Curfew: An Answer to Juvenile Delinquency and. Victimization? OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin Shay Bilchik, Administrator April 1996 From the Administrator With juvenile crime on the rise in communities across the country, increasing numbers of city and county jurisdictions are passing curfew ordinances, either independent of an overall anticrime and community safety program or as one component of such a program. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has seen a growing trend of these ordinances being accompanied by comprehensive, community-based curfew enforcement programs that are receiving strong support from law enforcement and citizens alike. This Bulletin provides an overview of the legal challenges to curfew and presents profiles of seven jurisdictions with comprehensive curfew enforcement programs that both address the factors that place these youth at risk for delinquency and victimization and promote the development of healthy behavior. Comprehensive curfew enforcement programs often bring together the law enforcement community and juvenile and family court judges with representatives from the social services and the education, recreation, religious, and medical communities. This collaborative, community-based approach to curfew enforcement has demonstrated that juvenile delinquency and victimization can be decreased when communities work together to implement a comprehensive curfew program. I am pleased to provide you with this information on curfews, from the court challenges to the success stories, and hope it will assist in your local decision-making process on whether and how to use a juvenile curfew. Shay Bilchik, Administrator Curfew: An Answer to Juvenile Delinquency and Victimization? Traditionally, the determination of a minor's curfew has been considered to be a family issue, within the parental purview, rather than a matter to be determined by government. Nevertheless, public curfews have been enacted and enforced throughout the Nation's history in reaction to increased juvenile delinquency, decreased parental supervision, and other social trends. Recent increases in juvenile crime and victimization have prompted local communities in many States to once again consider evening curfews (e.g., from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. on school days and from midnight to 6 a.m. on non-school days) as a viable means to enhance the safety of the community and its children. Although most curfew ordinances apply to juveniles under 16 years of age, some include 16- and 17-year-olds. This Bulletin explores developments in curfew ordinances, legal issues related to curfews, how jurisdictions have responded to legal challenges, the elements of sound community-based curfew programs, and examples of a range of curfew programs and services from seven jurisdictions. In a recent study of curfew ordinances in the 200 largest U.S. cities (population of 100,000 or greater in 1992), Ruefle and Reynolds found a dramatic surge in curfew legislation during the first half of the 1990's. Of the 200 cities surveyed, 93 (47 percent) had curfews in effect on January 1, 1990. Between January 1990 and the spring of 1995, an additional 53 of these 200 cities (27 percent) enacted juvenile curfew ordinances, bringing the total of those with curfew laws to 146 (73 percent). During the same period, 37 of the 93 cities with an existing curfew ordinance revised that legislation.1 Legal Challenges The question of curfews has raised a variety of legal issues and divided numerous communities, as the following sample of newspaper headlines illustrates: "The Trouble With Curfews," "Cities Deciding That It's Time for Teen Curfews," "Curfew Not a Good Idea," "Curfew Needs To Be Stronger," "Limiting Kids' Time on the Streets Elicits Both Relief and Resentment."2 Differences in opinion have led individuals and civil rights organizations in many communities to challenge the legality of juvenile curfew ordinances. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the most vocal opponent, has challenged the constitutionality of juvenile curfew ordinances in jurisdictions across the country, either directly or by providing assistance to individuals who wish to test such laws in court. Legal challenges to the constitutionality of curfew ordinances are most often based on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech, religion, and peaceful assembly. The fourth amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures and has been interpreted to include protection against unreasonable stopping and detainment of individuals. The fifth amendment guarantees citizens the right to due process under the law. The ninth amendment has been interpreted to include a right to privacy, including the right to family autonomy.3 The 14th amendment protects persons against the deprivation of their liberty without due process of law and includes the right to travel, which is embodied in the privileges and immunities clause. In 1975, the first Federal case concerning the constitutionality of juvenile curfews was heard by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In Bykofsky v. Borough of Middletown, the court upheld a juvenile curfew that was challenged on the grounds that it violated juveniles' 1st and 14th amendment rights and encroached upon parents' rights to raise their children, which is embodied in the 9th amendment and in the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment.4 In its opinion, the court found that the regulations on juveniles' 14th amendment due process rights were "constitutionally permissible." The court further declared that the curfew ordinance did not suppress or impermissibly regulate juveniles' right to freedom of