate to the next. Generally, an
estimate with a small standard error provides a more
reliable approximation of the true value than an estimate
with a larger standard error. Estimates with relatively
large standard errors are associated with less precision
and reliability and should be interpreted with caution.
Generalized variance functions (GVF) parameters were
used to generate standard errors for each point estimate
(e.g., numbers, percentages, and rates) in this report. To
generate standard errors around prevalence estimates
from the SVS, the U.S. Census Bureau produces GVF
parameters for BJS. e GVFs account for aspects of the
NCVS’s complex sample design and represent the curve
tted to a selection of individual standard errors based
on the Balanced Repeated Replication technique.
BJS conducted statistical tests to determine whether
dierences in estimated numbers, percentages, and rates
in this report were statistically signicant once sampling
error was accounted for. Using statistical analysis
programs developed specically for the NCVS, all
comparisons in the text were tested for signicance. e
primary test procedure used was the Student’s t-statistic,
which tests the dierence between two sample estimates.
Findings described in this report as higher, lower, or
dierent passed a test at either the 0.05 level (95%
condence level) or 0.10 level (90% condence level) of
statistical signicance. Figures and tables in this report
should be referenced for testing on specic ndings.
Caution is required when comparing estimates not
explicitly discussed in this report.
Estimates and standard errors of the estimates in this
report may be used to generate a condence interval
around the estimate as a measure of the margin of error.
e following example illustrates how standard errors
may be used to generate condence intervals:
Based on the SVS, in 2019 an estimated 1.3% of
all persons age 16 or older experienced stalking
victimization. (See appendix table 1.) Using GVFs,
BJS determined that the estimated prevalence rate has
a standard error of 0.05%. (See appendix table 15.) A
condence interval around the estimate is generated
by multiplying the standard error by ± 1.96 (the t-score
of a normal, two-tailed distribution that excludes 2.5%
at either end of the distribution). erefore, the 95%
condence interval around the 1.3% estimate is 1.3 ±
(0.05 × 1.96) or (1.22% to 1.40%). In other words, if
BJS used the same sampling method to select dierent
samples and computed an interval estimate for each
sample, it would expect the true population parameter
(percentage of stalking victims) to fall within the
interval estimates 95% of the time.
For this report, BJS also calculated a coecient of
variation (CV) for all estimates, representing the ratio
of the standard error to the estimate. CVs (not shown
in tables) provide another measure of reliability and a
means for comparing the precision of estimates across
measures with diering levels or metrics.
STALKING VICTIMIZATION, 2019 | FEBRUARY 2022 17
appendix Table 1
Number and percent of persons who were victims of stalking, by type of stalking, 2016
and 2019
a b
Type of stalking
Number of stalking victims Percent of all persons
2016 2019* 2016 2019*
Total 3,788,800 † 3,419,710 1.5% † 1.3%
Any traditional stalking
c
2,472,440 2,300,830 1.0% 0.9%
Traditional stalking only 703,250 681,240 0.3 0.3
Any stalking with technology
d
3,085,550 † 2,738,470 1.2% † 1.1%
Stalking with technology only 1,316,360 † 1,118,890 0.5 † 0.4
Both traditional stalking and
stalking with technology
e
1,769,190 1,619,580 0.7% 0.6%
Note: Details may not sum to totals because victims could experience more than one type of stalking. The
total population age 16 or older was 256,432,020 in 2016 and 260,731,490 in 2019. See appendix table 15 for
standard errors.
*Comparison year.
