Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Creative Non Fiction
Creative Non Fiction
CHRISTINE S. SELLERS
University of South Florida
ABSTRACT: The present study examines one city's experience with a juvenile
curfew ordinance. It compares characteristics o f youths detained by the police for
curfew violation with teenagers who did not have such police contact. Self-report
data reveal curfew violators admit committing more minor and serious delin-
quency, as well as status offenses, than noncurfew violators. Curfew violators also
disclose higher victimization levels. Implications deriving from these observations
are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
The use of juvenile curfews as a tool to reduce juvenile crime and
victimization is experiencing a resurgence in popularity. Nearly a third
of the 200 largest cities in the United States enacted a juvenile curfew
ordinance between 1990 and the spring of 1995, bringing the number of
major cities with such a control mechanism to 146 (Ruefle & Reynolds,
1996). One need only to pick up a newspaper to find the rationalization
for the popularity of such ordinances. Stories range from the highly
publicized shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado to the re-
cent conviction of an ll-year-old for murder in a Detroit suburb. The
feeling of many Americans is that contemporary youths are in need of
protection and control.
While juvenile curfews may appear to be a new solution, this
movement dates back to the late 1800s. Colonel Alexander Hogeland,
President of the Boys' and Girls' National Home Employment Associa-
tion, outlined a number of proposals designed to curb crimes commit-
ted by and against adolescents. One suggestion Hogeland advanced
the use of legal sanctions and a more punitive system will reduce crimi-
nal activities. A juvenile curfew ordinance is attractive because it con-
fines youths to the custody of their parents during certain hours,
thereby limiting the opportunity to engage in unlawful behavior (Hunt
& Weiner, 1977).
Critics of the more punitive just deserts model stress the need for
diversion and nonintervention with minor juvenile transgressions. This
camp feels youths need the assistance of social service resources in the
form of mentoring, educational and vocational opportunities, and expo-
sure to life skills training. Criminal processing at the hands of the juve-
nile justice system is not a viable solution. People who advocate a
"softer" response view a curfew ordinance as simply another way to
criminalize and stigmatize nondelinquent youths unnecessarily. Propo-
nents of this stance fear unwarranted net-widening. In other words,
more juveniles would be brought under the control of the juvenile jus-
tice system, often times with detrimental affects.
place or within 1,000 feet of a school during the hours of 7:30 A.M. to
4:00 P.M. on any school day.
To avoid constitutional challenges, the Largo ordinance contains
nine exceptions to full enforcement. Juveniles who meet the following
criteria are excluded from receiving a citation:
9 if the juvenile is accompanied by a parent or guardian;
9 if the juvenile is on an errand for a parent or guardian;
9 if the juvenile is traveling in a motor vehicle to and from
work or work-related activities;
9 if the juvenile is on a sidewalk in front of his or her home
or a neighbor's home during curfew hours;
9 if the juvenile is attending or returning from an activity
sponsored by a school, religious, civic, or a similar organi-
zation with adult supervision, or,
9 if the juvenile is out during an emergency.
Furthermore, the Largo ordinance provides that juveniles must be
able to exercise their First A m e n d m e n t speech and association rights
during curfew hours, and that the ordinance could not restrict a juvenile
in interstate travel. Finally, the ordinance includes an exception for
juveniles who are in a public place during restricted hours or who are
attending an organized event held at and sponsored by a theme park or
entertainment complex.
The LPD intended to use the curfew as a tool to identify youths
who were likely to become involved in criminal activity and to prevent
juveniles from becoming crime victims. The agency discouraged patrol
officers from actively seeking out curfew violators. Instead, guidelines
directed officers to use the ordinance whenever they had contact with
juveniles as the result of a complaint or other police activity. Due to
mixed support for the ordinance, agency personnel reviewed each
warning and citation on a daily basis to ensure that only cases which
would draw a minimum level of public dissatisfaction would go forward.
The curfew ordinance provides for a warning on the first violation.
For subsequent violations, the officer could issue either a misdemeanor
ordinance charge or an additional written warning. The ordinance also
includes penalties for parents. The parent of a juvenile found to have
violated the curfew ordinance would receive a written warning for the
first case. Subsequent violations could result in the parent receiving a
maximum penalty of a $500 fine, imprisonment for a period not to ex-
ceed six months, or both.
While the curfew ordinance became effective in mid-February of
1998, only verbal warnings were given until April 1, 1998. Beginning on
that day, the LPD began collecting limited data on the curfew violations
LERSCH A N D SELLERS 265
issued. From April 1 until November 30, 1998, the LPD issued 183
warnings and 18 charges for curfew violation. No charges were filed
against any parents during this eight-month period. While exact data
pertaining to the race, gender, and age of these juvenile offenders are
not available for this period, the LPD identifies the typical curfew viola-
tor as a 15-year-old white male.
