This Senate resolution designates January 2025 as “National Stalking Awareness Month,” compiles findings about the scope and harms of stalking, and calls on public- and private-sector actors to increase awareness and services for victims. The text is a symbolic, non‑legally binding statement of federal concern rather than a funding or regulatory statute.
The resolution matters because it bundles epidemiological findings, emphasizes technology‑facilitated stalking and campus vulnerability, and publicly signals federal attention to stalking prevention and victim support—potentially shaping priorities for prosecutors, universities, victim-service providers, and private-sector actors who respond to or publicize the issue.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill is a Senate resolution that formally designates a month for public awareness, lists a set of factual findings about stalking, and contains four operative actions: it declares the month, applauds existing responders, encourages policymakers and service providers to expand awareness and services, and urges organizations and media to promote the month. It creates no binding legal duties or appropriations.
Who It Affects
The resolution targets a broad set of stakeholders: victim-service organizations, law enforcement and prosecutors, institutions of higher education, nonprofit advocacy groups, and private‑sector actors including media and businesses that can amplify outreach. Practically, it exerts reputational pressure on those entities to act during the designated month.
Why It Matters
While symbolic, the resolution consolidates recent prevalence and risk findings into a federal record and frames stalking—including technology‑facilitated forms—as a priority issue. That framing can steer attention, training, grantmaking priorities, campus policy reviews, and media coverage without creating statutory obligations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The resolution opens with a series of factual findings drawing on prevalence, victim profiles, and harms. It highlights that stalking is widespread, affects diverse populations, is often carried out by intimate partners or acquaintances, frequently involves technology (phones, social media, tracking), and disproportionately impacts young adults and some campus populations.
The preamble also links stalking to higher rates of anxiety and other health harms and notes stalking’s role as a risk factor for intimate partner homicide.
Operatively, the resolution has four short directives. First, it formally designates January 2025 as National Stalking Awareness Month.
Second, it applauds service providers, police departments, prosecutor’s offices, colleges and universities, national and community organizations, and private‑sector entities that combat stalking and support victims. Third, it encourages policymakers, criminal justice officials, victim-service and human-service agencies, institutions of higher education, and nonprofits to increase awareness and continue to support services tailored to stalking victims.
Fourth, it urges national and community organizations, businesses, and the media to promote awareness during the month.Because this is a Senate resolution rather than a statute, it does not appropriate funds, change criminal penalties, or impose regulatory obligations. Its practical effects will be indirect: raising federal visibility, legitimizing specific framing (e.g., calling out technology‑facilitated stalking and campus risk), and creating an expectation that named sectors will undertake awareness and service activities during and after the designated month.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution is nonbinding: it designates January 2025 as National Stalking Awareness Month but does not authorize spending or change criminal law.
The preamble lists specific prevalence findings, including that roughly 1 in 3 women and 1 in 6 men experience stalking in their lifetimes and that annually an estimated 13.4 million people report stalking victimization.
The text highlights that over 80% of stalking victims report being stalked by a current or former intimate partner or acquaintance and that technology (calls, texts, social media, electronic tracking) is involved in about 80% of cases.
The resolution explicitly calls on a defined set of actors—policymakers, criminal justice officials, victim‑service and human‑service agencies, institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and the media—to increase awareness and support tailored services for stalking victims.
The bill records that January 2025 marks the 21st anniversary of the first National Stalking Awareness Month, signaling continuity with past awareness efforts rather than introducing new federal programs.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings on prevalence, harms, and groups at risk
The preamble aggregates a series of factual findings: lifetime and annual prevalence estimates, the proportion of stalkers who are intimate partners or acquaintances, links to intimate partner homicide, the duration and frequency of stalking incidents, and the prominence of technology‑facilitated stalking. Practically, these findings frame stalking as a cross‑sector public‑safety and public‑health issue and set the resolution’s priorities—especially technology, campus populations, and criminal justice response—without creating legal standards.
Designation of National Stalking Awareness Month
This operative clause formally designates January 2025 as National Stalking Awareness Month. The designation is declarative and ceremonial: it signals Senate recognition and invites public activities during the month but does not compel any agency to act or allocate resources.
Applauding service providers and responders
Clause 2 publicly commends a range of entities—service providers, law enforcement, prosecutor’s offices, universities, and private‑sector partners—for their existing work. That applause functions as reputational recognition and can be used by those entities to justify or promote ongoing programs; it does not entail oversight, reporting, or accountability mechanisms.
Encouragement and urging of stakeholders
Clauses 3 and 4 ask policymakers, criminal justice officials, victim‑service and human‑service agencies, institutions of higher education, nonprofits, businesses, and the media to increase awareness and maintain or expand services tailored to stalking victims. The language is hortatory: it pressures named stakeholders to take action (training, awareness campaigns, service availability) but leaves implementation, scope, and funding decisions to those actors and their existing authorities.
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
- Victims and survivors of stalking — Increased federal visibility and public awareness can improve outreach, reduce isolation, and create opportunities for survivor‑focused programs and referrals.
- College and university communities — The resolution specifically calls out campus vulnerability and creates political cover for institutions to review prevention, reporting, and support policies.
- Victim‑service organizations and hotlines — The designation offers a platform for fundraising, partnerships, and greater community recognition that can translate into increased demand and visibility.
- Prosecutors and law enforcement agencies — The framing of stalking as a priority can justify specialized training, dedicated investigative resources, and interagency coordination.
- Advocacy groups and researchers — Consolidated federal findings and a designated month provide opportunities to advance policy recommendations, collect data, and pursue public education campaigns.
Who Bears the Cost
- Colleges and universities — Expectation to respond (training, prevention programs, communications) without new federal funding may require reallocating campus resources.
- Local victim‑service and nonprofit organizations — Increased demand for services during awareness campaigns can strain staff and budgets if not accompanied by funding.
- Law enforcement and prosecutors — Political and public pressure to improve investigation and prosecution may require new training, specialized units, or overtime costs.
- Private‑sector businesses and media outlets — Urged to run awareness campaigns or modify practices related to technology‑facilitated stalking, incurring reputational and operational costs.
- Federal and state policymakers — The resolution creates expectations for follow‑up (reports, legislative proposals, funding requests) that may surface unfunded mandates or political pressure to act.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether symbolic federal recognition—useful for changing norms and catalyzing attention—will translate into the concrete resources, consistent practices, and survivor‑centered reforms that effectively reduce stalking harms, or whether it will simply shift expectations onto already stretched institutions without delivering funding or clear policy tools.
The most immediate tension in the resolution is symbolic recognition versus material support. The text assembles prevalence data and assigns responsibility rhetorically to a wide range of actors, but it contains no funding, enforcement mechanisms, or implementation guidance.
That gap means the resolution can change discourse without guaranteeing expanded services or sustained programmatic responses. A second implementation challenge is uneven capacity: universities, local prosecutors, and small nonprofits differ widely in resources, so the expectation of increased awareness and tailored services may produce divergent results across jurisdictions.
There are also policy trade‑offs in the resolution’s emphasis. Calling attention to technology‑facilitated stalking is necessary, but responses that prioritize technological fixes or surveillance can conflict with victims’ privacy and civil liberties or push institutions toward coercive enforcement rather than survivor‑centered support.
Finally, the resolution’s broad, hortatory language leaves open definitional questions (what counts as effective 'services' or 'awareness' activities) and creates room for inconsistent interpretation and implementation by the many actors it names.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.