speech or parents' rights to raise their children as they saw fit. The court stated, "The parents' constitutionally protected interest . . . which the ordinance infringes only minimally, is outweighed by the Borough's interest in protecting immature minors. . . ."5 Fourteen years later, in 1989, Simbi Waters challenged a juvenile curfew ordinance in the District of Columbia on the grounds that it violated her first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights.6 The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in Waters v. Barry, found the juvenile curfew law to be unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the first and fifth amendment rights of juveniles in the District: "The right to walk the streets, or to meet publicly with one's friends for a noble purpose or for no purpose at all--and to do so whenever one pleases is an integral component of life in a free and ordered society."7 However, the court did not find that the curfew violated the fourth amendment rights of District juveniles: "So long as the officer could reasonably have believed that the individual looked `young,' the search, seizure or arrest would take place on the basis of probable cause and no Fourth Amendment violation would occur."8 Although the district court invalidated this particular curfew, in July 1995 the District of Columbia enacted another juvenile curfew ordinance modeled after one enacted in Dallas, Texas, that had survived constitutional scrutiny by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 1993.9 The seminal issue of the State's authority to restrict the constitutional rights of minors is consistently raised in juvenile curfew cases. In the Bykofsky case cited above, the court held that "the conduct of minors may be constitutionally regulated to a greater extent than those of adults."10 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in upholding the Dallas curfew, applied the reasoning of the Supreme Court of the United States in Hodgson v. Minnesota, which held that a parental notification requirement of the State's abortion statute passed constitutional muster because States have ". . . a strong and legitimate interest in the welfare of [their] young citizens, whose immaturity, inexperience, and lack of judgment may sometimes impair their ability to exercise their rights wisely."11 The Strict Scrutiny Test In order to pass constitutional muster, laws that impinge on fundamental constitutional rights must pass a two-pronged strict scrutiny test that requires jurisdictions to (1) demonstrate that there is a compelling State interest and (2) narrowly tailor the means to achieve the law's objective. The Dallas curfew provides an excellent example of an ordinance that has been held by a Federal court to satisfy both prongs of the strict scrutiny test. The Dallas City Council adopted its curfew ordinance in 1991 after hearings that included testimony on increased incidences of late-night juvenile violence. Challenged by the ACLU, Dallas' curfew ordinance was upheld in 1993 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Qutb v. Strauss.12 The Fifth Circuit held that the Dallas curfew satisfied the strict scrutiny test because the city had demonstrated a compelling State interest in reducing juvenile crime and victimization and because the ordinance was properly aimed, that is, narrowly tailored to ". . . allow the city to meet its stated goals while respecting the rights of the affected minors."13 A subsequent appeal was refused by the Supreme Court of the United States without comment in May 1994.14 However, this ruling neither guarantees protection from future constitutional legal challenges to curfews in other circuits under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution or State constitutions, nor forecloses challenges based on nonconstitutional grounds. Jurisdictions that seek to enact curfew laws may want to examine how Dallas laid the groundwork needed to pass the strict scrutiny test. Data on juvenile crime and victimization helped meet the compelling State interest test. The city provided the following statistical information:15 o Juvenile delinquency increases proportionally with age between the ages of 10 and 16 years. o In 1989, Dallas recorded 5,160 juvenile arrests, and in 1990, there were 5,425 juvenile arrests, including 40 murders, 91 sex offenses, 233 robberies, and 230 aggravated assaults. From January through April 1991, juveniles were arrested for 21 murders, 30 sex offenses, 128 robberies, 107 aggravated assaults, and an additional 1,042 crimes against property. o The most likely time for the occurrence of murders by juveniles was between 10 p.m. and 1 a.m.; the most likely place was in apartments and apartment parking lots and on streets and highways. o Aggravated assaults by juveniles were most likely to occur between 11 p.m. and 1 a.m. o Rapes were most likely to occur between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m., and 16 percent of rapes occurred on public streets and highways. o Thirty-one percent of robberies occurred on public streets and highways. The Court relied on these data in holding that the City of Dallas provided sufficient evidence to establish that the ordinance was in keeping with the State's compelling interest in reducing juvenile crime and victimization. Second, the Dallas legislation was narrowly tailored to address the specific needs enumerated by the jurisdiction by the least restrictive means possible. The Dallas curfew was applied to youth under the age of 17 and in effect from 11 p.m. through 6 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and from midnight to 6 a.m. Friday and Saturday. The statute exempted juveniles who were: o Accompanied by an adult. o Engaged