Things to Come ... Tomorrow

Whatever you're doing tomorrow, find some time to visit the InterNetwork for Youth. To bring in March we are adding a new Library article and a new activity and new links to the Playground. We will also be featuring one of the now over 500 program websites in the Youth Program Directory, and we'll be introducing our March PartnerswithYouth Award Recipient! By the way, do you know when National Teenager's Day is? You will, and you'll learn what other youth-related holidays are in March -- all this and another month of Monday through Friday Youth Advocate Online blog entries, new tomorrow at the InterNetwork for Youth!

Where to Begin ...

So, the story goes that middle school students in McMinnville (Oregon) engage in a behavior the teachers and administration consider inappropriate. It involves spanking each other on the butt. Students, male and female, describe it as a greeting, sort of a ‘secret handshake’. The adults involved see it differently and told the students to stop. Predictably, the students did not.

Here’s where it gets difficult to comment. How many things can you find wrong with this story? We could start with the mixed messages society throws at our children. There has been much media attention recently on a proposed anti-spanking ordinance in California, and we have endured countless pontifications from adult proponents of spanking. Yet, when the students engage in spanking, it is considered criminal behavior (yes, I said criminal – more in a moment). But that’s just a philosophical issue. There are better ‘wrongs’ about this.

Take, for example, the fact that the school called the police to intervene in this behavior. If that alone doesn’t strike you as wrong, let me ice the cake with the fact that the parents were never, EVER informed of the behavior, the school’s problem with it, or the fact that the school was calling the police. No, the parents became involved only after two of the students (12 & 13 year old boys) were arrested and (now we are deep in the realm of truly wrong) housed in juvenile detention charged with 10 counts of sexual abuse. Only at arraignment in Yamhill County Juvenile Court did the parents discover that these charges carry maximum penalties of up to 10 years in prison. Up to a dozen more students may be facing arrest.

Stories like this leave me asking the question; have we gone insane? I can’t conceive of how anyone can possible think that arresting 12 & 13 year olds and charging them with sex abuse crimes is a rational adult response to relatively normal early adolescent behavior. If there were truly problems at this school, there are many ways the adults could have dealt with the issue, but doing nothing would be less traumatic and present less long-term consequences than arrest and criminal charges.

I am constantly frustrated as an advocate for youth by the way adults seem to have no problem raising the banner of “protecting their childhood” when they want to separate young people from ‘adult’ issues and concerns (which usually is just a way of preventing youth involvement), but we have no problem attacking childhood when it comes to responding to behaviors we deem ‘inappropriate’. The fact is, if you examine the childhood behaviors of most adults too closely, most of us could be registered sex offenders by today’s standards. I think we are way past the need for a deep breath, and more rational responses to our young.

A Good Idea

Props to Steve Henson, Managing Editor of the Pueblo (Colorado) Chieftain. He is implementing a new feature in the paper called “Teen Views”. This forum will feature a compilation of views by young people on a variety of topics.

The paper is creating a database of area youth who wish to be involved. Periodically, an email will be sent out with a question or concern, and any youth in the database is welcome to respond (or not). A sampling of the views of those who do respond will then be featured in the column.

Credit where credit is due, Mr. Henson got the idea after attending a conference and learning that the Janesville (Wisconsin) Gazette had already implemented a similar feature.

The InterNetwork for Youth strongly supports features like this, and hopes that many newspapers will follow in the footsteps of these two. Too often there are occasional nods to young people’s input, but ongoing attention to youth feedback is far too rare.

Interestingly, also far too rare are similar efforts by youth programs. I have had the opportunity to visit youth programs around the nation and I almost never see formal, ongoing efforts to gather and disseminate the views of the young people they work with. And I am not missing the irony that there is no such mechanism currently available at the InterNetwork for Youth. So, operating on the grand old principle of put up or shut up, a new feature is in the works to be rolled out in April. Any programs out there feel inspired to implement similar efforts?

Odd Behavior

As an advocate for young people, I am often inspired by things I see, sometimes appalled by attitudes I encounter, and occasionally befuddled, as sometimes things strike me as just plain odd.

Today's post falls squarely into the latter category. It seems that Article VIII, Section 6 of the Oregon Constitution requires voters in school elections to be at least 21. It was amended to the Constitution in 1948, and forgotten about in 1971 when Congress passed the 26th amendment to the federal Constitution, lowering the voting age to 18. Forgotten about, ignored -- but still in the Oregon Constitution.

