Julie L. Whitman, The National Center for Victims of Crime

The Problem of Teen Victimization
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, persons ages 12 to 19 are more frequently victims of crime than any other age group in the United States. In fact, their rate of violent victimization is about twice that of adults 20 years of age and older¹. At the same time, teens-as a group-are the least likely to report their victimization to police. Perhaps not surprisingly, crime reporting increases with the age of the victim, with adults 65 years and older reporting 58 percent of crimes against them, while teens report just 38 percent of the crimes against them to police². Teens' high rate of violent victimization combined with their low rate of reporting reflects a disturbing reality: an alarming number of teen victims are not getting the help they need to overcome their victimization and rebuild their lives and futures.

An Awakening. In the year 2000, the National Center for Victims of Crime began to look at the teen victimization research and discovered a serious gap in services for teens in the victim assistance field. Although teens have the highest rates of victimization, traditional victim services are designed for adults, and those organizations that do have teen initiatives generally focus on prevention education, rather than serving teens who have been victimized. While some teen victims are helped through Child Protective Services, that system cannot help teens who are victimized by non-family members. Our traditional systems are clearly failing teen victims, and teens themselves are not coming forward for help.

Not only do most adolescents fail to report crime to the police; they rarely report their victimization to any adult. When young victims do tell someone about their experience, they are most likely to confide in a friend. Teens offer many reasons for not reporting adult crimes, including the following:

Clearly, the adults in teens' lives, including parents, educators, police, and service providers, have much work to do to bridge the trust and information gap with young people. Many adults are at a loss when they perceive teens' silence as a desire to shut adults out of their lives. Nevertheless, studies in the area of adolescent drug use confirm that teens want-and need-support and guidance from their parents and other adults in their lives; they just want it in a form that respects their growing need for autonomy and personal power on the road to adulthood.^{3 4}

The National Center began its work on the issue of teen victims by training victim service providers, law enforcement officers, youth workers, and parents to reach out and respond to teen victims. The training placed special emphasis on the interplay between trauma and adolescent development. As this work progressed, we realized that teens needed to become key players in addressing their victimization. Building on what we know about teen peer relationships-that they are a critical component of adolescent development and that teens understand what resonates with their peers-we concluded that adolescents are well suited to support their peers in seeking help after they have been victimized. The Teen Action Partnership (TAP) program grew out of these convictions.

Teen Action Partnership

I learned that there are lots of people who care about victims of crime.

–Andy, 17, from Ohio

Teen Action Partnership (TAP) is a three-phase civic engagement project that mobilizes teens, in partnership with adults, to:

These three phases mirror the adult problem-solving process the National Center advocates for addressing victimization at the community level. For examples of the teens' work in each of the three phases, see the "TAP in Action" sidebar.

Four communities around the country are presently engaged in the TAP program, which is nearing the end of its initial three-year demonstration period. The project sites are located in Ohio, Connecticut, Texas, and Maryland. Once a year, teens from all four sites come together to present their work, support each other, and receive training for future activities. These meetings, as well as the ongoing training and technical assistance provided by the National Center, build vital leadership skills and encourage interaction with same-age peers of different races, socioeconomic classes, and geographical communities.

The Three Phases
Community assessment. After receiving initial training on the content (victimization) and the process (research, outreach, advocacy), the teens' first task is to conduct a community assessment. Assessment is a critical phase of this and any action project for two reasons: (1) crime has local characteristics that national statistics do not capture, and (2) gathering up-to-date local information on both problems and resources goes a long way toward suggesting appropriate solutions. The TAP teams may take one of two approaches: (1) they can choose a particular crime or type of victimization as their focus from the project's outset and assess that problem, or (2) they can do a general assessment of teen victimization to determine the focus of their work. Two of our sites chose the first option, while the other two chose the second.

Education and outreach. The second step in the process is for the teens to educate their peers on their chosen topic and encourage teen victims to seek help. Teen-friendly information is perhaps the most critical resource adolescent victims need (and don't often get) in order to make choices about how to handle their victimization. Peer education and outreach fills this gap.

Public policy advocacy. In the third and final step of the TAP process, youth channel what they have learned into an advocacy campaign for systemic change to improve the community's response to teen victims. Because much of this response is dictated or influenced by laws, public policies, and organizational rules and procedures, this step is the logical culmination of the teens' work. TAP is based on the principle that youth have the power to accomplish lasting change in these areas, and in some cases their efforts can garner a better reception than similar adult-led efforts.

Sidebar 1 TAP in Action

Common Principles of the Youth and Victim Fields

Kids can do more than I ever thought we could.