in activities related to interstate commerce or protected by the first amendment. o Traveling to or from work. o Responding to an emergency. o Married. o Attending a supervised school, religious, or recreational activity. The Fifth Circuit found, in Qutb v. Strauss, that the exemptions under the Dallas ordinance, which permitted juveniles to exercise their fundamental rights and remain in public, demonstrated that the ordinance was narrowly tailored to meet the city's legitimate objectives. Other challenges to juvenile curfews have been based on the concepts of vagueness and overbreadth. A statute is void for vagueness if it is too general and its ". . . standards result in erratic and arbitrary application based on individual impressions and personal predilections."16 A statute that broadly restricts fundamental liberties when less restrictive means are available may be void on the grounds of overbreadth. Therefore, when constructing juvenile curfew ordinances, in addition to considering constitutional issues that involve fundamental rights, jurisdictions should ensure the legislation is both precise in its language and limited to necessary restrictions. In addition to constitutional and structural challenges to juvenile curfews, jurisdictions enacting curfew laws should also bear in mind the core requirement of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, as amended, which addresses the deinstitutionalization of status offender and non-offender juveniles (DSO).17 In general, this JJDP Act core requirement prohibits a status offender (i.e., a juvenile who has committed an offense that would not be a crime if committed by an adult, such as truancy or curfew violations) or nonoffender (i.e., a dependent or neglected child) from being held in secure detention or confinement. However, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) regulations allow detention for brief periods in a juvenile detention facility--not to exceed 24 hours exclusive of weekends and holidays--necessary for pre- or postcourt appearance, processing, release to a parent or guardian, or transfer to court or an appropriate nonsecure facility. The statute also makes exceptions that allow the detention or confinement of status offenders who violate a valid court order or who violate State law provisions prohibiting the possession of a handgun. Status and nonoffender juveniles cannot be detained or confined in an adult jail or lockup for any length of time. To comply with the DSO core requirement of the JJDP Act Formula Grants Program, and to reduce the burden on police, Dallas and many other cities have established comprehensive, community-based curfew programs that provide local sites, such as community and recreation centers, where police officers can bring curfew violators for temporary detention pending release to their parents or other appropriate disposition. These sites provide an atmosphere conducive to investigation, processing, prerelease counseling, and planning for appropriate followup services. Representative Curfew Programs Local governments have enacted juvenile curfews pursuant to their general police powers or State statutes specifically authorizing such ordinances. The seven cities whose curfew programs are discussed below enacted their ordinances pursuant to specific authorizing State legislation. Law enforcement professionals generally view a juvenile curfew ordinance as an effective means to combat late evening crime. However, curfews are also intended to protect youth from becoming victims of crime. The curfew ordinances described below were enacted in the context of a comprehensive, community-based program designed to protect both the community and the juvenile from victimization and to serve as a constructive intervention against developing patterns of delinquency. Each of the jurisdictions described below collected statistical data on juvenile crime and victimization prior to passing a curfew ordinance. This activity also laid a foundation for formulating a curfew ordinance that addressed the jurisdiction's unique juvenile crime and victimization problems. Although juvenile crime is not restricted to evening hours, the data analysis done by these cities demonstrated that their rates of juvenile crime and victimization were serious enough to warrant a carefully crafted evening curfew program. Each of these seven cities has its own unique and innovative approach to addressing the problem of juvenile crime and victimization through a curfew ordinance. The approaches demonstrate a range of community partnerships and nonpunitive strategies designed to promote early intervention to prevent the development of delinquent behavior and to address the issues of parental responsibility, discipline, and family dysfunction. The strategies have been credited with helping to prevent juvenile crime and victimization and repeated curfew violations while providing protection and safety to the community. While the comprehensive, community-based curfew programs implemented by the seven cities employ a variety of strategies, each program includes one or more of the following common elements: o Creation of a dedicated curfew center or use of recreation centers and churches to receive juveniles who have been picked up by the police for violating curfew. o Staffing of curfew centers with social service professionals and community volunteers. o Intervention, in the form of referrals to social service providers and counseling classes, for the juveniles and their families. o Procedures for repeat offenders, including fines, counseling, or sentences to community service. o Recreation and jobs programs. o Antidrug and antigang programs. o Hotlines for followup services and crisis intervention. The