When Hanna Fisher (18) and Ethan Gross (19) were studying the Oregon Constitution and came across this antiquated amendment, they decided to do something about it. Their efforts culminated in an invitation to sit on the House floor last Tuesday as members passed a bill striking Article VIII, Section 6 (source: The Oregonian).

The odd part is that, while the House voted to strike the requirement, the vote wasn't unanimous. The bill passed 56 ... to one. That's right, one member dissented (I don't want to mention any names, but his initials are Rep. Jerry Krummel, R-Wilsonville). The question is ... why? It's an obsolete section. The federal voting age has been 18 for 36 years. I know that there are people who, on principle, don't like altering constitutions. But this isn't altering, its cleaning up the language and bringing it into accord with common practice. Is it possible that distrust of young people is so deeply ingrained in some that they can't bring themselves to support anything that smacks of giving young people more status -- even if its status they already have?

I don't know. I can only speculated on the motivation for the dissent. But, as I said, it strikes me as odd.

Happy Birthday, George!

Today is George Washington's birthday. Here's a little tidbit that you may not have known.

One of George Washington's closest friends and confidants during the war for independence was a French nobleman named the Marquis de Lafayette. You've probably heard of him, as there are towns named after him all over the United States. He was a true hero of the revolution and, although he was a Frenchman, he has gone down in history as one of this nation's greatest patriots.

Lafayette served as a Captain in the French Calvary before coming over to aid the colonies in their struggle for independence. He and Washington quickly established a close and lasting friendship, and Lafayette was commissioned as a Major General in the fledgling Continental Army -- where he served with distinction and became known for his leadership abilities.

What you may not have known about him, however, is that when Lafayette was a Captain in the French Calvary, he was 16 years old. He received his commission as a Major General in the Continental Army at the age of 19.

Imagine if George Washington had the same attitude toward young people's abilities as we have today. Our war for independence would have been denied one of its greatest allies.

News from the Department of "Duh"

I don't mean to be sarcastic, but its so hard not to be sometimes. Particularly when I come across what I consider to be the blatantly obvious passing as news and information.

Take the February 10th article on recordnet.com written by reporter Keith Reed under the ground breaking headline: Parents Should Spent Time with Teens, Police Say. The article goes on to reveal that "San Joaquin County teen counselors and law officials agree it's a good idea for parents to spend time with their teenagers." Really? No foolin' ... ya' think?

In the article's defense, it does try to be helpful, pointing out that many teenagers don't want to spend time with their parents, and suggesting that finding common interests, such as hobbies or events can help bring the generations closer together. But even after I've thrown the article that bone, I'm still left shaking my head. Have we really come to the point where we need a reporter to tell us that the police and counselors agree that its "a good idea" for parents to spend time with their children?!? I mean, seriously -- when did this stop being common sense?

I guess the truly unfortunate thing is that I really wish I were as surprised by this as I'm pretending to be. Having worked with runaway and homeless youth for as long as I have, however, I'm afraid I'm well aware that simple wisdom like this stopped being common sense for too many parents a long time ago ...

The Power of Partnership

One of the benefits of being an advocate for youth/adult partnerships is that there is no shortage of positive reinforcement. I am consistently impressed by the amazing things I stumble across that are born from young people and adults working together. Take “Silent Message’, for example, a 30 minute film on child sexual abuse that is making headlines here in Oregon.

On the youth side of the partnership, Madras High School students who were motivated to do something in response to the rape and murder of a 14 year old friend. On the adult side of the partnership, Savenia Falquist, a Youth Development Consultant at Madras High School, and Duke White of Hudsonpro, his independent, family-run film company. The young people contributed their passion, energy, and perspective (“1000%”, according to 16 year old Janette Alonso, quoted in the Oregonian), and the adults contributed their resources and experience. The result is blowing people away.

You can learn more about “Silent Message” by following the link in the Web Resources section of the InterNetwork for Youth.