†Dierence with comparison year is signicant at the 95% condence level.
a
Number of persons age 16 or older who experienced stalking victimization in the past year.
b
Percentage of persons age 16 or older who experienced stalking victimization in the past year.
c
Includes the following types of unwanted behaviors: following; sneaking into, waiting, or showing up at a place;
leaving or sending unwanted items; or harassing friends or family about the victim’s whereabouts.
d
Includes the following types of unwanted behaviors: making unwanted phone calls, leaving voice messages,
or sending text messages; spying using technology; tracking the victim’s whereabouts with a tracking device or
application; posting or threatening to post unwanted information on the Internet; sending emails or messages using
the Internet; or monitoring activities using social media.
e
Includes victims who experienced both types of stalking.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2016 and 2019.
appendix Table 2
Estimates and standard errors for gure 1: Prevalence of stalking, by type of stalking, 2016 and 2019
Type of stalking
Estimate Standard error
95% condence interval
2016 2019
2016 2019* 2016 2019 Lower bound Upper bound Lower bound Upper bound
Total 1.5% † 1.3% 0.05% 0.05% 1.39% 1.57% 1.22% 1.40%
Traditional stalking only
a
0.3 0.3 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.31 0.22 0.30
Stalking with technology only
b
0.5 † 0.4 0.03 0.03 0.46 0.57 0.38 0.48
Both traditional stalking and
stalking with technology
c
0.7 0.6 0.03 0.03 0.63 0.75 0.56 0.68
Note: The total population age 16 or older was 256,432,020 in 2016 and 260,731,490 in 2019.
*Comparison year.
†Dierence with comparison year is signicant at the 95% condence level.
a
Includes the following types of unwanted behaviors: following; sneaking into, waiting, or showing up at a place; leaving or sending unwanted items; or
harassing friends or family about the victim’s whereabouts.
b
Includes the following types of unwanted behaviors: making unwanted phone calls, leaving voice messages, or sending text messages; spying using
technology; tracking the victim’s whereabouts with a tracking device or application; posting or threatening to post unwanted information on the Internet;
sending emails or messages using the Internet; or monitoring activities using social media.
c
Includes victims who experienced both types of stalking.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2016 and 2019.
STALKING VICTIMIZATION, 2019 | FEBRUARY 2022 18
appendix Table 3
Standard errors for table 1: Persons age 16 or older who were victims of stalking, by type of stalking behavior, 2019
Type of stalking behavior
Number of
stalking victims
Percent of
stalking victims Percent of all persons
Total 120,536 ~ 0.05%
Any traditional stalking 98,651 1.64% 0.04%
Followed or watched 75,170 2.10 0.03
Showed up at/rode by/drove by places 68,629 2.13 0.03
Harassed/repeatedly asked friends/family for information 63,256 2.09 0.02
Waited at home/work/school/any other place 54,759 1.97 0.02
Left/sent unwanted items 45,973 1.76 0.02
Sneaked into home/car/any other place 40,342 1.59 0.02
Any stalking with technology 107,732 1.40% 0.04%
Made unwanted phone calls left voice messages/sent text messages 87,184 1.85 0.03
Sent unwanted emails/messages using the Internet or social media 79,294 1.94 0.03
Monitored activities using social media 60,466 1.82 0.02
Posted/threatened to post inappropriate/unwanted/personal information 57,902 1.77 0.02
Spied on or monitored activities using technology 50,437 1.62 0.02
Tracked whereabouts with an electronic device/application 40,452 1.36 0.02
~Not applicable.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2019.
appendix Table 4
Estimates and standard errors for gure 2: Percent of stalking victims who reported to police, by type of stalking, 2016
and 2019
Type of stalking
Estimate Standard error
95% condence interval
2016 2019
2016 2019* 2016 2019 Lower bound Upper bound Lower bound Upper bound
Total 28.1% 28.7% 1.40% 1.58% 25.34% 30.84% 25.56% 31.75%
Traditional stalking only
a
38.9 ‡ 29.6 3.52 3.55 32.00 45.81 22.64 36.55
Stalking with technology only
b
15.9 † 22.7 1.93 2.54 12.08 19.65 17.75 27.72
Both traditional stalking and
stalking with technology
c
32.9 32.3 2.14 2.36 28.69 37.08 27.71 36.98
*Comparison year.
†Dierence with comparison year is signicant at the 95% condence level.
