Cyberstalking Statistics and Prevalence: What the Data Can and Can't Tell Us

There Is No Single Official Cyberstalking Rate

In government surveys, cyberstalking is not counted as a separate crime. It is counted as a method of stalking. That distinction matters when you see a statistic.

• The federal stalking law covers conduct that uses email, social media, or any other electronic communication service (see the federal statute summary).
• State laws vary in how they define electronic stalking.
• National surveys ask about specific behaviors, such as unwanted messages or tracking, and then decide whether the pattern meets their definition of stalking.

So a claim like "X% of people have been cyberstalked" usually depends on how the survey defined it.

What the Bureau of Justice Statistics Measures

BJS divides stalking into traditional stalking (such as following or showing up), stalking with technology, and both. Its Stalking Victimization, 2019 report found:

• About 1.3% of people age 16 or older (3.4 million) were stalked in 2019.
• Victims who experienced both traditional stalking and stalking with technology were more likely to be stalked by an intimate partner (35%) than victims of traditional stalking alone (11%).
• Among victims of both types, 67% feared being killed or physically harmed.

The pattern is important. Technology often adds to in-person stalking instead of replacing it, and the combination is the one that victims describe as most frightening.

What the CDC Measures

The CDC's NISVS 2023/2024 Stalking Data Brief measured a wider set of technology-facilitated tactics than earlier surveys. Among women who had been stalked, 36.3% said the stalker used social media to monitor or track them, 46.8% received unwanted social media messages, 20.1% were monitored through software, apps, or stalkerware, 15.6% were tracked with GPS or other location technology, and 12.6% were watched with a hidden camera, at some point in their lives. Among men who had been stalked, the figures were 43.8% for social media monitoring, 53.9% for unwanted social media messages, 25.0% for software or stalkerware, 29.3% for GPS or location tracking, and 19.5% for a hidden camera. CDC notes that these tactics are often meant to avoid detection, so their true prevalence may be underestimated, and that most stalking still involves a mix of in-person and technology-based tactics.

Where the Data Falls Short

Be cautious about any cyberstalking number that skips these limits.

• Surveys lag behind technology. A 2019 survey cannot measure tracker tags, newer apps, or AI-generated impersonation.
• Self-report depends on awareness. Victims of spyware or hidden trackers often don't know it is happening.
• Not all online harassment is stalking. A single hostile comment is not a course of conduct.
• Industry and nonprofit surveys use their own definitions and samples, so they are not directly comparable.

If you need a defensible figure for a report or article, use the BJS or CDC numbers and describe the definition. For help with your own situation, start with our guides to cyberstalking and digital safety.

How to Protect Yourself When the Numbers Are Unclear

You don't need a precise prevalence figure to act. Technology-based stalking tends to use a short list of methods, and each has a practical fix.

• Account access: Turn on multi-factor authentication and use strong, unique passwords. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's Secure Our World guidance explains how.
• Location tracking: Learn what a hidden tracker or location-sharing setting looks like. See our guide to stalking without words: following and tracking.
• Exposed personal details: Remove your address from people-search sites using our Data Broker Removal tool, and read what to do about doxxing.

How to Cite Cyberstalking Data Accurately

When you write or report on this topic, name the source, the year, and the population. Say "stalking with technology" if you mean the BJS category, and say "lifetime stalking" if you mean the CDC figure. Avoid quoting a cyberstalking percentage that you cannot trace back to a survey method.

A Short History of How Stalking Has Been Measured

The statistics we have today come from a handful of national surveys, each designed with a different purpose. Knowing their history helps explain why numbers differ.

• 1995-96: The National Violence Against Women Survey, conducted by the National Institute of Justice and the CDC (first results published in 1997), produced the first national estimates of stalking. It surveyed about 8,000 women and 8,000 men, and its findings are still quoted today (see the report).
• 2006: The Bureau of Justice Statistics fielded its first Supplemental Victimization Survey on stalking and estimated about 3.3 million adults were stalked in a year, or roughly 1.5% of people 18 and older (BJS).
• 2016 and 2019: BJS repeated the survey, this time for people 16 and older, and found stalking fell from 1.5% to 1.3% between 2016 and 2019 (Stalking Victimization, 2019).
• 2016/2017: The CDC's National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey produced lifetime and past-year stalking estimates (2016/2017 report).
• 2023/2024: CDC fielded a redesigned survey with revised stalking measures and published new estimates in September 2025 (2023/2024 Stalking Data Brief). CDC cautions against comparing it with earlier years.

Technology questions were added and refined over time, which is one reason older and newer figures are not always directly comparable.

