Developmental Victimology

The Comprehensive Study of Childhood Victimizations

DAVID FINKELHOR

n this chapter, I sketch the outlines of the mature, theoretically and empirically devel- I field of developmental victimology. It is a oped domains. By contrast, despite substan- field intended to help promote interest in and tial research on specific child victimization understanding of the broad range of victimiza- topics such as child abuse or child sexual tions that children suffer from and to suggest assault, there is no similarly integrated and some specific lines of inquiry that such an theoretically articulated interest that charac- interest should take. In promoting this holistic terizes the field of juvenile victimization. In field, I contend that the problem of juvenile comparison to juvenile delinquency, juvenile victimization can be addressed in many of the victimization has much less theory about same comprehensive and conceptual ways that who gets victimized and why, much less solid the field of juvenile delinquency has addressed data about the scope and nature of the prob- the problem of juvenile offending. lem, many fewer longitudinal and develop- The field of juvenile delinquency stands as mental studies that look at the "careers" of a monument to social science, one of its most victimized children, and much less evaluation

Author's Note: The author wishes to thank Richard Ormrod and Stephanie Halter for their help with data analysis and computation and Kelly Foster for her help with preparing this manuscript. For the purposes of compliance with Section 507 of PL 104-208 (the "Stevens Amendment"), readers are advised that 100% of the funds for this program are derived from federal sources (U.S. Department of Justice). The total amount of federal funding involved is $353,233. CRIME AND ITS IMPACT to ascertain the effectiveness of policies and traumas, such as accideiits, illnesses, bereave- programs that respond to juvenile victims. ments, and natural disasters. Even though These deficiencies are ironic for a variety we sometimes refer to "victims of hurricanes," of reasons. For one thing, children are among "cancer victims," or "accident victims," the the most highly victimized segments of the more general referent for the term uictinziza- population (Hashima & Finkelhor, 1999). tioiz is interpersonal victimization. In interper- They suffer from high ]rates of the same sonal victimization, issues of malevolence, crimes and violence adults do, and then they betrayal, injustice, and morality are much suffer from much victimization specific to more present than is thc case for accidents, dis- childhood such as child abuse and neglect. eases, and natural disasters. To a large extent, Second, victimization has enormous conse- moreover, interpersoiial victimizations engage quences for children, derailing normal and a whole special set of institutions and social healthy development trajectories. It can affect responses that are missing in other stresses and personality formation, have major ~ne~ital traumas: police, courts, agencies of social con- health consequences, impact on academic trol, and other efforts to reestablish justice and perfor~nance,and also is strongly implicated mete out punishments. in the development of delinquent and antiso- Although this area is the traditional domain cial behavior (Margolin & Gordis, 2000). It for the field of criminology, one reason why is clear that because of several factors, such traditional criminology may not have fully as children's special developmental vulnera- explored its childhood dimensions is that child bility to victimization, its differential charac- victimizations do not map neatly onto conven- ter during childhood, and the presence of tional crime categories. Although children do specialized institutions to deal with it (such as suffer from all the crimes that ad~iltsdo, many child protection agencies), the victimization violent and deviant behaviors by human actors of children and youth deserves both more that harm children are ambiguous in their sta- attention and specialized attention within the tus as crimes. The physical abuse of children, larger fields of criminology, justice studies, although techllically criminal, is not frequently and even developmental psychology. This prosecuted and generally is handled by a dif- chapter addresses a variety of issues: how to ferent set of social control agencies from the define and categorize juvenile victimizations, police and criminal courts. Peer assaults, unless what is known about the epidemiology of very serious or occurring among older children, child victimization in broad terms, and how are generally ignored by the official criminal victimization changes across the deveiopmen- justice system. tal span of childhood. To encompass these complexities, I have proposed that the victimization of children be defined as including three categories: (I)con- DEFINITIONAL ISSUES ventional crimes in which children are vic- The interpersonal victimization of concern to tims (rape, robbery, assault), which I will call developmental victimology is a special kind of "crimes"; (2) acts that violate child welfare negative life experience that stands apart from statutes, including some of the most serious other life events. This victimization can he and dangerous acts committed against defined as harms that occur to individuals children, such as abuse and neglecr, but also because of other hunzan actors hehaving in some less frequently disciissed topics such as ways that violate social izorins. The human the exploitation of child labor-which I will agency and norm violation components give call "child maltreatment"; and (3) acts that victimizations a special potential for traumatic would clearly he crimes if committed by impact. It is different from other stresses and adults against adults, but by convention, are Deuelopme~ztalVictimology not generally of concern m the criminal jus- work, and mental health remedies. The pub- tice system when they occur among or lic also is aware that there is noncriminal vio- against children. These would include sibling lence against children, and they think of peer violence and assaults between preadolescent assaults, offenses that would be handled by peers, and those that might be termed "non- parents or school authorities. criminal juvenile crime equivalents," which Different as their stereotypes may be, how- I will call "noncrimes." ever, these are not neat and distinct cate- Each of these categories is a complex gories; there is substantial overlap. Child domain, hut each has its stereotypical forms, maltreatment is sometimes treated as crimi- which sometimes help and at other times hin- nal, sometimes not (Figure 2.1). Child molest- der thinking about the category. When the ing, for example, is often considered as both a public thinks of crimes against children, what crime and a child welfare violation. The same stands out are stranger abductions and act of peer assault that might result in an extrafamily child molestations, situations of arrest in one jurisdiction may be treated as a adults threatening children in which the "noncrime" for parents or school authorities proper domain of protective and retributive to sort out in another jurisdiction. Moreover, action is clearly the police, courts, and crimi- there are normative shifts that are in progress nal justice system. When thc public thinks (illustrated by arrows in Figure 2.1). Sibling of child maltreatment, they tend to think sexual assaults once may have been viewed as of parents abusing or ~ieglecting parental neither crimes nor child maltreatment, but responsibilities, and the appropriate domains increasingly they are being handled by crimi- of intervention are family courts, social nal justice and child welfare authorities. The

Figure 2.1 Child Victimization: Crimes, Noncrimes, and Child Maltreatment CRIME AND ITS lMPACT

abduction of children by family members is its forms in schools, several Scandinavian increasingly being viewed as both a crime and countries have outlawed spanking even by child maltreatment. parents, and the American Academy of The category of "noncriminal juvenile Pediatrics has officially opposed spanking. crime equivalents" is one that often creates Social scientists have begun to study it as a confusion or draws objections. Some might form of victimization with short- and long- see it as a watering down of the concepts of term negative consequences (Strassberg, "victim" or "crime" to include acts such as Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1994; Straus, 1994). peer or sibling assault among children. But it Some have argued that it is the template on is difficult to deny the functional equivalence, which other violent behavior gets built. for example, between one adult hitting Clearly, a developmental victimology needs another, say, in a bar, and one child hitting to take account of corporal punishment, and another, say, on a playground. To st~tdyvic- spanking in particular, although it may timization in a developmental fashion, we deserve individualized theoretical and empir- must look at functionally equivalent acts ical treatment. across the life span, even if the social labels Another somewhat problematic category placed on the acts change as the participants in developmental victimology concerns indi- get older. The cultural assurnption is that rect victimizations, situations in which these acts are less serious or less criminal children witness or are closely affected by the when they occur at earlier ages. Whether and crime victimization of a family member or how these acts are different should really, friend. These include children who are first- however, be a matter of empirical investiga- hand witnesses to spouse abuse (Jaffe, Wolfe, tion. When studied, violence between &Wilson, 1990; Wolak & Finkelhor, 1998), youuger children has not been found to he who are deprived of a parent or sihling as a less physically or psychologically injurious result of a homicide (Kilpatrick, 1990). or (Finkelhor, Turner, & Ormrod, in press). who are present hut not injured in playground Understanding the basis for the social con- massacres or the public killing of a teacher struction of victimization across the span of (Nader, Pynoos, Fairhanks, & Frederick, childhood should in fact be one of the kcy 1990), all situations that have been studied by challenges for developrnelital victimology. researchers. Although indirect victimization An even more prohlematic type of juvenile affects adults as well as children, the latter are crime equivalent, however, is spanking and particularly vulnerable to effects, due to their corporal punishment, which is a form of vio- dependency on those being victimized. lence (defined as acts intended to cause Because most of the acts creating indirect vic- physical pain) and would he considered an timizations are crimes, these situations could assault among adults. But corporal punish- he readily categorized in the "crime" cate- ment is tiat just typically viewed as minor vic- gory, but some, such as the witnessing of mar- timization but is actually viewed as salutary ital assault, also are treated as child welfare and educational by many segments of society. violations in which the child is seen as a Because our definition of victimization requires direct, not indirect, victim. the violation of social norms, forms of nor- A new domain in developn~entalvictimol- matively accepted corporal punishment may ogy in recent years focuses on the topic of not qualify. However, there are signs that a Internet victimization. Three kinds of diverse normative transformatiou is in progress offenses have been subsumed under this regarding corporal punishment (Greven, ruhric: (1)Internet sex crimes and solicitations 1990). A majority of states have banned all for such crimes, (2) unwanted exposure to Developmental Victimology