METHODS
A survey was administered to students attending the middle school
and the high school located in Largo in November 1998. The middle
school consists of grades 6 though 8. All students enrolled in social
studies classes (a required subject) were eligible to participate in the
survey. Two researchers visited each of the 24 social studies classes
taught in the three grades. One researcher read the survey aloud while
the other circulated among the students to assist poorer readers and to
keep students on task. A total of 1,029 surveys were completed in the
middle school.
The survey was administered somewhat differently in the high
school. Because the school operates on block scheduling, not all stu-
dents would be attending a single type of required course in a given
semester. An alternative procedure was used. Information from the
principal indicated almost all students were attending class (rather than
released for vocational/technical education) during third period. How-
ever, since the two researchers would not be able to visit all 60 classes
conducted during that period, a simple random sampling technique was
used to select 30 classes. One researcher visited each classroom and ex-
plained the purpose of the survey. While students completed the ques-
tionnaires by themselves, the researcher circulated among them to
assist with any questions. The final high school sample yielded 625 com-
pleted surveys, which reflected 36% of the total enrollment of 1,750
students.
RESULTS
Students were asked whether or not the police had picked them up
for a curfew violation. This violation included both warnings and cita-
tions. A total of 186 youths indicated they had such police contact.
There were 91 students who reported multiple curfew violations. Boys
were significantly more likely than girls to report curfew violations (Xz =
6.94, df= 1, p < .01). Whereas 13% of the boys indicated they had been
picked up at least once for curfew violation, only 9% of the girls were
detained. There was no relationship between student race and curfew-
related police contact 0(2 = 2.31, df = 1, p >.05). While 12% of the
266 CURFEW VIOLATORS
Caucasian students surveyed said they had been picked up for curfew
violation, the corresponding figure was 8% for minority students.
Table 1 shows curfew violators were more likely to report involve-
ment in minor rule-breaking activity than noncurfew violators. For in-
stance, 40% of the curfew violators reported running away from home
compared to 12% of the noncurfew violators. The chi-square values
reveal all relationships are statistically significant at the .01 level. The
phi coefficients indicate moderate relationships between curfew status
and the self-report measures.
TABLE 1
Comparison of Curfew Violators and Noncurfew
Violators on Self-Reported Delinquency
Curfew Non-Curfew
Variable Violators Violators X2 qb
Status Offenses:
Ran away from home 40% 12% 96.82* .25
Lied about age 66% 30% 92.73* .25
In-school suspension 64% 30% 88.14" .23
Out-of-school suspension 48% 17% 99.92* .25
Picked up by police for truancy 26% 5% 116.79" .27
Property Offenses:
Residential Burglary 29% 6% 101.83" .25
Commercial Burglary 26% 7% 72.69* .21
Vandalism 64% 28% 72.69* .21
Theft 59% 23% 9.57* .25
Motor Vehicle Theft 19% 2% 123.86" .28
Violent Offenses:
Simple Assault 82% 45% 88.07* .23
Aggravated Assault 38% 10% 109.62" .26
Robbery 14% 3% 47.31" .17
Drug~Alcohol Offenses:
Alcohol Use 83% 49% 69.97* .21
Marijuana Use 63% 26% 107.62" .26
Other Drug Use 42% 13% 100.99" .25
Bought Illegal Drugs 52% 16% 136.80" .20
Sold Illegal Drugs 34% 8% 113.06" .27
Victimization:
Simple Assault 49% 38% 8.54* .07
Aggravated Assault 24% 7% 51.00" .18
Robbery 16% 5% 39.27* .16
N 186 1,452
* indicates p < .01
LERSCH A N D SELLERS 267
DISCUSSION
The questionnaire responses show that students picked up for a
curfew violation are likely to report involvement in other deviant and
criminal activities. Curfew violators record significantly higher self-re-
port levels of delinquency, criminal behavior, and victimization exper-
iences. While the enforcement of the curfew ordinance in and of itself
cannot solve the problems of these juveniles, the curfew ordinance
might become a useful tool in the identification of youths who need
assistance.
The contention that imposing a curfew merely invites net-widening
in which otherwise law-abiding youths are unnecessarily brought under
the control of the juvenile justice system appears to be unfounded. En-
forcement of the Largo ordinance does not promote a high level of net-
widening. Students with police contact for curfew violations are signifi-
cantly more likely to report involvement in a number of other criminal
activities. Many teenagers may be in need of some sort of social ser-
vice, such as substance abuse counseling. In other words, it is a fairly
safe bet the curfew violation is not the juvenile's only problem.
