NCJ Number
165846
Journal
American Journal of Police Volume: 15 Issue: 1 Dated: (1996) Pages: 63-84
Date Published
1996
Length
22 pages
Annotation
Because the effect of juvenile curfews on juvenile delinquency and youth victimization remains unknown, the current study of juvenile curfews in 200 U.S. cities with a population of 100,000 or greater was undertaken.
Abstract
The justification for juvenile curfew ordinances in the 1990's is the same as it has always been, to reduce juvenile delinquency, and most issues in the current policy debate over juvenile curfews have been argued before. Key issues related to juvenile curfews include enforceability, whether they represent an effective use of police resources, rights of minors, infringement on parental authority, police bias and abuse, how much juvenile crime occurs at night, and juvenile delinquency prevention. Findings from the study of 200 U.S. cities showed that the number of juvenile curfew ordinances increased from 93 (47 percent) of the 200 cities in 1990 to 146 (73 percent) of the 200 cities in 1995. The surge in juvenile curfew enactments was most dramatic in the largest cities. Of the 200 cities, 50 revised an existing juvenile curfew. Of the 146 cities with juvenile curfews, 112 cities designated one age group, 28 designated two age groups, and only 6 designated three age groups; 107 cities set 17 as the top age group, 32 set 16 as the top age group, and 6 set 15 as the top age group. Eighty cities had the same curfew hours every night of the year, while 46 cities varied curfew hours for weekdays and weekends. Sixty-five cities set midnight as the latest hour for curfews to begin, 35 set 10 p.m. as the latest hour, and 33 set 11 p.m. as the latest hour. The most common comment by police officers about juvenile curfew enforcement was that the curfew was simply another "tool" for regular patrol officers. 31 references, 1 note, and 2 tables