cornerstone of each of the seven programs is creative community involvement that works to transform the juvenile curfew from a reactive, punitive response to a proactive intervention against the root causes of juvenile delinquency and victimization. A summary of the statutory provisions relating to curfews in U.S. cities with a population of more than 100,000 can be found in the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics--1994, published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.18 Dallas, Texas In developing a juvenile curfew for Dallas, government officials and the police department worked together to create an appropriate and effective curfew program. The curfew, which went into effect on May 1, 1994, applies to all youth under the age of 17. Prior to the effective date of the curfew ordinance, the Dallas Police Department engaged in a media campaign to promote curfew awareness. The multicomponent campaign included public service announcements on radio, posters in English and Spanish that were distributed at recreation centers and at public schools, and a well-covered press conference. Also, 1 week before the curfew took effect, warning fliers were handed out by police officers to youth in public during the hours of the curfew.19 When Dallas police apprehend juvenile curfew violators, they may give them a verbal warning, take them home, issue a ticket with a fine as high as $500, or take them into custody. In cases of repeated curfew violations, a child's parents may be fined up to $500. Business establishments may be cited for allowing minors to remain on their premises after curfew hours. In addition to these enforcement mechanisms, the Dallas curfew program features comprehensive youth programs that address juvenile crime and victimization, including Law Enforcement Explorers, a School Liaison Unit, Law Enforcement Teaching Students (LETS), supervised midnight basketball (with a curfew exception on tournament nights), and a Police Athletic League (PAL).20 During the first 3 months of curfew implementation, warnings and citations were issued to curfew offenders, and eight tickets were written to adults for permitting curfew violations. No arrests were made for curfew violations, but 15 juveniles were arrested and taken into custody on other charges. The Dallas Police Department conducted an assessment of the effectiveness of the juvenile curfew after 3 months of enforcement. The Department found that juvenile victimization during curfew hours dropped 17.7 percent, from 1,950 during the period from May to July 1993, to 1,604 during the same period in 1994. Further, juvenile arrests during curfew hours decreased 14.6 percent, from 294 during the period from May to July 1993, to 251 during the same period in 1994. These initial statistics indicate that the efforts of the Dallas curfew enforcement program have reduced juvenile crime and victimization.21 Phoenix, Arizona In Phoenix, a multifaceted approach has been developed to implement the city's curfew ordinance. A review of the city's original curfew legislation, enacted in 1968, found it ambiguous and unenforceable. New legislation was enacted in 1992, and a partnership was established between the Phoenix Police Department and the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Libraries (PRL).22 The curfew ordinance is designed to impact crimes in which the suspect, victim, or both is a juvenile. PRL allows the Phoenix Police Department to use four of the city's recreation centers as reception facilities for juvenile curfew violators. Once paperwork is processed by police officers, the juveniles are supervised by recreation specialists until their parents arrive. The administrative requirements for police officers are kept to a minimum in order to allow officers to return sooner to patrol duties. When a curfew violation is charged, the juvenile and the parents have the option of attending a diversion program that includes classes in parenting, interpersonal communication, conflict resolution training, and community service. When the police department receives notification that the juvenile and parents have completed the program, the charge is dismissed. If the diversion program is not completed, a petition is filed in juvenile court, where the outcomes can include a fine for the juvenile, counseling for both the juvenile and the family, and community service. A parental responsibility provision in the curfew law could also result in a fine to the parents. PRL personnel conduct postdiversion followup contacts with curfew violators and their families to determine if additional referrals to other agencies, such as health and social services, are needed. These followup procedures have been favorably received by the community. Twenty-one percent of Phoenix's curfew violators are gang members.23 The curfew ordinance provides the police with a legal basis to separate minors from gangs, at least temporarily. Gang members are taken to the reception facility, where they receive special counseling and exposure to positive alternatives to gang affiliation. The Phoenix Police Department reports statistics that bear out the fact that the curfew appears to be working. A comparison made since the citywide implementation of the curfew program in May 1993 showed a 10-percent decrease in juvenile arrests for violent crimes (homicide, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault) during the 11-month period from June 1993 through April 1994 as compared with the period from June 1992 through April 1993.24 Community leaders and parents strongly support the curfew ordinance because of its comprehensive, community-based character. According to the Phoenix Police Department, the ordinance is an effective component