Here We Go Again: Part Three

Today’s post, being as how it is Part Three of a three-part series, will make a lot more sense if you’ve read the first two parts. If you haven’t, you may want to take a moment to read the last two blog entries. Oh, you have? Good, let’s move on …

The engagement tier is the more important of the two, as it is the tier that actually holds promise of a reduction in tagging and graffiti. I’ll take a moment here to remind the reader that I am not offering up a solution, that is, I don’t expect anything we do to actually eliminate the behavior. Rather, I am offering an approach to dealing with and minimizing the behavior. In that respect, tier one, accountability, does little -- at least in terms of the initial problem, as accountability is only relevant after there is something to be held accountable for. I do believe that the restorative justice approach I recommended in Part Two goes a long way toward reducing recidivism and helping to stop the spread of tagging and graffiti, and could be considered an extension of the engagement tier we’re discussing now. But engagement is the real key to the potential of this approach, because it is aimed at the underlying cause of and motivation for the behavior.

I recognize that there are some differences between tagging and graffiti. Graffiti has its roots in ancient civilizations, while tagging is an offshoot of graffiti that has its cultural roots in the punk rock movement of the 1970’s, and later became part of the Hip-Hop culture -- the key word here being ‘cultural’. While the historic roots of graffiti were artistic and political, modern graffiti, or tagging, is a cultural phenomenon. However, before this becomes a treatise, my point is that tagging and graffiti are forms of expression. While the means may be vandalism and criminal behavior, the motivation is to be seen -- and if we can understand that, we can also understand why tagging and graffiti are primarily the actions of the young.

We live in a society that has evolved the old saying children should be seen and not heard into we’d actually rather not see them, either. We have systematically removed young people from formal associations with adult culture. We segregate them by mandate into government operated schools, they can’t vote, and there are restrictions on where they can live and how they can be employed. In almost every aspect of their lives, young people are shut out of the mainstream of our world.

One of the strongest human needs is the need to be relevant, to be useful, to be valued -- to be seen. If we are made invisible enough, we will begin to use extreme methods to become visible. Among these methods are tagging and graffiti.

This is why you see this behavior from the most alienated members of our youth -- the gang bangers, the street kids, the ones we really don’t want to see. So, what is the best way to address this behavior?

We have to see them.

Not as we want them to be, but as they are.

We have to engage. We have to find ways to include them in our discussions, our approaches, our solutions. We have to listen to them and value their contributions. We have to actively seek them out not for punishment or manipulation or to see how we can ‘help’ them -- but to see how they can help us. We have to give them roles to play and ways to participate. The only way we'll ever get them to stop throwing their lives in our faces is to include them in our lives.

What a particular engagement strategy might look like depends on the community in question, and is a longer discussion than a blog entry, but there you have it -- my approach to the tagging/graffiti issue. I believe that restorative accountability and active engagement would be far more effective that knee-jerk solutions such as banning spray paint (which, by the way, only further contributes to the isolation of young people). Of course, banning something is a lot easier and scores more political points, but you know what they say – nothing worth doing is easy. Personally, I think young people are worth a little effort on our part.

Here We Go Again: Part Two

Yesterday I promised that I would reveal my solution to tagging/graffiti problems. So, true to my word, here we go. Are you ready? Drum roll, please ...

Um ... actually, I don't have one.

Now, wait -- before you feel burned, there's a reason why I don't have one. The reason is, there is no solution. Tagging and graffiti are human behaviors that have cultural roots. These are not things that you find solutions for, these are things that you develop approaches to. So, while I don't have a magic bullet for you, I will share the approach I'd recommend.

The approach involves two 'tiers' consisting of accountability and engagement. To begin with accountability, we should recognize that tagging/graffiti is a crime of vandalism that hurts people. However, I don't think that accountability focusing on punishment or rehabilitation (as do most current accountability approaches) is the way to go. Frankly, if I had property that I've poured my life and soul into, I'd care very little if the person responsible for damaging that property was in jail or therapy (both on my tax dime, I might add). No, the type of accountability I would want is restorative justice. Restorative justice is a theory of justice that involves the offender in repairing the harm done by the crime, and in helping to restore the balance in the community affected by the crime. If you are not familiar with restorative justice, I've placed some information links in the Web Resources section of the InterNetwork for Youth.

The second tier focuses on engagement, but this is a bit more complex than accountability. Stop by on Monday for an explanation of the engagement tier.

Have a great weekend!