–Sarah, 14, from Ohio

At the outset of TAP, staff at the National Center for Victims of Crime had little experience working with youth. We began researching the field of youth development and the principles of effective youth programs to be sure that we were implementing a program that was consistent with the most current thinking. As the pilot program developed, we were struck by the parallels between traditional victim services and the Community Youth Development (CYD) movement. Formally adopting a CYD framework has contributed to the program's success with the youth and enhanced our learning as an organization.⁵

As we continue to develop the TAP model, we strive to pass the core of our learning on to the victim assistance field: specifically, that quality work with both teens and crime victims is based on the principle of empowerment-that is, providing information and resources and then supporting people in the choices they make about how to use those resources. Practitioners in both fields are uniquely positioned to collaborate and incorporate each other's wisdom into their own work, thus improving the quality of response to teenagers who are victims of crime.

CYD and Victim Assistance
Community Youth Development and victim assistance share several key principles. First, both view their constituents (whether youth or crime victims) as advocates, decision makers, and partners (as opposed to passive service recipients or, worse, part of the problem). Second, the most effective programs in both fields take their cues from the individuals they are working with. Finally, both value partnerships and collaborations with their constituents as opposed to expert-client or authority-based relationships. Common principles are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1 Common Principles of CYD and Victim Assistance

A Flexible Model

Even though people come from very far apart, they can be very much alike.

-Lindsey, 12, from Connecticut

TAP was never intended to be a set curriculum to be implemented in exactly the same way in every community. Rather, it is a program model, based on sound principles, that is easily adaptable to different types of communities. Crime problems are local, and youth in different communities have different resources at their disposal as well as unique experiences that lend themselves in different ways to the successful implementation of a program like TAP. Though fidelity to the core principles and processes of TAP is important, we believe that a youth-led program must leave room for the youth to truly lead, even if their leadership takes the work in unexpected directions.

We deliberately chose four pilot sites that were different from each other in many aspects. Our four sites-a charter middle school, a 4-H program, a faith-based community outreach organization, and a domestic and sexual violence victim service organization-together represent urban, suburban, and rural America; black, white, and Latino youth; and a wide variety of economic situations. The program model allows for this diversity in three main ways: (1) by beginning with a community assessment, (2) by being youth-led, and (3) by allowing the sites significant latitude in the use of program funds.

Community assessment. By completing a community assessment, each group of youth gains an understanding of local teen victimization and narrows the project focus to a topic of interest to the group and relevance to the community. Our four sites have chosen drug-related crime, bullying, child abuse, and sexual assault as the topics they want to address in their community.

Youth leadership. Not only is the youths' leadership of the program fundamental to its success, it also contributes to the model's flexibility. Within a set of basic parameters (including the time frame and the major tasks to be accomplished, including assessment, outreach, and advocacy), the youth "write the map," in the words of one TAP facilitator. They choose the type of victimization they want to focus on; they choose their assessment and outreach methods; and they decide what policies need changing and how to go about advocating for lasting community change to help teen victims.

Funding latitude. Sites are provided with a modest amount of funding, with minimal requirements. Funding for staff is limited to 35 percent of the budget so that funds are available for the youth to produce outreach materials, hold events, and otherwise conduct the program as they wish. One site chose to use part of the funds to pay the youth stipends, which turned out to be an important tool for retaining an active core of youth and for rewarding and recognizing the value of their work. Sites are also encouraged to seek local in-kind support for their campaign efforts (free or reduced cost for materials reproduction, T-shirt printing, etc.), and many have been successful in doing so.

Flexibility with structure. In addition to the funding-and more important, we discovered, to the project's success-the National Center provides the youth and adult participants with training, technical assistance, and support throughout the process. A complete lack of structure is as difficult to work with as too strict a structure. The youth and adult participants want clear expectations with room to try out their own ideas. The training is designed to equip the sites with the information and techniques they will need as they design their own assessments and outreach and advocacy campaigns.

A Program Design Supported by Research
To our knowledge, never before has a program like TAP, which blends the goals and methods of youth leadership development and teen victim assistance, been scientifically evaluated. However, the body of research on adolescent victimization, peer influence, and effective youth programs all support TAP's program design.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), cited at the beginning of this article, documents the high rates of violent victimization of teenagers. Those numbers are startling enough, but several independent studies have documented even higher rates of victimization among teens. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which is also based on a national sample, documents three times the amount of violent victimization among youth as the NCVS.⁶ Although it is logical that varying research methodologies produce significantly different statistics, all of the studies we examined suggest that violence against teens is indeed a significant problem.

As for TAP's specific strategies, several peer education programs have been studied and shown to be effective, mostly in the context of HIV- and pregnancy-prevention work.⁷ These programs primarily seek to change youths' sexual risk behavior. TAP is also committed to changing behavior patterns by influencing young crime victims to break their silence and seek the help they need to rebuild their lives and futures. It stands to reason that if peer communication on the very sensitive topic of sexual behavior is effective, then the same technique has great potential to be effective in the field of teen victimization. Finally, research on out-of-school time youth development programs has shown that when older teens are involved in the details of program planning, they are more likely to remain invested and to participate fully.⁸ Therefore, a youth-led peer-education model seems to be the most promising approach for tackling the problem of teen victimization.