pornography, and (3) harassment and cyher- An additional definitional complexity in bullying (Wolak, Mitchell, & Finkelhor, the domain of developmental victimology is 2006). When adults solicit underage youth for that, unlike in the domain of adult victimiza- sexual activities or even online interactions, it tion, specific victimization categories have falls in the category of conventional crime. But been much less clearly drawn. Thus, for although youth receive an apparently large example, child sexual assault, child sexual quantity of online sexual solicitations, it is dif- abuse, and child molestation are often ficult to assess how much of this is from adults thought of interchangeably, but these terms and involves individuals who are aware of also can refer to very different portions of the underage character of their targets. The the problem of sexual offenses involving Internet has also created an enormous expo- children. Thus child sexual abuse, when dis- sure of young people to inadvertent and cussed in child welfare contexts, often means unwanted sexual material, but although offen- sexual offenses committed against children sive to many youth and parents, it is not yet by caretakers aud thus might not include clearly defined as a crime or child welfare sexual assaults by strangers or peers. Child problem, in part because the harm element has molestation in colloquial terms is thought of not been clearly established. Harassment and as sexual offenses committed against children cyber-bullying appear to he fairly straightfor- by adults and thus might excl~tdedate rapes ward extensions of conventional bullying and sexual assaults by other juveniles. Child behavior into the realm of electronic commu- sexual assault is sometimes taken in its literal nication and are therefore the easiest to cate- meaning to refer to violent and forceful sex- gorize. It is still early to fully understand how ual crimes against children and thus excludes the development of a large electronic commu- nonassaultive sexual crimes against children. nications environment will alter the concep- All this suggests that the field could benefit tion of or risk for victimization. from a great deal of definitional refinement Another problematic category for develop- and organization. mental victimology is the one that includes mass victimizations, class victimizations, and institutional and policy victimizations. DIFFERENTIAL CHARACTER OF CHILD VICTIMIZATION Warfare and generalized ethnic violence have great impact on children. Because the main The discussion of how child victimization agent of this impact is individual violent or should be defined highlights the fact that child hurtful acts perpetrated by individual people, victimization differs from adult victimization. this does not stray too far froill the class of Children, of course, suffer from all the victim- victimizations I am considering here. Children izations that adults dehomicides, robberies, victimized hy governme~italor institutional sexual assault, and even economic crimes policies, however, are in a different domain. such as extortion and fraud. But one salient Children deprived of rights or affected by difference is that children also suffer from budget cuts or land expropriations or envi- offenses that are particular to their status. The ronmental policies are often seen as victims of main status characteristic of childhood is its human agents, sometimes acting outside of condition of dependency, whicli is a function, established norms. However, these are victim- at least in part, of social and psychological izations that fall far enough outside the immaturity. The violation of this dependency domain of the other interpersonal actions I am status results in forms of victimization, such callsidering within this field that they need to as physical neglect, that are not suffered by be the subject of their own specialization. most adults (with the exception of those, CRIME AND ITS IMPACT such as the elderly and sick, who also become At the other end of the continuum are dependent). forms of victimization that are defined The dependency of children creates what largely without reference to dependency and might be thought of as a spectrum of vuiner- that exist in very similar forms for both ability. Interestingly, the victimization types children and adults. Stranger abduction is that children suffer from can he arrayed on a prototypical in this instance, because both continuum, according to the degree to which children and adults are taken against their they involve violations of children's depen- will and imprisoned for rausom or sexual dency status (Figure 2.2). At the one extreme purposes. Homicide is similar: the depen- is physical neglect, which has practically no dency status of the victim does little to define meaning as victimization, except in the case the victimization. In some cases, to be sure, of a person who is dependent and needs to he children's deaths result from extreme and cared for by others. Thus it is a form of vic- willful cases of neglect, hut there are parallel timization that is created by children's depen- instances of adult deaths resulting from dent status and occurs primarily, if not extreme and willful negligence. exclusively, to children. Similarly, family One might think that most forms of child abduction is a dependency-specific victimiza- victimization are either dependency related or tion, because it is the unlawful removal of a not. But ill reality, there are forms of child vic- child from the person who is supposed to be timization that actually should he located caring for him or her. Other kinds of child along the midsection of the dependency con- victimization are a hit more ambiguous. tinuum. Sexual abuse falls here, for example, Emotional abuse happens to both adults and because it encompasses at least rwo different children, hut the sensitive psychological vul- forms, one dependency related and one not. nerability of children in their dependent rela- Some sexual abuse entails activities ordinarily tionship to their caretakers is what makes acceptable between adults, such as consensual society consider emotional abuse of children sexual intercourse, that are deemed victimizing a form of victimization that warrants an in the case of children because of their imma- institutional response. Therefore it is fair to turity and dependency. But other sexual abuse say that emotional abuse is a dependency- involves violence and coercion that would be related victimization as well. victimizing even with a nondependent adult.

Negiect Stranger Sexuai Physical Abduction Family Abuse Abuse I Abduction Emotional Abuse

Dependency-Related Not Dependency-Related Victimization Types Victimization Types

Figure 2.2 Dependence Continuum for Child Victimization Types Developmental Victimolofi)

In the case of physical abuse, there also is assessing whether a real qualifying victimiza- some mixture of types. While most of the vio- tion (e.g., physical abuse) occurred. lent acts in the physical abuse category would Other discrepancies are more complicated be considered victimizing even between to explain. For a variety of victimizations in adults, some of them, such as tlie shaken Table 2.1, estimates are available from baby syndrome, develop almost exclusively both the NCVS aiid the Developmental ill a caretaking relationship in which there is Victimization Survey (DVS; Finkelhor et al., an enormous differential in size and physical 2005b), a sti~dyconducted by the author and control. The dependency continuum is a use- colleagues. The NCVS is a highly rigorous ful concept in thinking about some of tlie survey conducted every year by tlie U.S. unique features of children's victimizations. Bureau of the Census, that interviews nearly It also is helpful in generating some hypothe- 10,000 youth ages 12 to 17. The DVS was a ses about the expected correlates of different survey of both youth and caretakers regard- types of victimization at different ages. ing the experiences of 2,020 children from the ages of 2 to 17. The NCVS estimates are considerably lower than those from the DVS SCOPE OF CHILD VICTIMIZATION for every crime and also lower than many There is no single source for statistics on child other survey estimates of specific forms of victimizations. The National Crime Victimi- juvenile victimization (Wells & Rankin, zation Sol-vey (NCVS), which is the ultimate 1995). This is generally attributed to several authority on crime victimization in general, factors. The NCVS uses a complex definition has two i~ilfort~inatedeficiencies when it for each crime it measures, and respondents comes to child victimization. First, it does not need to endorse several sets of questions in gather information on victims younger than specific ways in oi-der to qualify. Second, age 12. Second, it does not cover certain forms the NCVS interviews respondents on several of child victimization such as child abuse, sex- occasions over a period of three years to ual abuse, and kidnapping that preoccupy iiiake sure that the incidents reported clearly p~thiicpolicy regarding children. But national fail within and not outside tlie exact one-year estimates that compensate for these deficien- time period being investigated. Third, the cies of the NCVS are available from some NCVS survey clearly orients respondents to other soui-ces. Some of these various estimates the topic of co~iventioiial "crinie," so inci- are arrayed in Table 2.1. dents that respondents might not think of as Under some \~ictii~iizationcategories, the crimes (e.g., forced sex by a dating partner estimates of several different studies have or being beaten by a parent) may not get been listed, sometimes showing widely diver- reported. Fourth, the NCVS does not reqiiire gent rates. These differences stem fro111a vari- that youth be interviewed confidentiallj-, and ety of factors. young people may fail to disclose incidents Some of the studies listed base their rates they would not want their parents or family on cases known to authorities (NCANDS) or members to know about. professionals (NIS-3). Such studies are cel-- What this means is that the NCVS esti- rain to count fewer cases than studies that mates are very conservative and count pri- obtain information directly from youth and marily incidents that would be considered their families. Wliile it misses many cases, the conventional crimes in the narrow sense. advantage of i~lforination from authorities The DVS estimates, by contrast, are probably and professionals, however, is that profes- inflated with minor incidents and incidents sional judgment is typically invol\~ed in that sor~ieobservers might dismiss as "not Table 2.1 Rates and Incidence of V~tiousChildhood Victinlirations r m Age Ratcl1000' No. Victimized Year Soi6rceb Repovt Type Notes Assault, any physical 2002 DVS SelflCaretaker report 1993-2003 hlCVS Self-report S~bl~ngassault 2002 DVS SelflCaretaker report Rubbery 2002 DVS SelWCarrtaker report Nonsibling 1993-2003 NCVS Self-report 2002 DVS SelflCareraker report Nonsibling 2004 NCVS Self-report 2003 2002 DVS SelflCaretaker report 1993-2003 NCVS Self-report Sexual abuse 2002 DVS SelfICaretaker report (rcxual assault by known adult) 2002 NCANDS Agency reports 1993 NIS-3 Agency reports Sexual 11ar;issment 2002 DVS SelflCaretaker report 2000 Hostlie Self-report grade llallways Phvsical abuse 2-17 2002 DVS SelfiCaretaker report 2002 NCANDS Agency reports 1993 NIS-3 Agency reports 1995 CTSPC-Gallup Self-reports Neglect 2002 DVS SelflCaretaker report 2002 NCANDS Agency reports Includes medical neglect 1993 NIS-3 Agency reports 1995 CTSPC-Gallup Self-reports Psychological1 2002 DVS SelflCaretaker report En~otionalabuse 2002 NCANIIS Agency reports Witnessing! 2002 DVS SzlflCaretakei report Domestic violence SelfICaretakcr report Family abductions (or Carctakrr reports custodial interference) Age Rate/1000" Nu. Victimized Year Source" Report Type Notes Nonfamilv abductions 0-1 7 NISMART-2 Caretaker reports Legal definition, includes stereotypical kidnappings 0-17 NISMART-2 Law enforcement Stcrcotypical kidnapping

