This House resolution compiles a set of findings on stalking prevalence and consequences and asks public- and private-sector actors to increase awareness and services around stalking. It presents statistics on who experiences stalking, the role of intimate partners and technology, and the mental-health and safety impacts victims face.
While the text does not create new legal duties or provide funding, it directs attention to gaps in criminal justice response and victim services, encourages colleges and universities to strengthen campus responses, and urges community organizations and the media to promote awareness efforts.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution assembles multiple 'whereas' findings about stalking and then sets out four nonbinding operative statements: it designates January 2025 as the awareness month, applauds existing actors, encourages policymakers and service providers to increase awareness and supports, and urges national and community organizations and media to promote the month. The text contains no appropriation, enforcement mechanism, or statutory change.
Who It Affects
The resolution speaks to victim-service organizations, law enforcement and prosecutors, institutions of higher education, nonprofit and community groups, and private-sector entities such as media outlets and technology platforms. Because it is hortatory, its practical effects fall on groups that choose to run campaigns or change practices rather than on regulated entities bound by new legal duties.
Why It Matters
Resolutions like this frame federal attention and can catalyze awareness campaigns, grant proposals, campus policy reviews, and voluntary private-sector initiatives. It also signals Congressional concern about technology-facilitated stalking and gaps in services — which can influence agency priorities, funding requests, and advocacy strategies even though the document itself provides no direct funding.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The text begins with a long set of findings cataloguing the scope and harms of stalking: lifetime prevalence by gender, annual victim counts, the frequent involvement of intimate partners, threats of physical harm, long-term stalking episodes, and the mental-health impacts on victims. Those recitals also highlight high victimization rates among young adults and college students, higher stalking rates among students with disabilities, and a strong emphasis on stalking conducted through technology.
Operationally the resolution takes four short steps. It names January 2025 as National Stalking Awareness Month (not a statute change), publicly commends a range of actors already working on stalking, encourages policymakers and service providers to expand awareness and services tailored to stalking victims, and asks national organizations, private businesses, and the media to promote awareness activities during the month.
The language is hortatory throughout—Congress is urging and applauding rather than mandating.Because the resolution contains no language about appropriations, grants, or regulatory changes, any follow-on impact depends on voluntary adoption or separate legislative or budget actions. Practically, stakeholders are likely to use the resolution as a framing device for awareness campaigns, campus programming, training for law enforcement and prosecutors, and fundraising for victim services.
The resolution’s emphasis on technology-facilitated stalking makes it particularly relevant for campus IT offices, digital-safety programs, and platform safety teams.Finally, the resolution notes that January 2025 is the 21st anniversary of the first National Stalking Awareness Month, positioning the document as both a commemorative statement and an attempt to refresh attention to known gaps: more aggressive criminal justice response, better access to victim services, and tailored programs for college populations and technology-victimized survivors.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The preamble supplies multiple prevalence statistics, including that roughly 1 in 3 women and 1 in 6 men have experienced stalking in their lifetimes.
The text cites an estimate that more than 13,400,000 individuals in the U.S. report being victims of stalking each year.
It highlights technology-facilitated stalking, stating that about 80 percent of stalking victims report being stalked with phones, texts, social media, emails, or electronic tracking.
The resolution explicitly calls for a stronger criminal-justice response and for increased, tailored victim services—especially on college and university campuses.
The document is purely hortatory: it contains no appropriations, no new statutory obligations, and no enforcement mechanism.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings on prevalence, harms, and at-risk populations
The Whereas clauses compile statistics and qualitative findings: lifetime and annual prevalence, the role of intimate partners, the link to intimate partner homicide, long durations of stalking, weekly pursuit behavior, mental-health impacts, and disproportionate rates among 18–24-year-olds and students with disabilities. For practitioners, this section is a concentrated statement of Congressional priorities and can be cited in grant narratives or institutional risk assessments.