‡Dierence with comparison year is signicant at the 90% condence level.
a
Includes the following types of unwanted behaviors: following; sneaking into, waiting, or showing up at a place; leaving or sending unwanted items; or
harassing friends or family about the victim’s whereabouts.
b
Includes the following types of unwanted behaviors: making unwanted phone calls, leaving voice messages, or sending text messages; spying using
technology; tracking the victim’s whereabouts with a tracking device or application; posting or threatening to post unwanted information on the Internet;
sending emails or messages using the Internet; or monitoring activities using social media.
c
Includes victims who experienced both types of stalking.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2016 and 2019.
STALKING VICTIMIZATION, 2019 | FEBRUARY 2022 19
appendix Table 5
Standard errors for table 2: Percent of stalking victims, by type of stalking, reporting to police, and reason for not
reporting, 2016 and 2019
Total stalking Traditional stalking only
Stalking with
technology only
Both traditional stalking and
stalking with technology
2016 2019 2016 2019 2016 2019 2016 2019
Reported to police 1.40% 1.58% 3.52% 3.55% 1.93% 2.54% 2.14% 2.36%
Not reported to police 1.43% 1.59% 3.54% 3.56% 1.96% 2.56% 2.18% 2.38%
Reason not reported
Not important enough
to report 1.83 2.04 4.66 4.60 2.85 3.42 2.74 3.02
Dealt with it another way 1.80 2.03 4.54 4.41 2.77 3.37 2.77 3.06
Police couldn’t
do anything 1.64 1.95 3.77 4.52 2.67 3.25 2.44 2.84
Police wouldn’t help 1.35 1.63 3.73 3.97 1.94 2.47 2.10 2.50
Other/unknown reason 1.26 1.50 3.45 3.04 1.52 1.72 2.17 2.63
Feared oender 0.91 1.11 2.41 2.93 1.11 1.50 1.58 1.71
Number of victims 117,999 120,536 50,883 53,321 69,637 68,510 80,729 82,598
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2016 and 2019.
appendix Table 6
Standard errors for table 3: Prevalence of cyberstalking, by type of cyberstalking behavior, 2019
Type of cyberstalking behavior
Number of
cyberstalking victims Percent of all persons
Total 62,612 0.02%
Sent unwanted emails/messages using the Internet or social media 47,363 0.02
Monitored activities using social media 35,549 0.01
Posted/threatened to post inappropriate/unwanted/personal information 36,799 0.01
Spied on or monitored activities using technology 35,868 0.01
Tracked whereabouts with an electronic device/application 26,348 0.01
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2019.
STALKING VICTIMIZATION, 2019 | FEBRUARY 2022 20
appendix Table 7
Standard errors for table 4: Prevalence of stalking, by demographic characteristics of
victims, 2019
Victim demographic
characteristic Population age 16 or older
Standard error
Number of victims Percent of all persons
Total 260,731,490 120,536 0.05%
Sex
Male 126,441,250 64,140 0.05%
Female 134,290,240 101,575 0.08
Race/ethnicity
White 163,305,520 96,181 0.06%
Black 31,285,740 37,690 0.12
Hispanic 43,863,500 46,305 0.10
Asian/Native Hawaiian/
Other Pacic Islander 17,106,850 27,254 0.16
American Indian/
Alaska Native 1,484,090 14,175 0.94
Two or more races 3,685,800 24,459 0.65
Age
16–19 16,149,660 31,490 0.19%
20–24 21,412,920 42,118 0.19
25–34 45,537,710 57,692 0.13
35–49 61,677,140 62,824 0.10
50–64 62,651,280 53,686 0.09
65 or older 53,302,790 36,645 0.07
Marital status
Never married 81,158,800 76,577 0.09%
Married 129,503,560 63,843 0.05
Widowed 15,278,790 22,851 0.15
Divorced 28,302,350 54,828 0.19
Separated 5,204,210 28,550 0.54
Household income
Less than $25,000 43,138,530 61,085 0.14%
$25,000–$49,999 64,621,860 58,436 0.09
$50,000–$99,999 85,180,950 65,514 0.08
$100,000–$199,999 50,826,710 47,248 0.09
$200,000 or more 16,963,450 24,967 0.15
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2019.