of Phoenix's citywide crime prevention and reduction program. In addition to the curfew enforcement program, Phoenix has strengthened its commitment to crime prevention and reduction through community policing, newly enacted weapon laws, and police-led programs in elementary and junior high schools. Examples of these programs include Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE)--developed with funds from the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education, with major contributions from the private sector-- and Gang Recognition and Education Awareness Training (GREAT), initiated by the Phoenix Police Department with funds provided by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The Police Department's Cease Violence program--a unique partnership with other city agencies, the private sector (Motorola), and various elementary and junior and senior high schools--employs traditional and nontraditional methods to address the crime problem. This program produced a video on gang and teen pressures entitled "Wake-Up," geared to youth 7 to 17 years of age. Another Police Department program, Project Interact, seeks to promote better relationships between at-risk youth and the department. In monthly 90-minute workshops, patrol officers meet with youth to share information and ideas, with the goal of establishing a code of conduct for both officers and youth. The program is facilitated by a police supervisor; students attend at a ratio of two students to one officer.25 Chicago, Illinois Chicago passed its first curfew ordinance in July 1948. It has been amended several times, most recently in June 1992. In April 1993, the Chicago Police Department initiated the Chicago Alternative Police Strategy (CAPS) program. CAPS is a community policing initiative that started in 5 of Chicago's police districts and is now operating in all 20. In 1994, the Chicago Police Department's Bureau of Investigative Services supported an experimental research project, "Operation Timeout," a summer curfew project under the direction and management of the commander of a 20-member Youth Division Strike Force. The Fourth Police District CAPS site aggressively implemented Operation Timeout by getting community support for sending curfew enforcement teams of officers from the Department's School Patrol Unit into targeted areas within the fourth district with a single mission: to enforce the city's curfew ordinance vigorously.26 The Operation Timeout curfew enforcement program is designed to reduce juvenile crime and victimization and to foster communication between the Patrol Division, the Youth Division, and the community. To support the program, the Chicago Police Department's Neighborhood Relations sergeants work with communities to prevent curfew violations. When special events are held, for example, they encourage sponsoring organizations to comply with curfew hours when developing the event schedule. The city advocates a "no-tolerance" policy for curfew violators through aggressive enforcement and the required involvement of a parent or guardian when a juvenile is picked up for a curfew violation. The specialized curfew enforcement teams utilize "Care-O-Vans" to pick up curfew violators. Teams using the van process all curfew violators in the district on a given evening, including those picked up by beat patrol officers. This approach reduces the downtime of beat patrol officers, who can turn over the curfew violators to the team shortly after they are apprehended and return immediately to beat patrol duty. First-time offenders are returned to their homes, and a parent or guardian is issued a warning notice. Parents or guardians of a first-time curfew violator may also be charged with "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" if it is determined that they ". . . knowingly or willfully permitted, caused, aided, abetted, or encouraged such child to commit a violation of this or any ordinance" and fined $200 to $500. Repeat offenders are taken to the Chicago Police Department's Fourth District station. Parents are required to pick up their child, are issued a nontraffic citation for the ordinance violation, and are required to appear in court to answer the complaint. Children whose parents are working, cannot be reached, or are unwilling to pick up their children are returned home by district personnel. A followup investigation is conducted when the officer is unable to locate the parent at the time of the curfew violation, and the parent is issued a citation. Parents who refuse to appear in court or refuse to pay a fine may have a judgment entered against them. For the parents of repeat curfew violators, special assistance such as parenting classes and joint counseling sessions may be provided. In addition, parents of "children requiring authoritative intervention" under State law may be given assistance through court-appointed social service agencies. The Fourth District reports that a comparison of data from 1993 to 1994 demonstrated a decrease in the number of serious juvenile crimes reported. The most notable decreases were in burglaries (from 304 in 1993 to 269 in 1994), vehicle theft (from 255 in 1993 to 177 in 1994), and theft (from 522 in 1993 to 177 in 1994). Operation Timeout appears to be an effective curfew initiative, and community support for its continuation remains high. As a result of the success of the Fourth District program, four additional police districts have been added to Operation Timeout. All 20 police districts in Chicago are expected to become a part of Operation Timeout in the near future. New Orleans, Louisiana Based on an assessment of juvenile delinquency in New Orleans, a comprehensive and collaborative prevention strategy was initiated