Proponents of labeling theory would suspect the police are using
the curfew ordinance against juveniles previously tagged as "trouble
makers." Curfew violators may already be known to the police and,
thus, more likely to be targeted. This sort of labeling process may have
occurred in Largo, especially given the political climate surrounding the
enforcement of the curfew ordinance. A neighboring municipality had
its curfew ordinance challenged in court prior to passage of the Largo
curfew. As noted earlier, the LPD discouraged proactive enforcement
and the agency carefully screened the curfew warnings and citations pa-
268 CURFEWVIOLATORS
trol officers issued. Given this climate, it may be that officers only ap-
plied the ordinance against chronic offenders. Such targets would have
the least amount of credibility if they chose to challenge the citation.
One must also be sensitive to limitations surrounding the present
study. First, although curfew violators disclose a higher involvement in
criminal activities, it is not known whether these acts were committed
during the hours governed by the ordinance. Second, the self-report
data analyzed in this paper are subject to all the usual caveats associ-
ated with reliability and validity concerns. In fact, it may be curfew
violators are also more likely to skip school, thereby excluding their
participation from a survey administered in a school setting. Third,
whether the curfew violation represents the juvenile's first police en-
counter or whether the violator had amassed a lengthy prior record
prior to this field contact cannot be ascertained from the current data.
CONCLUSION
This study represents an important step in the description of youths
picked up for curfew violation. With the controversy surrounding cur-
few ordinances, municipalities may come under greater pressure to
demonstrate the need for additional control over juveniles. The use of
a self-report survey of the target audience may provide a wealth of in-
formation which lies beyond the scope of official statistics.
The current study also demonstrates the diversity of issues in-
volved in handling curfew violators. The juvenile curfew ordinance is
but one tool in a multifaceted strategy designed to address the juvenile
crime problem. Youths who have been picked up for curfew violations
might benefit from referrals to other community programs which target
at-risk youths. Perhaps the schools or other social service agencies
could empower parents with information regarding curfew violators
and offer pointers on parenting skills. As demonstrated by previous
studies, enforcement of juvenile curfews produces a negligible impact
on juvenile crime and victimization. Maybe the focus should be on pre-
vention and intervention for curfew violators, and not punishment.
REFERENCES
Bilchik,S. (1996). Curfew: An answer to juvenile delinquency and victimization? Washing-
ton, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
Click, B. R. (1994, December). Statistics in Dallas encouraging.Police Chief, 61, 33-36.
Curfew ordinances and the control of nocturnal juvenile crime. (1958). University of
Pennsylvania Law Review, 107, 66-102.
LERSCH AND SELLERS 269
Ellis, W. C. (1994, December). Long Beach juvenile anti-loitering program makes impact.
Police Chief, 61, 57-58.
Fritsch, E. F., Caeti, T. J., & Taylor, R. W. (1999). Gang suppression through saturation
patrol, aggressive curfew, and truancy enforcement: A quasi-experimental test of the
Dallas anti-gang initiative. Crime and Delinquency, 45, 122-139.
Garrett, D. A., & Brewster, D. (1994, December). Curfew: A new look at an old tool.
Police Chief, 61, 29-33.
Hemmes, C., & Bennett, K. (1999). Juvenile curfews and the courts: Judicial responses to
a not-so-new crime control strategy. Crime and Delinquency, 45, 99-121.
Hunt, A. L. & Weiner, K. (1977). The impact of a juvenile curfew: Suppression and dis-
placement in patterns of juvenile offenses. Journal of Police Science and Administra-
tion, 5, 407-412.
Males, M. A., & Maccallair, D. (1999). An analysis of curfew enforcement and juvenile
crime in California. Western Criminology Review IOn-line serial], 1(2). Available:
http://wcr.sonoma.edu
Marketos, A. K. (1995). The constitutionality of juvenile curfews. Juvenile and Family
Court Journal, 46, 17-30.
McDowall, D., Loftin, C., & Wiersema, B. (2000). The impact of youth curfew laws on
juvenile curfew rates. Crime and Delinquency, 46, 76-91.
Nolan, W. P. (1994, December). Innovative curfew enforcement. Police Chief, 61, 59-61.
Pratcher, S. D. (1994, December). A response to juvenile curfew violations. Police Chief,
61, 58-59.
Reynolds, K. M., Seydlitz, R., & Jenkins, P. (2000). Do juvenile curfew laws work? A
time-series analysis of the New Orleans law. Justice Quarterly, 17, 205-230.
Ruefle, W., & Reynolds, K. M. (1995). Curfews and delinquency in major American cit-
ies. Crime and Delinquency, 41,347-363.
Ruefle, W., & Reynolds, K. M. (1996). Keep them at home: Juvenile curfew ordinances in
200 American cities. American Journal of Police, 15, 63-84.