STALKING VICTIMIZATION, 2019 | FEBRUARY 2022 21
appendix Table 8
Standard errors for table 5: Percent of stalking victims, by type of stalking and victim-oender relationship, 2019
Type of victim-oender relationship Total stalking
Traditional
stalking only
Stalking with
technology only
Both traditional stalking and
stalking with technology
Known 1.64% 3.86% 3.03% 1.99%
Intimate partner 1.51 2.45 2.31 2.42
Current partner 0.81 1.28 1.39 1.30
Ex-partner 1.37 2.15 1.97 2.28
Other relative 0.74 1.87 1.27 1.03
Well-known/casual acquaintance 1.69 3.78 2.84 2.49
Friend/ex-friend 0.90 1.93 1.76 1.20
Acquaintance/in-law or relative of spouse or
ex-spouse/friend of one of the oenders/other 1.16 2.29 1.90 1.80
Roommate/housemate/boarder/neighbor 0.97 2.72 1.22 1.43
Professional acquaintance 1.01 2.09 1.60 1.60
Stranger 1.34% 3.56% 2.40% 1.65%
Unknown 1.20% 2.60% 2.66% 1.19%
Number of victims 120,536 53,321 68,510 82,598
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2019.
appendix Table 9
Standard errors for table 6: Percent of stalking victims, by type of stalking and duration and frequency of stalking, 2019
Stalking duration and frequency Total stalking Traditional stalking only
Stalking with
technology only
Both traditional stalking
and stalking with technology
Duration
Less than 1 month 1.33% 3.48% 2.43% 1.62%
1 month to less than 1 year 1.73 3.79 3.01 2.52
1 year to less than 2 years 1.15 2.34 2.05 1.69
2 years or more 1.49 3.19 2.49 2.24
Unknown 0.50 0.93 0.98 0.70
Frequency
2 to 10 times 1.73% 3.05% 3.01% 2.53%
11 to 50 times 1.37 1.95 2.37 2.18
More than 50 times 0.90 1.32 1.67 1.38
Too many times to count 1.08 1.27 1.93 1.74
Don’t know/don’t remember 0.70 1.75 1.25 0.96
Number of victims 120,536 53,321 68,510 82,598
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2019.
appendix Table 10
Standard errors for table 7: Percent of stalking victims, by type of stalking and victim’s self-protective actions, 2019
Self-protective action taken Total stalking Traditional stalking only
Stalking with
technology only
Both traditional stalking
and stalking with technology
Any self-protective action taken 1.46% 3.89% 2.36% 1.75%
Changed day-to-day activities 1.49 3.15 2.01 2.39
Blocked unwanted calls/messages/other
communications 1.69 3.12 2.68 2.26
Self-defensive action/security measure 1.47 3.47 1.99 2.28
Changed personal information 1.55 2.01 2.74 2.40
Applied for a restraining/protection/
no-contact order 0.98 1.83 1.32 1.67
Number of victims 120,536 53,321 68,510 82,598
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2019.
STALKING VICTIMIZATION, 2019 | FEBRUARY 2022 22
appendix Table 11
Standard errors for table 8: Percent of stalking victims, by type of stalking and victim’s fears, 2019
Victim’s fear Total stalking Traditional stalking only
Stalking with
technology only
Both traditional stalking
and stalking with technology
Being killed or physical/bodily harm 1.75% 3.89% 2.78% 2.38%
Being killed 1.27 2.67 1.64 2.09
Physical/bodily harm 1.68 3.77 2.50 2.52
Someone close to victim being harmed 1.63% 3.62% 2.52% 2.47%
Loss of job or job opportunities/freedom/
social network/peers/friends 1.73% 3.76% 3.00% 2.16%
Loss of job/job opportunities 1.30 2.19 2.10 2.08
Loss of freedom 1.50 3.17 2.10 2.38
Loss of social network/peers/friends 1.28 2.02 2.13 2.06
Behaviors never stopping 1.74% 3.87% 3.04% 2.42%
Not knowing what would happen next 1.71% 3.83% 3.04% 2.33%
Losing one’s mind 1.37% 2.56% 2.14% 2.19%
Number of victims 120,536 53,321 68,510 82,598
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2019.