Here We Go Again

Only yesterday I commented on the knee-jerk reaction adults often have when confronting perceived problems with young people. It seems that no matter what the "problem" is, the solution is always the same - ban it. Make a law, forbid, clamp down. Is it any wonder nothing ever really gets resolved?

Today's example is courtesy of Portland, Oregon City Commissioner Randy Leonard. Seems like we have a problem with graffiti here in the Rose City, so, Mr. Leonard's solution is a proposal that includes requiring spray paints to be locked away in stores, requiring those over 18 to show ID and sign for the purchase, and requiring youth under 18 to ... aw, heck -- we just won't let them buy the stuff at all.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am a HUGE property-rights guy, and most tagging is an expensive form of vandalism -- so I am in no way speaking in support of criminal behavior or unsanctioned graffiti. But neither can I support measures that further restrict all young people as a means of addressing the behaviors of some young people, particularly when these measures are nothing more than a "ban it" knee-jerk reaction that does nothing to address the source of the problem. I don't think anyone reading this blog (please comment if I'm wrong) believes that the existence of spray paint is the cause of graffiti. If that's the case, how do you explain the graffiti problems in ancient Greece and the Roman Empire? I'm pretty sure spray paint didn't come around until a few years after that. So, you may ask -- if I'm so smart, what's my solution? Its a legitimate question. Come back tomorrow, and I'll give you my answer.

Happy Valentines Day!

Today is Valentines Day, so it seemed appropriate that this post should be somehow related to the holiday. To that end I began searching around the web for some ideas, and one of the first things I came across was a report out of Bangkok. It seems that the police are imposing a 10 PM curfew for youth under 18 in an effort to prevent sexual activity by young people.

The curfew was decided upon after an Assumption University poll found that 1/3 of teenage girls would have sex on Valentines Day if their boyfriends asked them, and a similar poll by the University of Thai Chamber of Commerce revealed that 11% were planning on losing their virginity on this romantic holiday.

My point today has nothing to do with advocating for or against teenage sex. Rather, I just want to hold this up as an example of the consistently stupid way we adults react to what we perceive as problems with teenagers. Rather than looking for ways to engage young people, or ways to seek real solutions to complex problems, we far too often simply attempt to deal with the problem by "banning" it -- as though we can "fix" things by simply ending the debate (not that we have even started one) by a decree that forbids what we don't want.

Seriously, does anybody think that a 10 PM curfew will do anything to prevent teens having sex? The teens certainly don't. One 16 year old pointed out that "they can do it in the day time or any other day if they really want to". Hmmm. Pretty good point, dontja' think? Besides, is this a "problem" or an encouraging sign? Another way to interpret these polls is that 2/3rds of teenage girls will not have sex if asked, and 89% are planning on keeping their virginity. Those actually seem like reasonably good numbers to me.

The Law(s)

A new minimum wage law took effect in Arizona last month, raising the state minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $6.75 per hour, an increase of $1.60. As is the case with so many things in life, however, a second law simultaneously took effect -- The Law of Unintended Consequences. This second law lowered the minimum wage for many teenagers from $5.15 per hour to zero, zip, nada -- a decrease of everything, right down to unemployment.

As reported in the Arizona Republic by Chad Graham (New wage boost puts squeeze on teenage workers across Arizona, February 10, 2007), the new minimum wage has employers compensating for the increase in their payroll costs by cutting back on employees. And who are the first to go? Entry-level workers. Those who are new to the job market with as yet unproven track records and undeveloped job skills. In other words, teenagers.

This is not new information. 2003 data by Federal Reserve economists show that a 10% increase in minimum wages results in a 2-3 % decrease in employment, and economist Milton Friedman postulated that minimum wage laws were a major contributor to high teen unemployment rates. Even advocates of the new minimum wage in Arizona recognize this possible consequence, but supported the new wage based on helping the "breadwinners in working-poor families", and stating that teens typically have "other means of support".

But what about the teens who don't have "other means", or who are their family's "breadwinners", or whose "other means" are not healthy, or perhaps even legal, means? What about them? And how are teens supposed to get into the job market to develop the skills that will eventually make them worth the higher wages?

