Hiding in plain sight: identifying partner stalking in intimate partner violence episodes reported to New Zealand Police

Figures & data

Table 1. Overview of key studies’ methods.

	Garza et al. (2020)	Melton (2012)	Tjaden and Thoennes (2000)
Data source and sample	Police IPV case files; N = 332 from the United States	Police IPV episode reports: one episode examined per case; N = 1440 from the United States	Police IPV episode reports: one episode examined per case; N = 1785 from the United States
Stalking behavioural items	Nine items from Fisher et al. (2002): Telephone; Waited outside or inside places; Watched from afar; Followed; Sent letters; Emailed; Sent gifts; Showed up uninvited; ‘Other’ stalking behaviour	Coleman’s (1997) Stalking Behavior Checklist: Broke into home, car; Stole, read mail; Came unwanted; Threatened, harmed new partner; Unwanted calls; Unwanted messages; Unwanted email; Unwanted gifts; Checked up on; Followed, watched; ‘Other’ stalking behaviour	The ‘antistalking code for states developed by the National Criminal Justice Association for the National Institute of Justice’ (p. 430): Following; Face-to-face confrontations; Unwanted communications by phone, page, letter, fax, e-mail
Repeated component of stalking	Two or more different stalking behaviours OR one stalking behaviour must occur on two or more occasions	Not included	Same or different stalking behaviours, must occur on two or more occasions
Unwanted component of stalking	Required evidence of ‘unwanted course of pursuit’ (p. 1020) but no further details about operationalisation	Relied on wording for some behavioural items, e.g. unwanted telephone calls	Relied on wording for some behavioural items, e.g. unwanted communications
Fear standard for stalking	Not included	Not included	All cases coded with victim fear: ‘it was assumed that persons who were identified as victims in a domestic violence crime report had experienced fear as a result of behaviors perpetrated against them by the suspect’ (p. 428)

Table 2. Differences between IPV cases with and without partner stalking.

Variable	Overall	Cases without stalking	Cases with stalking	Stalking-related differences
	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	χ^2 (df)	φ	p
Relationship phase				142.390 (2)	.352	<.001
Intact	601 (52.3)	587 (59.2)	14 (8.8)
Separated	225 (19.6)	159 (16.0)	66 (41.5)
On–off	324 (28.2)	245 (24.7)	79 (49.7)
Shared children	536 (46.6)	449 (45.3)	87 (54.7)	4.875 (1)	.065	.017
Alcohol use	440 (38.3)	387 (39.1)	53 (33.3)	1.897 (1)	-.041	.168
Drug use	175 (15.2)	125 (12.6)	50 (31.4)	37.667 (1)	.181	<.001
Verbal harm only	414 (36.0)	368 (37.1)	46 (28.9)	4.002 (1)	-.059	.45
Physical harm	486 (42.3)	428 (43.2)	58 (36.5)	2.529 (1)	-.047	.112
Property damage	239 (20.8)	188 (19.0)	51 (32.1)	14.293 (1)	.111	<.001
Threats of harm	245 (21.3)	177 (17.9)	68 (42.8)	50.697 (1)	.210	<.001
Victim injury	203 (17.7)	178 (18.0)	25 (15.7)	0.472 (1)	-.020	.492
Strangulation	99 (8.6)	87 (8.8)	12 (7.5)	0.264 (1)	-.015	.607
Victim fear	246 (21.4)	169 (17.1)	77 (48.3)	80.207 (1)	.264	<.001
Weapon use	144 (12.5)	109 (11.0)	35 (22.0)	15.173 (1)	.115	<.001
Episode location/s				9.543 (1)	.091	.002
Dwelling only	903 (78.5)	793 (80.0)	110 (69.2)
Public place (at least one episode)	247 (21.5)	198 (20.0)	49 (30.8)
Risk level assigned at index episode^a				37.624 (2)	.182	<.001
High	673 (58.5)	544 (55.6)	129 (81.1)
Medium	212 (18.4)	195 (19.9)	17 (10.7)
Low	252 (21.9)	239 (24.4)	13 (8.2)

^a 13 cases with missing data on this variable.

Table 3. Binary logistic regression using other variables to predict partner stalking.

Variable	B	SE	Wald χ^2	p	OR [95% CI]
Aggressor age	0.02	0.01	2.10	.148	1.02 [0.99–1.04]
Woman as aggressor^a	0.30	0.39	0.73	.394	1.36 [0.67–2.72]
Aggressor ethnicity: European			19.87	<.001
Māori	−1.15	0.27	18.42	<.001	0.32 [0.19–0.54]
Pasifika	0.24	0.66	0.13	.716	1.27 [0.35–4.59]
Asian	0.22	0.62	0.13	.722	1.25 [0.37–4.20]
Relationship phase: Intact			64.63	<.001
Separated	3.13	0.39	64.60	<.001	22.97 [10.70–49.32]
On–off	1.82	0.36	25.72	<.001	6.17 [3.05–12.47]
Shared children	0.06	0.24	0.06	.800	1.06 [0.67–1.70]
Alcohol use	−0.10	0.25	0.16	.692	0.91 [0.55–1.49]
Drug use	0.25	0.28	0.81	.367	1.29 [0.74–2.23]
Verbal harm only	0.97	0.39	6.16	.013	2.65 [1.23–5.71]
Physical harm	−0.42	0.34	1.55	.214	0.66 [0.34–1.27]
Property damage	0.54	0.30	3.24	.072	1.71 [0.95–3.06]
Threats	0.79	0.32	6.36	.012	2.21 [1.19–4.10]
Victim injury	0.15	0.37	0.17	.683	1.16 [0.56–2.41]
Strangulation	−1.05	0.50	4.54	.033	0.35 [0.13–0.92]
Victim fear	1.20	0.25	23.46	<.001	3.30 [2.04–5.36]
Weapon use	0.41	0.33	1.51	.219	1.51 [0.78–2.90]
Public episode/s	−0.04	0.26	0.02	.886	0.96 [0.58–1.61]
Episode count: 1 only			55.86	<.001
2 episodes	1.36	0.32	18.48	<.001	3.90 [2.10–7.24]
3–4 episodes	2.48	0.39	40.56	<.001	11.93 [5.56–25.60]
5 or more episodes	3.26	0.48	45.44	<.001	25.93 [10.06–66.83]
Risk level: Low			6.46	.004
High	0.79	0.40	3.86	.049	2.20 [1.00–4.81]
Medium	0.17	0.48	0.13	.716	1.19 [0.47–3.05]
Constant	−6.53	0.77	71.89	<.001	0.00
Model	Pseudo R^2 = .47, χ^2 (24) = 316.27, p < .001

Note. Pseudo R² is Nagelkerke. SE, standard error, OR, odds ratio, CI, confidence interval.

^a Men as reference category.

Garza, A. D., Franklin, C. A., & Goodson, A. (2020). The nexus between intimate partner violence and stalking: Examining the arrest decision. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(8), 1014–1031. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820931149

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Melton, H. C. (2012). Stalking, intimate partner abuse, and the police. The Open Criminology Journal, 5(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874917801205010001

 Google Scholar

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). The role of stalking in domestic violence crime reports generated by the Colorado Springs Police Department. Violence and Victims, 15(4), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.15.4.427

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2002). Being pursued: Stalking victimization in a national study of college women. Criminology & Public Policy, 1(2), 257–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2002.tb00091.x

 Google Scholar

Coleman, F. L. (1997). Stalking behavior and the cycle of domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(3), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626097012003007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data Availability Statement

Data not available due to ethical restrictions.