by Mayor Marc Morial. A dusk-to-dawn curfew ordinance was part of the Morial Administration Crime Initiative (MACI) that began in May 1994. To manage and implement the curfew program, the city opened the Central Curfew Center (CCC), which is staffed with trained professionals from government agencies and the religious and medical communities. The sheriff's office assigned 30 deputies and several other staff to CCC and provided 15 two-man units to patrol the streets. Each night the New Orleans Police Department has more than 50 police officers on the streets and 5 to 6 officers from the Juvenile Bureau onsite at CCC. A local group of ministers, All Congregations Together, has several ministers at CCC each night to counsel juveniles and their parents or guardians on the ramifications of the curfew violation. Also on duty at the center to provide counseling are staff from the Louisiana State University Medical Center's Department of Psychiatry and from the City of New Orleans Truancy Center. In addition, a 24-hour curfew hotline has been set up to respond to questions about the curfew policy and its enforcement.27 Curfew violators brought to the CCC are screened by counselors, and their parents or guardians are contacted. Parents are required to pick up their children at the center and to participate in counseling sessions with trained volunteers. Parents of repeat offenders are issued a court summons and risk being fined for failure to keep their children from violating the curfew. These steps are designed to help promote and support dialog between parent and child, establish parental accountability, and set new ground rules within the home. Summer youth programs are a key component of MACI. A $500,000 city funding reallocation was provided to the New Orleans Recreation Department (NORD) to increase summer programs such as evening swimming and volleyball. The number of NORD summer camps increased from 17 to 41, serving more than 100,000 youth. The number of swimming pools increased from 4 to 14. Additionally, the city created 1,300 new summer jobs for youth under a local public-private partnership and also received $1.8 million in Federal funding from AmeriCorp's Youth Action Corps to provide year-round employment for youth in local education, park, and recreation programs.28 The combination of curfew, the summer jobs program, and the revitalization of recreation programs resulted in a 27-percent reduction in juvenile crime during curfew hours in 1994, compared with the previous year.29 The crimes most significantly reduced were armed robbery, down 33 percent, and auto theft, down 42 percent. New Orleans Sheriff Charles Foti calls the curfew program ". . . a coordinated effort, of unprecedented proportions, between private and public agencies across the City to a unified end--to reduce crime and protect the young people of this City" and reports that the program ". . . has earned the unqualified support of the New Orleans community."30 Denver, Colorado During the summer of 1993, a group of 2,500 citizens in Denver met in a Safe City Summit to discuss their concerns about youth crime, violence, and safety. Their recommendations included establishing a program to authorize police to take youth in violation of Denver's amended curfew law to a safe place and increasing parental involvement with and responsibility for children under the age of 18. Mayor Wellington E. Webb responded to the citizens' recommendations with a 10-point Safe City Plan, one component of which is the SafeNite After Curfew (SafeNite) program, developed in collaboration with community groups, parents, police, recreation, and social services staff. SafeNite, which was launched in July 1994, provides a safe place--either a recreation center or a church--where youth found on the streets during curfew hours are taken by police to wait for a parent or guardian.31 Youth taken to SafeNite locations are processed and served a citation from police officers onsite. SafeNite staff contact the youth's parents or guardians to pick them up. The parent may also receive a ticket, at police discretion. The youth and parent are seen onsite by a professional counselor who helps address family issues and obtain social services if needed. Counseling services are available on a variety of issues, as are workshops on conflict resolution and interpersonal communication skills. On nights when SafeNite sites are not in operation, curfew counselors in the municipal courtroom interview and offer diversion to the ticketed youth and their families. Currently, SafeNite locations are open Friday through Sunday. However, the program is flexible, and the days of operation may be changed to respond to shifting patterns of youth activity. For example, when youth began to gather "en masse" on nights when the SafeNite center was closed, the center's operating schedule was altered to reflect this change. The Denver curfew program enjoys a collaborative partnership with 234 community programs to which children and their families are diverted. Of these programs, 80 percent are at no cost to SafeNite or to the client. (The program leverages community service providers by providing referrals and data to assist them in grant procurement.)32 Through this collaboration, the curfew program has become a revolving door of information, linking "demand" with "supply" by identifying citizens' needs, noting gaps in service for identified problems, and connecting citizens with current resources. As indicated above, youth and parents are given the option of participating in an appropriate diversion program rather than going to court. If they successfully complete the program, the case is dismissed. Youth and parents who do not elect to participate in or complete a