Granted, its a tough call for a youth advocate. At face value, the law seems like a good thing. I'd much rather see teenagers being paid $6.75 than $5.15. But what if paying them $6.75 means that they don't get paid at all. If the choice is between a lower wage and the opportunity to enter the job market, or a higher wage where they remain unemployed -- which would you choose? But I guess what really bothers me as an advocate for youth is that the knowledge that minimum wage laws hurt teen employees is dismissed with the attitude that teens have "other means of support". The attitude that we are willing to take actions that negatively affect teen opportunities, and that its no big deal, is what I really find objectionable.

Did Your Community Make the List?

America's Promise - the Alliance for Youth has released its 2007 list of the 100 Best Communities for Young People. Did your community make the list? Find out at americaspromise.org, or visit the Youth Program Directory at the InterNetwork for Youth to see if there are any Best Communities for Young People in your state!

It Didn't Seem that Hard

Darryl Wu got a perfect 800 score on the math section of his SAT. So, you ask? Mr. Wu, a 5th grader in Seattle, is 10 years old. He also scored above average on the reading and writing sections. Says Wu; "I, like, half expected it. It was still very exciting". When asked why he 'half expected it', Wu responded "Because the section didn't seem that hard".

OK. It's easy to dismiss this story as simply another 'juvi-genius' that you hear about once in a while -- as we always do. Of course, when I say 'as we always do', I'm referring to both hearing about them and dismissing them. But maybe we'd all be better off if we started paying attention to just how often young people are accomplishing amazing things. That could go a long way toward changing the prevailing wisdom that young people are empty vessels waiting to be filled up with adult wisdom. If we focused more on the potential of young people, who knows what the Wu's of the world could contribute.

By the way. If you want to be introduced to more evidence of the potential of youth, watch the Oprah Winfrey show tomorrow (February 12th), as she is doing a whole hour on 'Amazing Kids'. Personally, I can't wait to hear about the 7 year old who has performed surgery ...

New Resource for Teens

Thursday marked the opening of the first national hotline for teenagers who are in abusive relationships. Affiliated with the National Domestic Violence Hotline, the new Teen Dating Abuse Hotline is staffed with trained peers and adult counselors, and can be reached by phone (866.331.9474) or through the web (loveisrespect.org).

A link to the site is available in the Web Resources section of the InterNetwork for Youth.

What do you Expect?

A Statistics Canada study released yesterday reached an interesting conclusion. The study was looking at why children from poorer families were less likely to enroll in a university than children from higher income families. What they found was that the gap was only 12% influenced by financial constraints. 84% of the gap was determined to be the result of lower parental and high school expectations. In other words, they aren't as likely to enroll in a university because the primary influences in their lives don't expect them to excel.

For those of us familiar with the Youth Development approach, this isn't a big surprise (for an introduction, use the link above to visit the InterNetwork for Youth's Youth Development page). Having high expectations for young people is one of the environmental 'protective factors' that fosters each young person's innate resilience. When you believe young people are capable and competent, they become capable and competent. When you believe that are lazy and manipulative, they become lazy and manipulative. Do you want to know what you really believe about young people? Look at the behavior of the young people you are in a position to influence -- and if you don't like what you see, you might want to reconsider your beliefs.

Are You Kidding Me? (1)

With the number of governments we have in this nation, I suspect I'm going to be writing a lot of 'Are You Kidding Me' posts. This first one is dedicated to State Senator Carl Kruger, Democrat of New York.

Senator Kruger wants a new law imposing a $100.00 fine for walking, jogging, or cycling across a street while listening to your iPod or talking on the phone. That's right -- if you want to avoid the fine, you'll have to turn off your iPod or hang up your phone every block you walk, jog, or cycle in New York.

Still, you may wonder why this is being commented on in a youth advocacy blog. A few reasons, actually. I could take the high and mighty road and point out that we, right now, have young people in the middle east fighting and sometimes dying to protect our freedoms. Yet, at the same time, we have politicians back home who don't seem to understand what freedom is. I don't know about you, but the day the government forces the iPod out of my ears when I cross a street is the day that I have a real hard time calling this a 'free society'.

But there's a practical concern, as well. With all the difficult work that law enforcement has to do, how do you think a law like this will be used? Are we going to be fining every business man or woman who is running to their next appointment talking on the phone? Or is it more likely that this will be one more way that groups of suspicious or scary looking youth can be hassled by police? My money is on the latter, isn't yours?

Mental Health Screening: A "Movement"?

