Understand the topic
What this means in daily life
Repeated stalking complaints may reveal escalating danger, but any record linkage needs lawful authority and careful identity checking. A system should support professional assessment and protective action without publishing labels or presuming guilt.
Linking reports can reveal a pattern but can also join records belonging to different people. The proposed system needs verified identity, restricted access and correction before a linked record informs professional assessment or protective action.
Data reference table
Evidence Snapshot
Read each value with its reporting period, population and limitations. A historical national reference is not a local baseline or proof that an IFT proposal works.
5 measurement records still need data and a review of their relevance.
| Signal | Reference Value | Period / Population | How to Read It | Source Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time to immediate protection | Not established Data required — not zero | Reporting period: Information Required Population and geography: Information Required | Proposed measure; no observed value is established here. Limitations: Define the measure, unit, reporting period and covered population; obtain a traceable dataset and review its suitability for this topic before using a number. | Source organisation: Information Required Direct source URL: not yet verified Source publication date: not established Verification status: Data required |
| Completed warm handoffs | Not established Data required — not zero | Reporting period: Information Required Population and geography: Information Required | Proposed measure; no observed value is established here. Limitations: Define the measure, unit, reporting period and covered population; obtain a traceable dataset and review its suitability for this topic before using a number. | Source organisation: Information Required Direct source URL: not yet verified Source publication date: not established Verification status: Data required |
| Repeat severe harm | Not established Data required — not zero | Reporting period: Information Required Population and geography: Information Required | Proposed measure; no observed value is established here. Limitations: Define the measure, unit, reporting period and covered population; obtain a traceable dataset and review its suitability for this topic before using a number. | Source organisation: Information Required Direct source URL: not yet verified Source publication date: not established Verification status: Data required |
| Safe housing continuity | Not established Data required — not zero | Reporting period: Information Required Population and geography: Information Required | Proposed measure; no observed value is established here. Limitations: Define the measure, unit, reporting period and covered population; obtain a traceable dataset and review its suitability for this topic before using a number. | Source organisation: Information Required Direct source URL: not yet verified Source publication date: not established Verification status: Data required |
| Survivor-reported service quality | Not established Data required — not zero | Reporting period: Information Required Population and geography: Information Required | Proposed measure; no observed value is established here. Limitations: Define the measure, unit, reporting period and covered population; obtain a traceable dataset and review its suitability for this topic before using a number. | Source organisation: Information Required Direct source URL: not yet verified Source publication date: not established Verification status: Data required |
Different surveys, administrative records, estimates and reporting years are not interchangeable. No combined IFT score is calculated from these rows.
Evidence coverage and review log (CSV) · Structured evidence register (JSON)
10 ideas for this topic
What could be done — and what needs testing
These are proposals for research and local testing. They are not claims that a project has been funded, implemented or proved successful.
Complaint continuity
Link relevant authorised reports across service encounters
What to check: Check whether repeated concerns remain isolated in separate files
Identity review
Require competent verification before records are linked
What to check: Test correction when names or contact details match incorrectly
Escalation criteria
Have authorised professionals define review triggers
What to check: Record human reasons rather than rely on an automated score
Protection planning
Connect assessed needs with competent protection services
What to check: Confirm acceptance of each requested protective task
Safe updates
Agree contact channels with the affected woman
What to check: Check whether messages reveal plans to a suspected stalker
Evidence liaison
Route relevant physical and digital leads to trained investigators
What to check: Avoid volunteer surveillance or intrusive account access
Order implementation
Review authorised responsibility for applicable protective measures
What to check: Obtain qualified legal review of current procedures
Cross-jurisdiction handoff
Name receiving officers for relevant transferred concerns
What to check: Check acknowledgement and unresolved responsibility
Challenge and correction
Provide lawful routes to contest inaccurate records
What to check: Track whether corrections reach connected teams
Recurrence review
Examine repeat concerns through protected professional review
What to check: Distinguish allegations findings and service failures