Homicide 0-1 7 SHR Agency reports Bullying 6th-10th grade HBSC Self-report Moderate and frequent huilyilig 2-17 DVS SclfICaretaker report Teasing or 0-17 CTSPC-Gallup Caretaker reports emotional bullying 2-17 DVS SclfiCaretaker reDort

Online victimization Sexi~alsolicitations and 10-17 YISS-2 Self-reports approachrs Unwantcd exposure 10-17 YISS-2 Self-reports to sexual material Harassment 10-17 YISS-2 Self-reports

Corporal punishnlent 0-1 7 PCAA Caretaker reports 0-17 ABC Ncws Poll Caretaker reports Spanked or hit ever

a. Numbers givcn in parentheses did riot appear in original source, but were derived from data piesflircd therein. b. Source acronyms: DVS, Developmcntai Victimizarion Survey (Finhelhol-, Ormmd, Turner, & Hamhy, 200Sb); NCVS, National Crime Victimizarion Survey (Raum, 2005); KCVS 2003, Nnrio~ralCiiriie Victimiration Survey, 2003 (Caralano, 2004); SCXNDS, National Child Abuse iY; Neglect Data System, 2002 (U.S. Department of Health and llurnan Sei~,iccs-Adminisiracic~ri on C:biIdren Youth and l:amilies, 2004); NIS-3, 'niiid Nutiotial Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, 1993 (Sedlak & Rroadhurst, 19961; Hostile llallways (Axelrod & Markow, 2001); NISMART-2, Srcoiid Narional lricidence Study of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Thiownaway Children, 1999 (ftammer, Finkelhor, & Sedlak, 2002; Sedlak, Finkelhor, liammer, & Scholtr, 2002); SHR, Supplemental Homicide Reports (For, 20051; HRSC, Health Behaviour of School- aged Children [Noilsei et al., 2001 ); CTSPC~Gallup(Straus, Hamby, Vinkelhor, Moore, & Runyan, 1998); YISS-2, Second Yoilth Internet Safety Survey (Wolak er al., 2006); * PCAA, Prcveiit Child Abuse America, (Onro, 1999); ABC News Poll iCiandall, 20021. 18 CRIME AND ITS IMPACT

real crimes," such as sibling and peer assaults include homicide, child abuse homicide, and and disciplinary acts. Table 2.1 reveals an nonfamily abduction. enormous quantity and variety of victimiza- Several observations follow froin this tions occurring to children and youth. Based typology. First, there has been much more on the DVS, over half of all children experi- public and professional attention paid to the enced a physical assault in the course of the extraordinary and acute victimizations corn- previous year, much of it by siblings and pared to the pandemic ones. For example, peers. One fifth experienced physical bullying, sibling violence, the most fi-equent victimiza- and one fourth, emotional bullying. In addi- tion, is conspic~lousfor how little it has been tion, 1 in 7 experienced a theft, and 1 in 20 a studied in proportion to how often it occurs. robbery. The NCVS rates are typically only a This neglect of pandemic victimizations fraction, in some cases a 10th or less of the needs to be rectified. For one thing, it fails to DVS estimates, which suggests how far we reflect the concerns of children themselves. In may still be from a consensus about the epi- a survey of children, three times as inany demiology of child victimization. But even the were concerned about the likelihood of their NCVS estimates suggest that conventional being beaten up by peers as were concerned crime victimization rates for youth are at least about being sexually abused (Finkelhor & three to four times larger than what is known Dziuba-Leatherman, I995). The pandemic to police (Finkelhor & Ormrod, 2001) and victimizations deserve greater attention if two to three times the victimization rate for only for the alarming frequency with which adults (Hashima Luc Finkelhor, 1999). they occur and the illflirence they have on children's everyday existelice. It is a rule of public health that threats to well-being that A TYPOLOGY OF CHILD are minor or only have enduring conse- VICTIMIZATION BY INCIDENCE quences in a small number of cases can be The estimates for various types of child vic- very serious in their total effects if they occur timization, in spite of their methodological frequently in a large population. So, peer limitations, definitional imprecision, and vari- assaults could potentially, on population ability, nonetheless can be broken into three basis, be resl~onsiblefor more mental health rough and broad categories according to their problems than child abuse. order of magnitude. First, there are the pan- Second, this typology can he useful in demic victimizations that appear to occur to a developing theory and methodology concern- majority or near majority of children at some ing child victimization. For example, differ- time in the course of growing up. Tl?ese ent types of victimization may req~~ire include, at a minimum, assault by siblings and different conceptual frameworks. Because theft, and probably also peer assault, uandal- they are nearly normative occurrences, the ism, and robbery. Second, there is what might impact of pandemic victimizations may be be called acute victimizations. These are less very different from the extraordinary ones frequent and occur to a minority, although that children experience in relative isolation. perhaps a sizeable minority, of children, hut Finally, the typology helps illustratc the may he on average of a generally greater sever- diversity and frequency of children's victim- ity. Alnong these we would include physical ization. Although homicide and child ahuse abuse, neglect, and family abduction. Finally, have been widely studied. tiley are notable there are the extraordinary victimizations that for how inadequately they con\.ey the variety occur to only a very sinall number of children and true extent of the other victimizations but that attract a great deal of attention. These that children suffer. Almost all the figures in Table 2.1 have been promoted in isolation at The survey found that victimization was a one time or another. When we view them frequent occurrence with 71% of the children together, we note that they are just part of a and youth experiencing at least one victim- torai environment of various victimization ization in the last year. But more important, dangers in which children live. it found the experience of multiple victimiza- tions very common as well. We defined mul- tiple victimizations as having a different kind Poly-Victims of victimization in a different episode over With so many victimizations occurring to the course of a year. This meant that an so many children, it is obvious that there must assault and robbery on different occasions, be considerable overlap. Ironically, though, even by the same perpetrator, would count as the fragmentation of the field of child victim- multiple victimizations, hut two assaults by ization has impeded inquiry into just how the same or even different perpetrators would niuch overlap there is and why. Advocates not count as multiple victimizations. This and policymaliers concerned about one form conservative way of defining multiple victim- of child victimization or another, such as dat- ization was adopted in light of findings that ing violence, have tended to present esti~iiates different kinds of victimization seem to be and studies about their victims as though this inore harmful than repeated episodes of the was the primary or only victimization that same type (see Finkelhor et al., in press; such children suffered from. They could do Fiitkellior, Ormrod, Turner, & Hamby, this hecanse studies of one kind of victimiza- 2005a). Of the children with any victimiza- tion rarely ask ahout other kinds. Some stud- tion in the last year, two thirds had experi- ies might inquire about multiple forms of enced two or more. The average number of child maltreatment, such as physical and victimizations for a victimized child was sexual abuse. Other studies, like the NCVS, three in the last year, and the total ranged all inquire about multiple forms of conventional the way up to 15. Obviously, children who crime, such as rape, robbery, and aggravated had had one kind of victimization were at assault. But studies almost never ask about a increased likelihood to have other victirniza- very broad and coniprehensive range of vic- tions as well. For example, if a child had been timizations, including child maltreatment, physically assaulted by a caretaker, lie or she conventional crime, and exposure to peer vio- was 60% more likely than other children to lence, for example. also have been assaulted by a peer. It turns out that most jilvenile victims Children with multiple victimizations experience muitiple victimizations. To ascer- should be of particular professional concern. tain this, we have developed a questionnaire In other fields, it has been widely recognized that asks ahout 34 different kinds of child vic- that multiple intersecting adversities fre- timization, the Juvenile Victimization quently have impacts far beyond those of Questionnaire. This questionnaire asks about individual stressful events. So, for example, victimizations in five broad domains: conven- clients with several psychiatric diagnoses tional crime, child rnaltreatnient, peer and sib- (comorhidity) or who abuse different kinds ling, sexual victimization, and \vitnessing/ of drugs (poly-drug users] have been found to indirect victimization. This questionnaire was pose particularly challenging problems. utilized in a national survey of 2,020 American There is every reason to believe that this is children ages 2 to 17. So~neof the estimates also the case with child victims. froln the survey, the Developlnent or We have proposed to call this group of Victimization Survey, are listed in Table 2.1. multiply victimized children "poly-victims." 20 CRIME AND ITS IMPACT