How to Read a Cyberstalking Statistic: A Five-Question Checklist

Before you repeat or rely on any figure about cyberstalking, ask five questions.

1. Who was surveyed? All adults, students, women only, internet users, or people who responded to an online poll?
2. What time period does it cover? The past year or a lifetime?
3. How is "cyberstalking" defined? Does it require repeated contact and fear, or does it include any unwanted online contact?
4. Who conducted the survey? A government statistical agency, a university, a company selling a product, or an advocacy group?
5. Is the source linked, and can you find the original table? If you can't trace the number, don't cite it.

A figure that passes all five checks is far more reliable than a number that has traveled through several websites without a source.

Technology Tactics Named in Government Surveys

Government surveys do not ask only whether someone was "cyberstalked." They ask about specific behaviors, which are then combined to determine whether a person meets the definition of stalking. The CDC's stalking report covers tactics that include:

• Unwanted phone calls.
• Unwanted texts, photos, or emails, including through social media.
• Using GPS to monitor or track the person.
• Using technology to spy.
• Showing up, following, and watching, which often happen alongside online contact.

BJS likewise asks about unwanted phone calls, voice messages, and text messages, and about monitoring using technology, and it classifies victims as experiencing traditional stalking, stalking with technology, or both. This approach reflects reality: technology tends to be an added channel, not the whole story. For a closer look at how devices get used, read electronic stalking and stalking without words: following and tracking.

Why Technology Changes the Risk

Technology does not just change how stalking happens. It changes what stalking is like for the victim.

• It is relentless. A stalker who can message at any hour makes it hard to ever feel safe or rest.
• It reaches across distance. A person can be stalked from another city or country.
• It can be hidden. Spyware and trackers operate silently, so victims may not know they are being watched.
• It spreads. Posts, images, and personal information can be copied and shared by other people.
• It generates evidence. The same technology that enables stalking also creates records, which can be used to prove it.

The BJS data hint at why the combination matters: among victims who experienced both in-person stalking and stalking with technology, 67% feared being killed or physically harmed, and these victims were more likely to be stalked by an intimate partner (35%) than victims of in-person stalking alone (11%). Read do stalkers become violent for more on risk.

What the Numbers Mean for Your Own Safety Planning

Population statistics do not predict what will happen to you, but they can shape sensible precautions.

• Assume technology is part of the picture. Even if the stalking began in person, secure your accounts and check your devices.
• Take overlap seriously. If you are experiencing both online and in-person stalking, treat that as a higher-concern situation and build a safety plan.
• Pay attention to who the person is. If the stalker is a current or former partner, risk may be higher.
• Don't wait for a threat. Fear is a legitimate reason to document and report.
• Reduce exposure. Use the Data Broker Removal tool and tighten privacy settings.

Questions Researchers and Journalists Ask Most

Is there a single "cyberstalking rate" I can quote? No. Government surveys don't define cyberstalking as a standalone crime, so quote the specific measure, such as BJS's category of stalking with technology.

Has technology-based stalking increased? The surveys show changes in categories between years, but they do not capture newer tools. Be cautious about claims of a dramatic increase without a named source and method.

Are the numbers different for young people? Some data show higher stalking rates among younger adults, and younger people also spend more time online. Read who is most at risk of stalking.

How should I describe the limits? Say the data rely on self-report, don't cover every technology, and may undercount victims who don't know they are being monitored.

Gaps That Better Data Could Fill

Many important questions remain hard to answer.

• Newer tools, such as small Bluetooth trackers, smart-home devices, and AI-generated impersonation, have not been systematically measured in national stalking surveys.
• Hidden surveillance is likely undercounted because victims often don't know it is occurring.
• Few surveys examine how platform design, such as location features and discoverability, affects risk.
• Information about specific communities, such as people with disabilities, immigrants, and older adults, is limited.
• Data on how well reports to police and platforms actually lead to protection is thin.

If you run a study, a news story, or a grant application in this area, state these gaps honestly. It makes your work more credible.

Where to Find the Original Reports and How to Cite Them

Citing the original source is the single best thing you can do for accuracy. Here are the main reports and a plain-text citation format you can adapt.

• Morgan, R. E., & Truman, J. L. (2022). *Stalking Victimization, 2019.* Bureau of Justice Statistics. Read the report.
• Smith, S. G., Stevens, M. R., Yue, X., Chen, J., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., & Zhu, S. (2025). *The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2023/2024 Stalking Data Brief.* Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Read the report.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022). *The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2016/2017 Report on Stalking.* Read the report.
• Tjaden, P. (1997). *The Crime of Stalking: How Big Is the Problem?* National Institute of Justice Research Preview, summarizing the National Violence Against Women Survey. Read the report.