Signs of Success

Research can be fun.

-Gerald, 13, from Connecticut

The TAP program is now in the third year of its three-year pilot period and is showing some promising results. The examples in the sidebar offer a glimpse of what the sites are achieving. At present, about 30 youth in four sites are actively engaged in creating awareness about victimization and contributing to policy change. The teens in all four sites have completed community assessments, including designing, administering, and analyzing surveys of their peers on victimization topics of their choice. They have interviewed service providers in their communities and have become experts on the wide variety of services available to crime victims; something most of the teens had little knowledge of before the project.

We have not yet collected data on the numbers of people reached through the teens' activities, as this process is still underway. However, to date, TAP groups have facilitated workshops at state and national conferences, made presentations in their schools, created and staffed booths at county fairs and health fairs, reached out to police, and created a coloring book to educate young children about child abuse. In the policy arena, the groups have changed their local DARE curriculum, studied local policy and state legislation on bullying, and made plans for further advocacy on their selected issues. Much more is to come in the final months of the TAP demonstration period.

One critically important affirmation of our success comes from our funders. The Surdna Foundation, a leader in the philanthropy of youth civic engagement, has funded the program all three years. The Office on Community-Oriented Policing Services (COPS) of the U.S. Department of Justice has also seen fit to fund the program as a promising way to break down some of the barriers that exist between youth and law enforcement.

Building on our experience from the demonstration period of TAP, we are preparing to launch a replication and evaluation initiative. We hope that a thorough program evaluation will provide more specific evidence of the success of the TAP model in raising awareness among teens of the dynamics of victimization and sources of support, in influencing teen victims to seek help when victimized, and in improving the effectiveness of communities' response to teen victims.

Lessons for the Field
Several lessons have emerged that have not only shaped our management of the TAP project, but also have implications for the Community Youth Development and victim assistance fields. For example:

Conclusion
The problem of teen victimization is one of enormous proportions. Statistics show that teens are the age group most likely to be victimized by crime and the least likely to report their victimization to police. In spite of this vulnerability, stereotypes of teens as reckless and violent continue to dominate the public's perception of adolescents. Even those most familiar with the dynamics of victimization and adolescent development-the victim services and youth development fields-have largely failed to address the problem of teen victimization, although common principles of the two fields lay an important foundation.

Involving youth in the solution holds much promise for addressing the problem. Respect for teens' voices, their ability to connect with their peers, and their power to make lasting change in the community should flow naturally from both the CYD framework and the victim empowerment model. Both fields can put their values into practice by empowering teens to reach out to and advocate for their victimized peers.

Collaboration is vital to these efforts. Victim service providers (who understand the dynamics of victimization, the criminal justice system, and the options available to crime victims) and youth development professionals (who understand adolescent development and have trusting relationships with youth) must work together to address the vast social problem of teen victimization and begin to reduce the impact of violence on our youth. The TAP program has proven to be an effective vehicle for fostering just such collaboration, while putting youth in the lead. Ideally, this and similar efforts will "catch on" and build into a youth-led movement for change that breaks the silence around teens' victimization and offers safety, hope, and strength to all adolescents touched by violence.

National Center for Victims of Crime
2000 M St. NW, Suite 480
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-467-8700
Fax: 202-467-8701
Victim Services Helpline: 1-800-FYI-CALL
Web: www.ncvc.org

---

	References
1	Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) (2003). Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2002: Statistical Tables. Washington, DC: BJS, U.S. Department of Justice, table 3. back
2	BJS, Criminal Victimization, table 96. back
3	National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) 1998. Marijuana: Facts Parents Need to Know. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health. back
4	Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), 2002. The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) Report: Parental disapproval of youths' substance abuse. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services. back
5	For more about the Community Youth Development framework, see www.cydjournal.org/2000Winter/hughes.html. back
6	Wordes, M. & Nunez, M. (2002). Our Vulnerable Teenagers: Their Victimization, Its Consequences, and Directions for Prevention and Intervention. Washington, DC: National Council on Crime and Delinquency and National Center for Victims of Crime, p. 3. back
7	Pagliaro, S. & Gipson, L.M. (2001). Effective HIV/STD and teen pregnancy prevention programs for young women of color. Washington, DC: Advocates for Youth. back
8	Lauver, S., Little, P. M. D. & Weiss, H. (2004). Moving beyond the barriers: Attracting and sustaining youth participation in out-of-school time programs. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Accessed on 3/2/05 at IssueBrief6.pdf . back