(We prefer to the term "poly-victim" over (Finkelhor et al., in press). That is, children "multiple victim" because the term "multiple who experience a single kind of victimiza- victim" can mean a victimization in which tion, such as bullying or even child maltreat- there were several victims, a meaning that ment, appear to be able to recover from it. could be confused with what we were intend- But youth who experience victimization of ing to designate-a victim who has had multiple kinds from multiple sources are several victimizations.) We expected that showing signs that they are locked in a pat- research on poly-victims would show them to tern or trapped in a downward spiral that be ~articularlyhighly victimized, vulnerable, should be of the greatest concern to those and distressed young people. trying to help. In fact, the DVS confirmed these predic- As we come to understand poly-victims, it tions. We categorized as poly-victims the may change some of the assumptions that we youth in our national survey who had experi- have been used to making about victimization enced four or more victimizations over the in general. Victimizations have in the past course of the single year. Such youth com- mostly been thought of as stressful or trau- prised 31% of all victims and 22% of the full matic events. This is in part a legacy of the sample. But they were the youth with the field's close connection to the literature on most serious kinds of victimization. Forty post-traumatic stress. The earliest victimiza- percent of the poly-victims had had a victini- tion experiences to be studied in detail were izatiou injury, 42% had experienced a form sexual assaults, which were considered to he of maltreatment, and 25% had been victim- highly threatening individual episodes, hap- ized by a weapon-toting assailant. Although pening to otherwise ordinary victims, who they were not that different from other youth were overwhelmed by a short-term incident. in their demographic profile, they had con- But as victimization research has expanded, siderably more other lifetime adversities, we have come to understand that many vic- such as major illnesses, accidents, or other tims are subjected to repeated episodes over a family problems. They were also clearly the period of time, as with the child who is hul- most distressed youth. They were 5.8 times lied again and again on the playground or more likely than other youth to he angry, emotionally and physically abused again and 20.2 times more likely to be depressed, and again by a parent. We are also now seeing 10.3 times more likely to be anxious. In fact, that many children are subjected to a variety inost of the clinically distressed kids were of different kinds of victimization, such as also poly-victims. For example, 86% of the being beaten and sexually assaulted and clinically depressed children also fit the crite- robbed, over a relatively short period of time. ria as poly-victims (Finkelhor et al., in press). This suggests that victimization for some It appears increasingly that professionals children is more like a condition than an should be looking for poly-victimization event. A condition is a mucli more stable and among children, not just one individual type ongoing process, whereas an event is more of victimization, even a serious one. Our analy- time-limited. It is like the difference between ses have suggested that poly-victimization is failing a test and failing a course, or the dif- most associated with mental health problems ference between an acute medical condition and bad outcomes and that poly-victims are such as appendicitis and a chronic one such the kids harboring the greatest amount of dis- as diabetes. One of the most important diag- tress. The associatioi~sbetween distress and nostic challenges that face professionals con- individual victimizations disappear when cerned about child victimization is discerning poly-victimization is taken into account those children for whom victimization has become a condition, rather than just an traumatizing, and crimelike as it occurs to event. We should expect them to have differ- older children, for example. That is, a ent characteristics and a different prognosis. teenager punched by another teen would be Currently, most of what we know about regarded as experiencing something much poly-victims is that they experience a lot more serious than a five-year-old punched by of victimization. They appear to be equally another preschooler. Is there evidence for divided between boys and girls, and they this? In fact, when we looked at these issues appear to be somewhat more common in a research study, we did not find less injury among older youth, although there are cer- or psychological impact for younger children tainly considerable numbers of poly-victims in instances of peer violence (Finkelhor et al., even at a very young age (Finkelhor et al., in in press). Still, they are not entirely equivalent press). Current evidence does not strongly kinds of offenses if only because we have dif- suggest that they come from poor or minor- ferent mechanisms for responding to them- ity backgrounds. Importantly, one feature police might want to arrest the teenage that does seein to he associated with poly- assailant. But we probably should not assume victimization is living in a family that has until we can study the matter more that the been affected by divorce, separation, andlor acts are more dangerous or the consequences remarriage. Obviously, we need considerably more serious simply heca~~sethe participants more study of these youth so that we can are older. identify them and prevent or remediate their In contrast to peer violence, the colloquial poly-victimization as a condition as early as assu~nptionabout child molestation is that it possible. is inore serious for younger children. Some people make the naive assumption that DEVELOPMENTAL PROPOSITIONS because children are at an earlier develop- mental stage, they may be vulnerable to more Childhood is such an extremely heterogeneous serious developmental disruption. For example, category4-year-olds and 17-year-olds hav- a child who has not yet been introduced to ing little in common-that it can he inherently sex will be more affected by the molestation misleading to discuss child victimization in than one who has developed some ideas and general without reference to age. We would concepts. But, here again, much of the avail- expect the nature, quantity, and impact of able evidence casts doubt on the colloquial victimization to vary across childhood with assumptions. Some studies have found sexual the different capabilities, activities, and envi- abuse and child molestatioii to have more ronments that are characteristic of different consequences at younger ages, and others stages of development. This is the key princi- have found the opposite. One of the big proh- ple of developmental victimology. lems is that victimizations that happen at an Unfortunately, the general culture is earlier age tend to go on for a longer period already full of assumptions about develop- of time. It is clear that what developmental ment and victimization, many of them ques- victimology needs is a rigorously empirical tionable and sometimes even contradictory. approach to developmental issues, one that Some victimizations are presumed to be does not accept facile developmental assump- worse for younger children, others worse for tions at their face value. Things are generally older children-mostly based on stereotype, more complicated than most people, even not evidence. We have already alluded to experts, presume. some of these assumptions. Peer violence is One good place to start an empirical devel- presumed to he more serious, injurious, opmental victiniology is with propositions 22 CRIME AND ITS IMPACT

about how the types of victimization and oldest children ages 16 and 17 (Figure 2.3). types of perpetrators change over the course But the two peaks represent very different of childhood. The mix of victimization types phenomena. The homicides of young children is very likely to be different for younger are primarily committed by parents, by chok- children and older children. Based on one of ing, smothering, and battering. In contrast, the concepts introduced earlier, we v~ould the homicides of older children are committed expect, for example, that victimizations stem- mostly by peers and acquaintances, primarily ming from the dependent status of children with firearms. Although the analysts do not should he most common among the most agree entirely on the number and exact age dependent, hence, the youngest children. H span of the specific developmental categories corollary is that, as children get older, their for child homicides, a number of propositions victimization profile should come more and are clear. There is a distinct group of neonati- more to resemble that of adults. cides: children killed in the first day or few We can examine such propositions in a weeks of life. The proportion of female and crude way with the data that are available. In rural perpetrators is unusually high in this fact, we do know that some of the depeil- group (Jason et al., 1983). Homicide at this dency-related victimizations are most concen- age is generally considered to include many trated in the under-12 age group. For isolated parents dealing with unwanted examplc, physical neglect, the failure to take children. care of the needs of a dependent child, After the neonatal period, there follows a is heavily concentrated among younger period through about age five during which children. Family abduction is also heavily homicides are still primarily committed by concentrated among younger children. When caretakers using "personal weapons," the children are no longer so dependent, they criminologist's term for hands and feet, hut tend to make their own choices about which the motives and circumsrances are thought to parent to live with, and abduction is no he somewhat different from those pertaining longer a feasible strategy for disgruntled to the neonatal period. These preschool parents. By contrast, victimizations that we victim homicides appear to he inostly cases grouped at the ~londependency end of the of fatal child abuse that occur as a result of contin~iuminvolve a greater percentage of parents' attempts to control children or angry teenagers. Homicide is a crime defined equiv- reactions to some of young children's aver- alently for minors and adults, and it is con- sive behavior-uncontrollable crying, hitting centrated ainong teellagers (Figure 2.2). parents or siblings, soiling themselves, or Homicide is a particularly good crime for getting dirty (Christoffel, 1990; Ctitteilden & solne additional insights about devclop~nent Craig, 1990). Such children are freq~iently and victimization, because fairly coinplete age thrown against hard surfaces, st]-uck hard data are available and because other efforts with a blow to the head or helly, or smoth- have been made to interpret the patterns ered. Because of their small size and physical (Christoffel, 1990; Christoffel, Anzinger, 8( vulnerahility, many children at this age die Amari, 1983; Crittenden 8( Craig, 1990; froin acts of violence and force by adults that Jason, 1983; Jason, Carpenter, iYi Tyler, would not he fatal to an older child. 1983). Child homicide is also a complicated As children become school age, the rate crime fi-om a developmental point of view. It of child liomicide declines, and the nature of has a coilspicuous bimodal frequency, with a child homicide becomes somewhat different. high rate for the very youngest children, those Among school-age children, killings hy uitder age 1, and another high rate for the parents and caretakers gradually decrease Victim Age