Designation of National Stalking Awareness Month
The first operative line names January 2025 as National Stalking Awareness Month. Legally this is a symbolic designation without the force of law; its practical import is that federal attention and Congressional messaging are being marshaled to justify awareness activities or to signal support for supplemental funding or policy changes elsewhere.
Applauding current actors that assist victims
This clause publicly commends service providers, police departments, prosecutor offices, national and community organizations, colleges and universities, and private-sector entities. The effect is reputational: it recognizes existing work and may be used by those actors to showcase legitimacy or to leverage additional resources from donors and partners.
Encouragement to policymakers and service agencies
The resolution encourages policymakers, criminal-justice officials, victim-service and human-service agencies, and institutions of higher education to increase awareness and support availability of services for stalking victims. Because the language is exhortatory, implementation depends on agencies, state and local governments, and institutions choosing to act or on subsequent binding legislation or appropriations.
Urging of national organizations, businesses, and media
The final operative clause asks national and community organizations, private businesses, and media outlets to promote awareness through the designated month. This explicitly invites voluntary private-sector engagement — from public-awareness campaigns to corporate communications — but does not create compliance obligations or reporting requirements.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Stalking victims and survivors — increased visibility can improve reporting, expand referrals to services, and reduce isolation by making help-seeking channels more visible.
- Victim-service organizations and nonprofits — the resolution provides a Congressional imprimatur they can use to boost fundraising, partnership-building, and public education campaigns.
- Colleges and universities — campus leaders get renewed justification to review policies, invest in training and prevention programs, and promote digital-safety resources to students.
- Law enforcement and prosecutors — the resolution’s call for a stronger response can support requests for training, specialized units, or interagency collaboration.
- Technology safety teams and platform trust-and-safety groups — the spotlight on technology-facilitated stalking creates public pressure and a policy rationale for platform safety features and partnerships with advocacy groups.
Who Bears the Cost
- Nonprofit and victim-service providers — increased outreach can drive higher demand for services without corresponding federal funding, producing capacity and funding pressures.
- Colleges, universities, and campus safety offices — institutions may face budgetary strain if they expand prevention programs, counseling, and technology-safety measures in response to the resolution.
- Private-sector organizations and media — asked to run campaigns or messaging, these actors may allocate marketing dollars or personnel time to awareness activities.
- State and local criminal-justice agencies — pressure to investigate and prosecute stalking more aggressively may require additional training, personnel, or investigative resources at the state and local level.
- Technology platforms — heightened scrutiny can translate into reputational costs and investment needs for safety features, reporting tools, and abuse-mitigation engineering.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is symbolic recognition versus substantive change: Congress can draw attention to stalking through a nonbinding resolution, but victims’ safety improvements typically require funded services, investigative capacity, and sometimes statutory or platform-level changes — none of which this text mandates. The resolution highlights legitimate needs while stopping short of the concrete resources and legal tools that would produce measurable, system-level improvement.
The most immediate analytical point is that this resolution is symbolic. It collects findings and urges action but creates no funding stream, regulatory mandate, or enforcement mechanism.
That means the document’s ability to change outcomes for victims depends on follow-on actions: agency priorities, appropriations, state or institutional policy changes, or voluntary private-sector programs. Without earmarked funding, victim-service organizations and campuses could face increased demand that outpaces capacity.
The resolution emphasizes technology-facilitated stalking, which surfaces technical and legal trade-offs. Platform improvements and digital-safety engineering take time and money; stronger content- or data-restriction approaches can collide with free-speech and privacy considerations.
Measuring impact is another challenge: awareness months can raise calls and referrals, but they rarely include metrics or accountability structures to evaluate whether victims receive more effective protection or whether prosecution outcomes improve. Finally, the text’s broad, inclusive language spans federal, state, and private actors, but does not resolve jurisdictional variations in stalking law or provide guidance on coordination mechanisms between law enforcement, campuses, and technology companies.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.