Described by some advocates as "A Movement in the Making", the idea of mental health screening for school-aged youth is gaining ground, promoted by professionals and politicians, including Gordon Smith of Oregon, who lost his own son to suicide a few years ago.

I first became aware of this 'movement' after the Columbine shootings, when there were suggestions floated for universal, mandatory mental health screening for all adolescents. In addition to being appalled by the concept, I was struck by the difference in reactions to similar behaviors by youth and adults. Around the same time as Columbine, an adult shot up a library -- but there were no calls for universal, mandatory mental health screening of adults. Only young people seem to be fair game for such sweeping measures.

Currently, the debate concerns 'voluntary' screenings -- though one wonders how 'voluntary' they will be, as you are required to 'opt out' rather than 'opt in'. As the entire 'movement' is being pushed under the banner of caring for children, I can imagine that parents will feel great pressure to participate so as to avoid being seen as 'uncaring'. As this 'movement' continues to gain ground, however, it is foreseeable that the current nod to 'voluntarism' will eventually morph into 'mandatory'.

While recognizing that advocates such as Gordon Smith are sincere in their intentions, and with nothing but sympathy for the pain of their personal experiences with mental health issues, the InterNetwork for Youth opposes expansion of mental health screenings efforts on both principle and premise. The principle that a mandatory education system, in partnership with the State, should be the primary arbitrator of the mental health status of an entire class of people is nothing less than frightening. The premise that there is an accurate screening tool for, or measurement of, the mental health status of young people is unfounded at best. Consider that signs of depression in young people include sleeping too much and sleeping too little, and eating too much and eating too little -- with vague definitions for what is 'too much' or 'too little'.

The InterNetwork for Youth believes that young people, as a class of people, are already over-diagnosed and over-medicated. As the mental health screening 'movement' continues to gain ground, is there any doubt that support will grow for greater diagnosis and medication?

Mental health issues affect young people, as they do any group of people -- but the mental health screening 'movement' is one where the cure may be worse than the disease.

Spaced out behaviors

What's wrong with kids these days? Lisa had the hots for William and thought Colleen was competing for his affections, so she grabs her pepper spray and a BB gun and goes over to convince Colleen of the error of her ways. This is why adults need to keep kids on a short leash! They're just not emotionally mature enough to handle things like sex and relationships.

Oh, wait a minute. I just read a little further into the article. It turns out that Lisa isn't a kid. She's 43 -- and a veteran shuttle astronaut. William is a veteran shuttle pilot, and Colleen is a NASA engineer who works at the Kennedy Space Center.

My point? What we often dismiss as childish, adolescent behavior isn't necessarily an age thing. Young people aren't immune from acting this way, but they certainly don't have a corner on the market.

Speaking of Spanking ...

The recent proposal by a California lawmaker to make spanking a small child a crime punishable by jail time or a fine has once again stirred up people on both sides of the issue. I'm not going to debate the merits or flaws of this particular law. I just want to share the reaction I have whenever one of these pro or con spanking proposals pops up: why do we assume that hitting a child is lawful?

Aren't there already laws against assault and corporal punishment? Does anyone have the right to smack their neighbor or co-worker? If a stranger behaves rudely toward me, or does something that displeases me, am I allowed to take them upside the head? I don't think I am. We can't use corporal punishment on prisoners, and we have to have federal debates to even consider use of force against enemies captured on the battlefield. But kids? Sure -- smack 'em. Somehow, when we consider the laws against violence toward each other, we don't assume that they also prohibit violence against young people. Are they not people, too?

The pro-spanking crowd will tell you that its a different situation, that you can't always reason with a young child and sometimes you have to use a little physical force to get your point across. They generally justify it in the name of safety -- what if your kid runs into the street or tries to touch a hot stove? Personally, I think pulling them away does more to protect their safety than hitting them does, and that level of physical intervention is even justifiable between adults. What is not justifiable between adults is hitting each other to make a point -- only young people are exempted from this human courtesy.

In a world where human beings begin their life with physical force defining right and wrong, are we really surprised when we have a problem with bullies in schools?

Introducing the PARTNERSwithYOUTH Awards!

Congratulations to Ileen Henderson, Director of the McNeil Child Development Center in Ft. Washington, Pennsylvania. Ileen is the recipient of the InterNetwork for Youth's first "PartnerswithYouth" award. Visit the InterNetwork for Youth to read her story!