I22 Family E?B Acquaintance Stranger ll Unknown

.- ~ ~ .. .. Figure 2.3 Juvenile Homicide Rates, by Victim-Offender Relationship and Victim Age, 2003 SOURCE: SHK (Fox)2003. and those by peers and acquaintalices rise. Americans, and Asian Americans-soars. There are more firearm deaths. Children get The homicides for this group of youth look murdered by suicidal parents bent on a lot like the homicides for young adults, destroying their whole families. Children this although it is one of the few forms of victim- age are also sometimes killed in the child ization that they suffer at lower rates. molesrations that begin to increase in this These patterns of homicide victimization period (although homicide is a rare accompa- suggest some interesting propositions rele- niment to child molesting). Some of the vant to developmental victimology. First, children in this age group die as innocent vic- they suggest at least three somewhat different tims in robberies and arsons. There is a mix- "ecological niches" in which victimization ture of the kinds of homicides that affect occurs: (1) a preschool, family-based, early younger children and also some of those that development niche (with a possible neonatal affect older children, hut the overall rate is subenvironment); (2) a middle childhood, low, and it is one of the safest times in the life somewhat protected, mixed school and span in terms of homicide risk. family niche; and (3) an adolescent, risk- Then, at age 13, the homicide picture exposed, transition-into-aduithood niche. changes again, and rapidly. The rate for The types of homicide suffered by children boys diverges sharply from that for girls. are related to the nature of their dependency Acquaintances become the predominant and to the level of their integration into the killers. Gangs and drugs are heavily impli- adult world. Among the things that may well cated for this group, and the rate for minor- change across childhood and across these ity groups-African Americans, Hispanic niches are the victim-offender relationship, 24 CRIME AND ITS IMPACT the locale where the homicide occurs, the Family offenders are highest for the youngest nature of the weapons, the motives involved, age victims. But the percentage declines and the contribution victims make to the from near 70% to below 20% after age 32. crime in terms of risk taking and provoca- At the same time, acquaintance victimiza- tion. The homicide variations provide a good tions rise during childhood until adolescence, case for the importance and utility of a devel- where they plateau at about 70%. Stranger opmeutal perspective on child victinlizations victimizations remain low throughout child- and a model of how such an approach could hood but start to increase a bit after age 15. be applied to other types of victimization. The patterns are very similar in data on vic- timizations reported in the DVS, shown in Figure 2.4b. INTRAFAMILY VICTIMIZATION These trends are verv consistent with what Unlike many adults, children do not live alone; we know about children's social develop- they live mostly in families. hloreover, their ment. Social activities expand throughout involvement in their families wanes as they get childhood to include an increasingly large older. So a plausible principle of developmen- and more distant network of contacts. But, tal victimology is that younger children have a overall, children have fewer of the character- greater proportion of their victimizations at istics that might make them suitable targets the hands of intimates and correspondingly for strangers, such as money and valuable fewer at the hands of strangers. This is because possessions. In adolescence, they both they live more sheltered lives and spend more acquire such valuables and begin to interact time in the home and around family. in even more public arenas so that increased Figure 2.4 indeed confirms this. Figure victimization at the hands of strangers makes 2.4a shows data on crimes against children se1ise. known to the police from the FBI's National An additional possible principle is that the Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). identity of perpetrators may vary according

Police Data

80 3 ._.--.....-.-. \ Acquaintance ...--.-

Victim Age -- .- ... -. .. - - Figure 2.4a Juvenile Victim Relationship to Offender by Victim Age: l'olice Dam SOURCE: Fsdei.11 Bureau of Iniesrigarion (19971, National Iiicidrni-Rased Reporting Sysiem (NIBRS; 12 siatrs only), computer file. Tahiilaiianr midenakcn by Crimes Againsr Cliildreii Research Center, Washington. D.C., U.S. Deparrnirnr of Jusricr. Federal Bureau of Invrstigarion. Survey Data

Victim Age

Figure 2.4b Jovenile Relationship to Offendcr by Victim Age: Survey Data SOURCE: De~~eiupmenralVicrimirarion Surrey. 411 forms of victimization (Finkelhor er al., 200Sh)

to the type of victimization and its place on and move out into an ever-widening circle of the dependency continuum. Victimizations social activity. that are more dependency related should We would also expect that, as the homi- involve more perpetrators who are parents cide data shows, crimes against children and family members. Available data suggests involving firearms would increase along with that this is true. Parents comprise 100% of development. In fact, one explanation for why the perpetrators of neglect (Sedlak, 1991)- teens are murdered less than young adults in the most dependency-related victimization- spite of their equivalent or higher overall vio- hut only 28% of the perpetrators of homicide lent victimization rate could be that teens and (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1992). This their associates have less access to firearms pattern occurs because the responsibilities than do young adults. created by children's dependency status fail primarily on parents and fanlily members. GENDER AND VICTIMIZATION They are the main individuals in a position to violate those responsibilities in a way that Developmental victi~nologyneeds to consider would create victimization. Tlius, when a sick gender as well as age in its effort to map the child fails to get available medical attention, patterns of victimization in childhood. In over- it is the parents who are charged with neglect- all terms, many of the gender patterns seen ing the child, even if the neighbors also did among adults also apply among children. Tliat nothing. is, boys overall suffer more victimization than Consiste~itwith developmental patterns in girls, but girls suffer more sexual assaults. On victim-offender relationship and the depen- the basis of the conventional crime statistics dency continuum, we would also expect that available from the NCVS and Uniform Crime more of the victiinizatio~ls of younger Report, the ratio of boys to girls for homicide children would take place in the hoine is 2.3 to 1; for assault, 1.7 to 1; and for rob- and that victimizations would depart farther bery, 2 to 1. Girls suffer vastly more incidences and farther from the home as children age of rape (8.1 to 1; Bureau of Justice Statistics, 26 CRIME AND ITS IMPACT

1992; Federal Bureau of Investigatioil, 1992). peers, abuse at the hands of parents, neglect But these ratios primarily pertain to the expe- and other forms of child maltreatment-are rience of adolescents, and they do not consider forms of victimization that are considerably age variations, which add a considerable wrin- less likely to be defined as crimes or matters kle to the pattern. of police concern. The age patterns in victimization rates are considerably different when the evidence THE AGE CRIME CURVE comes from victims themselves and their The life course patterns in crime and delin- family members, for example, from the DVS, quency have been one of the most interesting which assessed victimizatious from ages 2 threads for ongoing discussion and research in through 17, using the same screening ques- criminology. The empirical foundation for the tions across all ages (Figure 2.5). Overall, vic- discussio~l is the apparent observation that timization rose slightly but not precipitously criminal behavior accelerates dramatically for the adolescents.' The rise was largest for during the adolescent years to reach a peak in sexual victimizations and witnessingiindirect young adulthood and then falls off in later victimizations. There was no rise for assaults. years. The dramatic rise from preadolescence Perhaps, most surprisingly, child maltreat- to adulthood has been ascribed to a variety of ment also rose with age. This might be the factors. One argument is that it reflects a form of victimization that we would most biosocially based status competition for mates expect to decline with age. In fact, some stud- that gets its start in adolescence (Kanazawa & ies of child maltreatment known to profes- Still, 2000). Others contend that crime rises in sio~ials also show higher rates for older adolescence because at that stage young children. But it may he the case that the mal- people begin to have adult aspirations hut are treatment of younger children is difficult to excluded from the labor market (Greenherg, access, both in surveys (which almost of 1985; Grogger, 2998). Others point simply to necessity must get this information from the the lax social controls that operate during caregivers themselves) and among cases adolescence and young adultl~ood-singleli~~od, known to professionals, who are less likely to no family responsibilities, and no cornmitmnlt have contact with younger children. to employers. Does victimization risk have the The absence of a steep increase in victim- same age pattern, accelerating during adoles- ization is also apparent in the NCVS data. cence in the same dramatic fashion as delin-I Rates of violent crime measured in the NCVS quency? Official crime statistics would say yes, for 12- to 14-year-olds are as high as rates for but more comprehensive self-report surveys 15- to 17-year-olds. Rape and aggravated suggest no. assault are a bit higher for the older adoles- Police data such as from NIBRS jurisdic- cents, but simple assault is actually more tions show that teens constitute three fourths common for the younger youth. The steep of the juvenile crime victims, with risk esca- increases noted in self-reported delinquency lating as youth age (Finkelhor & Ormrod, studies (Elliott, Huizinga, & Menard, 1989) 2000). Olily a few crimes, such as kidnap- are not apparent in the self-reported victim- ping, forcible sodomy, and incest, appear ization studies. more evenly distributed across developmental Why does the self-report information con- stages. But the police data have serious limi- trast so starkly with the official police data? tations as valid testimony to the age curve for Studies clearly show that the younger the vic- victimization. Many of the victimizations of tims, the less likely it is that victimization will younger children-assaults at the hands of be reported to law enforcement (Finkelhor 81 Developmental Victimology