For more research summaries on our site, visit Facts & Research, and for the basics, read what is cyberstalking.

Common Misreadings of Stalking Statistics

Even accurate numbers get misused. Watch for these common errors.

• Confusing lifetime and yearly rates. "More than 1 in 5 women have been stalked" is a lifetime figure. "About 1.3% of people were stalked in 2019" is a one-year figure. They are not contradictory, and neither is wrong.
• Treating a decline as proof that the problem is solved. BJS found the rate fell from 1.5% to 1.3% between 2016 and 2019, but 3.4 million people were still stalked in 2019, and the survey cannot capture newer technologies.
• Equating survey results with police reports. Surveys capture experiences that never reach police. Only 29% of victims reported in 2019, so crime-report statistics greatly undercount stalking.
• Assuming "cyberstalking" and "online harassment" are the same. Harassment may involve a single hostile message, while stalking involves a pattern and fear. See stalking vs. harassment.
• Applying a group average to an individual. A statistic describes a population. It cannot tell you whether a particular person is in danger.
• Quoting a number without a source. If a figure appears on many websites but none links to a survey, treat it with caution.

Three Illustrative Scenarios

These hypothetical examples show how the same data can look different in real life. They are not real cases.

Scenario one: the overlap. A woman is followed home twice by a former coworker, then begins receiving dozens of messages from new accounts. She is, in statistical terms, a victim of both in-person stalking and stalking with technology. BJS data show that people in this overlap group are the most likely to fear for their lives. Her best response is a safety plan, documentation, and a police report that describes both the in-person and online conduct together.

Scenario two: the hidden tracker. A man notices his ex seems to know where he is. He has never received a threat, so he doesn't think it is "serious." The surveys he is part of would not capture this unless he knew to report it. He finds a tracking device on his car. Because the conduct is hidden, victims like him are likely undercounted.

Scenario three: the one-year view. A student receives unwanted messages from a classmate for six weeks and then they stop. She would be counted in a one-year rate and in a lifetime rate. For her, the experience may still carry consequences for months afterward, such as anxiety or changed habits, which no prevalence figure captures.

What Employers, Schools, and Platforms Can Learn From the Data

Prevalence data matters for institutions as well as individuals.

• Employers can expect that a meaningful number of employees have experienced or will experience stalking, and can prepare confidential reporting, safety planning support, and clear rules on sharing employees' schedules and locations.
• Schools and campuses should plan for stalking among students and staff, including quick access to no-contact directives, academic accommodations, and safe reporting channels.
• Platforms can design tools that make it easy to document and report abuse, preserve evidence before content is removed, and limit location exposure by default.
• Policymakers and funders can use the data to justify support for victim services, training for law enforcement, and better data collection on newer technologies.

If your organization is building a response, our Position Statements and Mission & Advocacy pages describe how we think about these issues.

Using These Numbers Responsibly in Media and Education

Journalists, teachers, and advocates are often the first people to turn statistics into stories, lessons, and campaigns. A few habits make that work more accurate and less likely to harm the people it describes.

• Lead with the definition. Say what the survey counted as stalking before you give the number. "Stalking with technology" means something specific in BJS data, and readers deserve to know what.
• Avoid sensational framing. Phrases like "epidemic" or "everyone is being watched" can frighten people without helping them. State what the data shows and what readers can do.
• Use person-first language. Write "people who have been stalked" or "victims and survivors," and avoid language that blames victims for what happened to them.
• Include a way to get help. Every story or lesson on stalking should tell readers how to reach emergency services and where to find official support, such as the Office for Victims of Crime directory of services by state.
• Respect safety when sharing real stories. Never publish details that could reveal a victim's location, routine, or identity unless they have chosen to share them, and consider how a stalker might use a published account.
• Update your numbers. Statistics age. When a new BJS or CDC report is released, replace the old figure and note the year.

Teachers can use the data to start discussions about consent, boundaries, and digital privacy. Pair the numbers with practical skills, such as how to secure an account and how to document harassment, and point students to our Complete Guide to Digital Safety. Accurate, calm, practical information helps students more than alarm does.

Statistics tell you how common a problem is. They cannot tell you whether you are in danger. If something feels wrong, treat it seriously and start documenting.

Sources and further reading

• Stalking Victimization, 2019 (Bureau of Justice Statistics)
• CDC: NISVS 2023/2024 Stalking Data Brief (Sept. 2025)
• Interstate Stalking (U.S. Attorney's Office, N.D. Georgia)
• Secure Our World (CISA)