appendix Table 12
Estimates and standard errors for gure 3: Percent of stalking victims who sought victim
services, by type of stalking, 2019
Type of stalking Percent Standard error
95% condence interval
Lower bound Upper bound
Total 15.9% 1.27% 13.42% 18.42%
Traditional stalking only
a
8.3 † 2.15 4.14 12.56
Stalking with technology only
b
13.3 † 2.06 9.29 17.37
Both traditional stalking and
stalking with technology
c
* 20.9 2.05 16.88 24.93
*Comparison group. Percentage of victims who sought victim services compared to each stalking type and not
total stalking.
†Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 95% condence level.
a
Includes the following types of unwanted behaviors: following; sneaking into, waiting, or showing up at a place;
leaving or sending unwanted items; or harassing friends or family about the victim’s whereabouts.
b
Includes the following types of unwanted behaviors: making unwanted phone calls, leaving voice messages,
or sending text messages; spying using technology; tracking the victim’s whereabouts with a tracking device or
application; posting or threatening to post unwanted information on the Internet; sending emails or messages using
the Internet; or monitoring activities using social media.
c
Includes victims who experienced both types of stalking.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2019.
STALKING VICTIMIZATION, 2019 | FEBRUARY 2022 23
appendix Table 13
Standard errors for table 9: Percent of stalking victims
who sought and received victim services, by type of
service received, 2019
Type of victim service
Percent of
stalking victims
Victim services were received 3.83%
Counseling/therapy 4.92
Legal/court services 4.81
Shelter/safehouse service or safety planning 4.46
Assistance getting a restraining/protection/no-contact
order 4.30
Other type of service 4.16
Risk/threat assessment 3.92
Crisis hotline counseling 3.47
Medical advocacy 2.71
Short-term/emergency nancial assistance 2.57
Federal/state victim compensation 1.75
Victim services were not received 3.67%
Number of victims who sought victim services 47,620
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2019.
appendix Table 14
Standard errors for table 10: Number and percent of
stalking victims, by component of stalking denition, 2019
Component of stalking denition
Number
of stalking
victims
Percent
of stalking
victims
Total 120,536 ~
Actual fear 94,902 1.70%
Emotional distress 100,217 1.61%
Reasonable fear 80,878 1.74%
Damage/attempted damage or destruction
of property 50,469 1.33
Threatened/attempted/completed attack
on victim 35,817 1.00
Threatened/attempted/completed attack on
pet or someone close to victim 20,622 0.59
Two or more reasonable fear components 46,970 1.26
~Not applicable.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2019.
appendix Table 15
Standard errors for appendix table 1: Number and
percent of persons who were victims of stalking, by type
of stalking, 2016 and 2019
Type of stalking
Number of stalking
victims Percent of all persons
2016 2019 2016 2019
Total 117,999 120,536 0.05% 0.05%
Any traditional stalking 95,410 98,651 0.04% 0.04%
Traditional stalking only 50,883 53,321 0.02 0.02
Any stalking with technology 106,545 107,732 0.04% 0.04%
Stalking with
technology only 69,637 68,510 0.03 0.03
Both traditional stalking and
stalking with technology 80,729 82,598 0.03% 0.03%
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2016 and 2019.
e Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the
principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal
victimization, criminal oenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime,
and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state,
tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable
statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States, supports
improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems, and
participates with national and international organizations to develop and
recommend national standards for justice statistics. Doris J. James is the
acting director.
is report was written by Rachel E. Morgan and Jennifer L. Truman.
Alexandra ompson and Stephanie Mueller veried the report.
David Fialko and Edrienne Su edited the report. Carrie Epps-Carey
produced the report.
February 2022, NCJ 301735
Oce of Justice Programs
Building Solutions • Supporting Communities • Advancing Justice
www.ojp.gov