Major Victimization Types by Victim Age

Wilnessllndirect Assault ,-

, Property ,

Maltreatment - - - Sexual ." ____l__.___._^_.."_------7 ------2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17' Victim Age (years)

Figure 2.5 Major Victimization Types by Victim Age

NOTE: Far puiposcs of geneiaii,ntioii, dar.3 tire shown 3s -3-lrar iunniiig arcrages

Ormrod, 1999). The public and policc do not theories (Cohen, 1981; Garofalo, Siegel, & I.auh, want younger victims caught up in a judicial i987; Cattfredson, 1986; Hindelang, Cattfredson, system. They are less apt to define juvenile & Garofalo, 1978). Such theories, as they victimizatio~isas crimes. Families, schools, have been expoiliided in the past, highlight the and child welfare officials lay claim to the fact that lifestyles and activities of different arbitration of offenses against younger vic- people put them in environments or situations tims. Younger victims themselves have a in which they are more or less in contact with harder time independently accessing police. potential offenders and at risk of potential vic- So, in spite of police data, victiiuization does timization. not accelerate in adolescence in the same way Four central concepts have been used in as delinquency. these approaches to explain the connection between lifestyles and risk: proximity to crime, exposure to crime, target attractive- THE LIFESTYLES AND ness, and guardianship (bliethe & hleier, ROUTINE ACTIVITIES THEORY 1994). I'roximity to crime u,ould mean living OF CRIME VICTIMIZATION in high-crime areas. Exposure to crime would Developmental victimology also needs to i~icludethings s~~chas being out at night. develop theories of victimization risk that take Target attracriveness would he attributes that into account the specific context of childhood. might entice offenders sucli as the ownership This lnay mean altering some of the conven- of desirable and porrahle possessions. Gual-diaii- tional approaches raken by victirnology as it ship highlights that spending considerable has been applied to adults. In victimology, in time alone or apart from the family or other general, one conceptual framework has domi- possibly protective individ~~alscan create vul- nated the discussioii: the closely related nerability. These concepts have proved useful "lifestyle exposure" and "routine activities" in explaining why certain groups such as CRIME AND ITS IMPACT

men, blacks, and single people have higher but even young children get assaulted, kid- crime victiinization rates. They have also napped, and sexually abused (Finkelhor & been used to explain why rates of crime have Dziuba-Leatherman, 1994) without any con- increased over time in some places and in nection to delinquent behavior. For another some periods, when, for example, fewer thing, the lifestyle and routine activities people began living in families, and people theories were designed for and have always began acquiring moz-e conspicuously valuable been best at explaining street cri~nesuch as items. stranger assaults and robberies. But much of When these concepts have been applied to youth victimization, especially of younger some extent to the analysis of youth victim- children, occurs at the hands of acquaintances ization, it has been primarily to point out how and family members (Finkelhor & Dziuba- increased exposure and decreased guardian- Leatherman, 1994). ship heighten youth vulnerability. Young These acquaintance and intrafamily victili1- people are viewed in this theory as engaging izations are not as well suited to the lifestyle in risky behaviors, such as staying out late, or routine activities concepts. For example, going to parties, and drinking, which com- routine activities studies often operationalize promise the guardianship provided by parents exposure to crime as the amount of time rou- and adults and expose them to more possibil- tinely spent out at niglit or away from the family ities for victimization (Jensen 8: Brownfield, household. However, when trying to explain 1986). Much of thc research on youth victim- parental child abuse, such explanations col- ization has particularly stressed its connectioii lapse. It docs not increase a child's risk of to delinquent activities (Lauritsen, Lauh, & parental abuse to be away from their parents. Sampson, 1992; Lauritsen, Sampson, 8: Laub, In fact, it may actually reduce it. 1991). Delinquency is seen as a lifestyle that Thus it is not surprising that theories devel- puts a person in close proximity to other oped to explain children's victimization by offenders-aggressive or delinquent cornpan- acquaintances and family members liave vir- ions or rival gang members. Moreover, it also tually ignored lifestyle theory and liave relied greatly reduces guardianship because delin- on other concepts besides exposure and quents tend to avoid conventional social envi- guardianship. For example, in trying to account ronments and thro~~ghtheir activities also for who becomes the target of bullying, largely forfeit their claims on the protection of observers have noted that these tend to be police and other authorities (Sparks, 1982). children with "avoidant-insecure" attachment Empirical research has confirmed that delin- relationships with primary caregivers, who quents are indeed more prone to victimization lack trust, have low self-confidence, have phy- than otlier youth (Lauritsen et al., 1992; sical impairments, are socially isolated, and Lauritsen et al., 1991). are physically weaker (Olweus, 1993; Smith, Bowers, Binney, 8: Cowie, 1993). CRlTIQUE OF LIFESTYLE AND The literature on physical abuse also takes a very different tack from the lifestyles ROUTINE ACTIVITIES THEORY approach. This literature tends to equate The lifestyle theory perspective of youth vic- victimization risk primarily with family and timization has ultimately been fairly narrow. parental attributes, such as family stress, For one thing, many youth get victimized isolation, alcoholic and violence-prone care- without being involved in delinquency. takers, parents who have victimization Delinquent activities are primarily the domain histories and unrealistic expectations of of adolescents, particularly adolescent boys, their children (National Research Council, ~evelopnzelatalVictimology

1993), and youth characteristics such as beaten by a parent because the child's disabil- oppositiollal behavior, difficult tempera- ity disappoints and frustrates a parent is an ment, or impairments that are a burdcn or "attractive target" for parental anger in only source of disappointment for caregivers a very ironic and convoluted way. Moreover, (Berdie, Berdie, Wexler, & Fisher, 1983; it is not necessarily true, as is often the case Garbarino, 1989; Libby & Bybee, 1979; for property crime, that the offender is Schellenbach & Guerney, 1987). A still dif- simply choosing among more attractive tar- ferent victimization literature, the one on gets, deciding to burglarize the home with the child sexual assault, notes even other risk fancier exterior. In the example of parental factors: girls, children from stepparent assault, if the child were not disabled, it is not families, children whose parents fight or are clear that some other child would then suffer distant and punitive, reduced parental the abuse illstead. Maybe, i this case, supervision, and emotional deprivation that nobody would be abused. make children and youth vulnerable to the But perhaps thc biggest objection to trying offers of attention and affection that sexual to subsume these child victimization risk fac- predatory offenders sometimes use to draw tors into routine activities theory is that none children into sexual activities (Finkelhor, of these target attributes constitutes a 1993; Finkelhor, 1994). "lifestyle." Nor do they necessarily increase The concepts from these various literatures risk through routine activities. Thus, female- can, to a limited extent, be subsumed into the ness, although it is a form of target attrac- routine activities conceptual framework. tiveness and does increase the risk for sexual Tl~us,for example, lack of supervision (con- abuse, is not a routine activity. Moreover, sidered a risk for sexual abuse) corresponds to while malcness may put men at differential the guardianship concept. Family social isola- risk for physical assault because men engage ti011 (as a risk for parental physical abuse) in more unsupervised and risk-taking behav- also has an element of missing guardianship, ior (a lifestyle feature), femaleness does not but in this case the guardians are not the put women at differential risk for sexual family members themselves, but members of a assault by virtue of anything they do. Femalc- related social network. One might also coil- ness itself is the risk attribute. Similarly, sider characteristics such as having an impair- while emotional deprivation may change a ment, being insecurely attached, being a person's routine activities, if a molester preys female, or being emotionally deprived as fea- on such a child because she is needy, it is not tures of "target attractiveness." the routine activities of the child that neces- But target attractiveness, in the routine sarily elevate the risk. The routine activities activities literature, has primarily been uti- idea of target attractiveness does not seem lized in a very narrow sense, in reference to broad enough. the value and portability of material objects that as a result of their lifestyle a person may A NEW CONCEPTUAL own or carry (Hough, 1987; Miethe & Meier, FKAMEWORK FOR THINKING 1994). It could be extended without too much ABOUT VICTIMIZATION distortion to refer to the value of a victim as an object of desire, such as for a sexual crime. Thus, to explain the full range of victimiza- But target attractiveness takes on a very dif- tions among youth, the lifestyle or routine ferent nleaning in the case of violent victim- activities framework needs to be modified. izations, one in which the word attractio,~ Concepts such as guardianship, exposure, and seems quite inappropriate. A child who is proximity, when it comes to victimization by CRIME AND I'TS IMPACT intimates, need to be seen not as aspects of female gender for the crime of sexual assault, routine activities or lifestyles hut as environ- but keeping in mind that for some sexual mental factors that expose or protect victims offenders, gratifiability focuses on prepubes- from victimization. Thus, when a child is placed cent children or in some cases boys. Having at risk for sexual abuse because parents are valuable possessions, as in the ro~iti~leactivities fighting and inattentive, the lack of guardian- notion of target attractiveness, would also fall ship is an environmental condition conducive into this category. to victimization, m)t a problem of a lifestyle or 3. In the case of target antagonism, some routine activity for the child. characteristics increase risk by being qualities, In addition to the environmental condi- possessions, skills, or attributes that arouse the tions highlighted by the lifestyle theory to anger, jealousy, or destructive impulses of the explain the risks for youth victimization, offender. Examples in this category would be more attention also needs to be given to the ethnic characteristics or being gay or effemi- risk-increasing potellrial of individual charac- nate (for hate crimes), or being anxioi~sly teristics and attrihutes, such as female gender attached, a "mama's boy," etc. (as in the case or emotional deprivation. These personal of b~illy victims). In the case of parental characteristics of individuals would appear assaults, characteristics such as being a burden to increase vulnerahility to victimizatiotl, due to disability or being disobedient would he independent of any routine activities, because other examples. these characteristics have some congruence with the needs, motives, or reactivities of offenders. 'That is, because certain offenders Although thcse target congruence concepts, are drawn or react to certain types of victims and particularly the target gratifiability one, or certain characteristics in victims, such vic- have similarities to the notion of target attrac- tims are more vulnerable. This process might tiveness, the word attrnct~venessand its stcreo- be called "target congruence," and it increases typical applications in the crime of sexual risk in one of three more specific ways, assault have victim-blaming connotations that referred to here as target t~trbzercrhility,target should be avoided. The attractions implied in gratzfiability, or target nrztagonism: the co~lceptsused here are specific to the pre- dispositions, proclivities, and reactivities of the offender, hence the idea of congruence. Thus 1. In the case of target vulnerability, some gratifiability means tliat the target fits what the victim characteristics increase risk because offender is looking for, ~vhetherconventionally they co~npro~llisethe potential victim's capac- desirable or merely satisfying of an offender's ity to resist or deter victimizatio~land thus idiosyncratic motive. Antagonism does not make the victim an easier target for the i~uplyprovocation in the conventional sense: offender. For youth victimization. the pmto- without some predisposition, a crying baby typical risk factors in the vul~~erabilitycate- does not provoke assault any more than does gory would be attrihutes such as physical being the member of a minority. u~eakness,emotional deprivation, or psycho- It is important to note, as the ex.lmples logical problems. also illustrate, that target congruence changes 2. In the case of target gratifiahiliq-, some considerably from crime to crime, and from victim characteristics increase risk because they offender to offender. Thus a female may have are some quality, possession, skill, or attribute more target gratifiability for a sexual assault, that a11 offender wants to obtain, use, have but a male may have more target antagonism access to. or manipulate. The prototypical risk for a gay-hashing. Characteristics that might factor in tlie gmtifiability category would he increase target antagonism for pal-ental assaults, such as disobedience, may have little only from age 12 and older. The Uniform if anything to do with risk for peer victimiza- Crime Reports in the past have made no age tion. There may be some generalized target information available about crimes, with the congruence characteristics, such as weakness, exception of homicide (something that is hut even this may be a relatively insignificant changing under a new system, hiit the full factor in many victimizations. national implementation of this system is still These target congruence elements also a long way off). The national data collection clearly play a greater role in some offenses system about child abuse also has scvere than others. In relatively impersonal street methodological limitations, restricting the crimes or group victimizations (e.g., sniper way in which the information can be aggre- attacks) and also in the case of family gated nationally or compared among states members who live with very violent individu- (Finkelhor & Wells, 2003). We need compre- als, offenders may not he choosing victims on hensive yearly national and state fignres on the basis of any personal characteristic at all, all officially reported crimes and forms of only proximity. In other victimizations (e.g., child abuse committed against children. attempts to assassinate the president, stalk- These need to he supplemeiited hy regular ing crimes, or a parent maltreating a colicky national studies to assess the vast quantity of habj-) the congruence of the personal charac- unreported victimization, including family teristics of the victim \vitli the motives or violence 2nd child-to-child and indirect vic- reactivities of the offender provide a virtually timization. While there are methodological complete explanation of victiiu choice. challenges in such efforts, studies such as the These target congruence co~~ceptsseem to ones referenced in this chapter demonstrate encompass most of the characteristics that that this is feasible. have been cited in the literature on youth Second, we need thcory and research that victimization outside the lifestyle theory cuts across and integrates the vario~~sforms domain, characteristics such as low self- of child victimization. A good example is esteem and disobedience. But they also seem the work on post-traumatic stress disorder qnite relevant to the prediction of forms of in children, which has been applied to the victimization, such as street crime, which has effects of various victimizations: sex~~alabuse, heen the primary focus of routine activities stranger abcluction, and the witnessing of research. lioinicide (Boney-McCoy- Kr Finkelhor, 199.5, 1996; Eth & Pynoos, '1 985; Terr, 1990). Similar cross-cutting research could be done RESEARCH NEEDS on other subjects, such as what makes The reseiirch needs in the field of developmen- children vulnerable to victimization or how tal viaimology are vast and urgent, given the responses by family ~iiemhersbuffer or exac- size of the problem and the seriousness of its erbate the impact of victimization. To be truly impact, and they range from studies of risk synthesizing, this research needs to study the factors to studies of treatment efficacy to stnd- pandemic victimizations, not just the acute ies of criminal justice policy. But in the limited and extraordinary victimizations, which have space of this discussion, \ve will mention only been the mail1 focus in the past. three important points. Finally, the field needs a more developmen- First, if we are to take it seriously, we tal perspective on child victimization. This wo~lld need much better statistics to document and begin with ail understailding of the ~uixof vic- analyze the scope, nature, and trends of timization threats that face children of different child victimization. The National Crime Vic- ages. It would include the kind of factors that timization Survey records crime victimizations place children at risk and the strategies for CRIME AND ITS IMPACT victimization avoidance that are appropriate at Christoffel, K. K., Anzinger, N. K., & Amari, M. different stages of development. It also would (1983). Homicide in childhood: Distinguish- differentiate how children at different stages able pattern of risk related to developmental react to and cope with the challenges posed by levels of victims. The American Journal of victimization. It is ironic that until recently the Forensic Medicin. a,zd Pathology, 4(2), 129-137. problem of children as aggressors has had more Cohen, L. E. (1981). Modeling crime trends: A attention in social science than has children as criminal opportunity perspective. ]ournal of victims, reflecting perhaps the priorities of the Research in Crime and Delinquency, 17, adult world. It is encouraging that as the needs 140-1.59. of children are more fully recognized, this hal- Crandall, J. (2002). Most say spankinx's OK by ance is finally changing. parents but not by grade-school teachers. ABC News and ICR international Communications Research. Retrieved February, 10, 2006, from REFERENCES http://abcnews.go.com/~ections/~~/DailyN spankingp011021108.html. Axelrod, A., & Markow, D. (2001). Hostile Crittenden, P. A,, Craig, S. E. (1990). halluays: Bullying, teasing, and sexual harass- Developmental trends in the nature of child ment in school. Washington, DC: American homicide.Jowrna1 of interpersonal Violence, 5, Association of University Women Educational 202-21 6. Foundation. Daro, D. (1999). Pirblic opinion and behaviors Baum, K. (2005). Juvenile victimization a,zd of{ regarding child abrrse preuenlio~z:1999 srrniey. ending, 1993-200.3 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Chicago: Prevent Child Abuse America. Special lleport No. NCJ209468). Washingron, Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Menard, S. (1989). DC: Office of Justice Pmgrams, U.S. Department Multiple problem youth: Deli~quency,sub- of Justice. stance use. and mental health problems. New Berdie, J., Rerdie, M., Wexler, S., 8( Fishrr, B. York: Springer-Verlag. (1983). An empirical study of families involved Eth, S., LYr Pynoos, R. S. (1985). Post-Trainmatic in adolescent inaltreatmcnt. San Francisco: Shes Disorder in childyen: Progress in psychi- URSA lnstiture. atr),. Washington, DC: American l'sychiatric Boney-McCoy, S., 8( Finkelhor, D. (1995). I'rior Press. victimization: A risk factor for child sexual Federal Bureau of investigation. (1992). Critne in abuse and for PTSD-related symptornatology the United States, 1993: Uniform crime among sexually abused youth. Child Abuse si reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Neglect, 19(12), 1401-1421. Justice. Boney-McCoy, S., 8( Finkcihor, D. (1996). Is youth Finkelhor, 0. (1993). Epidemiological factors in the victimization related to trauma symptoms aid clinical identification of child sexual abuse. depression after conrrolli~lgfor prior symp- Child Abuse 6-Neglect, 17, 67-70. toms and family relationships? A longitudinal, t7inkeIhor, D. (1994). Current information on rhc prospective study. Journal of Consrrlting and scope and nature of child sexual ahuse. The Clinical I'sychology, h4(6), 1406-1416. Fzlt~~reof Children, 4(2), 31-53. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1992). National crime Finkelhor, D., 8( Dziuba-Leatherman, J. (1994). survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Victimization of children. American Psycholo@st, Justice. 49(3), 173-181. Catalano, S. M. (2004). Crivrinal victimizatiotz. Finkelhor, D., & Dziuba-Leatherman, J. (1995). 2003 (BJSLNCVS Report No. NCJ 205455). Victimization prevention programs: A national Washingtoii, DC: U.S. Department of survey of children's exposure and reactions. Justice. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19(2),125-1 35. Christoffel, K. K. (1990). Violent death and injury Finkelhor, D., & Ormrod, R. K. (1999). Reporting in U.S. children and adolescents. American crimes against jz~uetziles (Juvenile Justice Journal of Diseases of Children, 144, 697-706. Bulletin No. NCJ178887). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile lustice: An annual review of research. 7, Justice and Delinquency l'revention. 251-287. Finkelhor, D., & Ormrod, R. (2000). Greenberg, D. F. (1985). Age, crime, and social Characteristics of crimes against jcrveniles explanation. American Joctrnal of Sociology, (Juvenile Justice Bulletin No. NCJ 1790.34). 91, 1-21. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Greven, P. (1990).Spare the child: Tlge religious roots Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency of punishment and the ps)~chologicnlinzpact of Prevention. physical abuse. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Finkelhor, D., & Ormrod, R. K. (2001). Child Grogger, J.(1998). Market wages and youth crime. abuse reported to the police (Juvenile Justice Jourrral of Labor Economics, 16(4),756-791. Bulletin No. NCJ187238). Washington, DC: Hammer, H., Finkelhor, D., & Sedlak, A. J. (2002). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Children abdi~cted by family members: Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Natio~lalestimates and charactel.istics (Juvenile Finkelhor, D., Ornirod, R. K., & Turner, H. A. (in Justice Bulletin No. NCJ1964661. Washington, press). Poly-victimization: A neglected compo- DC: U.S. Departmmt of Justice, Office of nent in child victimization trauma. Child Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Abuse & Neglect. Ilashima, I'., & Finkelhor, D. (1999). Violent Finkelhor, D., Orinrod, R. K., Turner, H. >I.,& victimization of youth versus adults in tlie Elamby, S. L. (2005a). Measuring poly- National Crimz Victimization Survey. Journal victiinization using the JVQ. Cldi Ahusr 6- of lnterpersunal Violence, 14(8),799-820. Neglect, 29(11), 1297-1312. Hindclang, M. S., Gottiredson, M., & Gatof:~lo,J. Finkelhor, D., Orrnnxl, R. K., Turner, 1-1. A,, & (1978). Victims of pe?.sonal crime. Cambridge, Hamby, S. L. (200%). The victimization of MA: Ballinger. children and youth: A comprehensive, national Hough, M. (1987). Offenders' choice of targets: survey. Child Maltreatment, lo(]), 5-25. Findings from victim surveys. lorcrnal of Finkelhor, D., Turner, H. A., & Omirod, R. K. (in Quantitative Criminology, 3, 355-369. press). Kid's stuff: The nature and impact of peer Jaffe, P. G., Wolfe, D. A., &Wilson, S. K. (1990). and sibling violence. Child Abuse & Neglect. Cl7ildren of battered women. Newbury Park, Finkelhor, D., & Wells, M. (2003). Improving CA: Sage I'ublications. national dara systems about juvenile victimira- Jason, J. (1983).Child homicide spectrum. American tion. Cljild Abtrse & Neglect, 27(1),77-102. /o~Uniform Crime Reports [United Jason, J., Carpenter,M. M., &Tyler, C. W. (1983). States]: Supplementary Homicide Repol-ts, Underrecording of infant homicide in the 1976-2003 IConiputrr file1 ICPSK043.51-v1 United States. American Journal of Public (pp. 11-22). Ann Arbor, MI: Intcr-University Health, 71(2), 195-197. Consortii~nifor l'olitical and Social Research Jensen, G. F., 8: Brownfield, D. (1986). Gender, [producer and distributor]. lifestyles. and victimization: Bcyond routine Garharino, J. (1989). Troubled youth, trouhled activity theory. Violence and Victims, 1, 85-99. familics: The dynamics of adolescent maltreat- Kanazawa, S., & Still, M. C. (2000). Why men com- ment. In D. Cicchemi & V. Carlsoii (Eds.), mit crimes (and why they desist). Sociological Child maltreatmeizl: Theoq and research of Theory, 18, 454-447. the cairses and conseqzrences of child abuse and Kilpatrick, D. G. (1990). Viole~zceas a precursor neglect (pp. 685-706). New York: Cambridge of women's substance abuse: The rest of the University Press. drugs-violence story. Paper presented at the Garofalo, J., Siegel, L., & Laub, J. (1987). Schnol- 98th Annual Convention of tlie American related victimizations among adolescents: rln Psychological Association, Boston, MA. analysis of National Crime Sutvey (NCS) nar- Lauritsen, J. L., Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. ratives. Jorrrnal of Quantitative Criminology, (1992).Conventional and delinquent activities: 3.321-338. Implications for the prevention of violent C;ottfredson, M. R. (1986). Substantive contribu- victiniizatinn among adolescents. IJiolence arzd tions of victimization surveys. Crime and Victims, 7(2), 91-108. CRIME ASD ITS IMPACT

Lauritsen, J. L., Sainpson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1991). Sparks, K. F. (1982). Crime and delinquency issues: The link between offending and victimization A monograph series. In R. G. Sparks (Ed.), among adolescents. Criminoloyy, 29, 265-292. Research on victin~s of crime: Acconlpiish- Libby, P., & Bybee, R. (1979).The physical ahuse ments, issues, and new directioizs. Rockville, of adolescents. lournal of Social Issues, S.5, MD: National Institute of Mental Health, U.S. 101-126. Department of Health and Human Services. Margolin, G., & Gordis, E. B. (2000).The effects of Strassberg, Z., Dodge, K. A,, Pertit, G. S., &Bates, J. family and community violence on children. E. (1994). Spanking in the home tind children's Annual Review of Psychol(~gy,il, 445479. subsequent aggression toward kindergarten peen. Miethe, T. D., & Meier, R. F. (1 994). C~imrand its Dec,elopmmt and P.sychopatholog, 6, 44.5461. social coiztext: Totvard an i~ttegratedtheory Straus, M. A. (1994).Bealing the dcvil oirt of them: of offenders, viclirxs, and situations. Albany: Corporal pu,tishment in Anzerican families. SUNY Press. New Yark: Lexington Books. Nader, K., Pynoos, R., Fairbanks, L.., & Frederick, Stmus, M. A., Hamby, S. I.., Finkeihor, D., Moore, C. (1990). Children's I'TSD reactions one year D., & Runyan, D. K. (1998). Identification of after a sniper attack at their school. Anzerican children maltreatment with the Parcnt-Child loirrnal of l'sychiatry, 147, 1526-1530. Conflict Tactics Scales: 1)evelopment and psy- Nansel, T. K., Overpeck, M., I'illa, K. S., lluan, chometric properties dam for a x~tionalsample W. J., Simons-hlorton, B., & Scliridt, P. C. of American parents. Child Abirse i; Ne,~lect. (2001). Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth. 22(4), 249-270. JAMA, 28.7(16),2094-2101. Terr, L. (1990). Too scared to cry. New York: National Research Council. (199.3). U,zderstaizding HarperlCollins. child abuse atzd rteglcct. Washington, IIC: l1.S. Departnient of Hrnlth and Human Servicas- National Academy Press. Administr.~tion on Children Youth and Olweus, D. (1993). Bullies nn the playground: The Families. (20041. Child Maltrealn?e~rt2002: role of victimization. In C. H. Hart (Ed.), Reports from the states to the Nalional Child Children of playg~or