diversion program go to court and may be required to pay a fine or complete court-ordered community service. Repeat curfew violators and/or their parents are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and incremental sanctions apply. These sanctions may include a court appearance with assessed fines, community service or a more intense diversion program, or probation status.33 Denver officials credit the SafeNite program with fostering more consistent enforcement of the city's curfew ordinance and with providing a secure and safe environment for curfew violators until they are reunited with their families. The only time required of the police officer is the time needed to drive to and from the SafeNite site. The enforcement of SafeNite is credited with helping to deter graffiti, vandalism, car theft, and more violent crimes while decreasing juvenile victimization, increasing parental involvement, and assisting families. Initial statistics on SafeNite from the Denver Police Department for the period from July 1994 through December 1995 are encouraging: More than 168 cases were dismissed per month, alleviating court congestion; 61 percent of the 4,676 youth served by the program and their families have completed or are in the process of completing diversion; and the recidivism rate is down to 7 percent from 56 percent at the start of the program. The law enforcement community also believes SafeNite has contributed significantly to the 11-percent drop in serious crime during each of the first 2 years of curfew implementation. Specifically, the category of motor vehicle theft, which is often a juvenile crime, was reduced 17 percent in 1994 and 23 percent in 1995. Plans are under way to apply the SafeNite diversion model to juveniles who commit such offenses as shoplifting, petty theft, and giving false information.34 North Little Rock, Arkansas In North Little Rock, community life was adversely affected in the late 1980's by organized juvenile gangs that trafficked in drugs and whose members carried high-powered weapons on city street corners. In 1991, the local police department, Neighborhood Watch groups, elected officials, and city administrators joined together to organize a collaborative response to increased serious crime in general, and juvenile crime and victimization in particular. One of their first proposals was to establish a curfew law. With strong support from dozens of neighborhood organizations, the city council passed a curfew ordinance in July 1991. In creating a practical and effective curfew ordinance, particular attention was given to two important issues: increasing parental supervision of children and keeping the police department process simple.35 The North Little Rock Police Department recognized that its limited resources required a curfew process that was as straightforward and simple as possible. A concentrated effort was made to simplify the extensive reporting requirements for a juvenile arrest by creating a 1-page form for a curfew violation that required the officer to complete just 10 items of information. When a juvenile is picked up for a curfew violation, he or she is taken to police headquarters and turned over to a juvenile officer. The juvenile is detained in a nonsecure area of headquarters designated for curfew violators while arrangements are made with a parent or guardian to return the juvenile home following a review of the curfew ordinance and the circumstances of the violation with the parent or guardian and the child. The North Little Rock ordinance provides that a juvenile's second curfew violation can result in charges against the parents. Generally, a fine is imposed but suspended for 1 year and dismissed if no further curfew violations occur. After three curfew violations, a referral to the State's Department of Human Services for consideration of a juvenile-in-need-of-services petition is required. However, such referrals have been necessary in only a few cases. Keeping curfew enforcement and processing simple has kept police support high. The North Little Rock curfew ordinance is a key element in a multifaceted set of solutions that are part of North Little Rock's overall community policing plan. With the cooperation of city administrators, the police department was able to increase its personnel to provide additional officers in the schools, facilitating the development of joint programs by the police department and the school district. Programs include a school resource officer program to reduce in-school conflicts, school crime, truancy, and dropping out, and introduction of the DARE program for students in kindergarten through sixth grade. The local school district also created an alternative school to provide a place to which juveniles who are truant or suspended for disruptive behavior could be brought instead of being sent home. With support from 10 corporate sponsors, North Little Rock also instituted a supervised midnight basketball program to provide at-risk youth with an alternative to being on the street. This program, which serves boys and girls ages 12 to 18, combines athletic activity with academic tutoring, mentoring, and an employment orientation program that covers the importance of a good work ethic, how to complete an employment application, and the development of job interview skills. The program is held at the local recreation facility, Sherman Park, on Friday and Saturday evenings from 8 p.m. to midnight. Participants are instructed to return directly home because the curfew goes into effect at midnight. On tournament nights, the program runs until 1 a.m., with a 1-hour exception made to the curfew. Periodic followup checks with the recreation and police departments have indicated that participants are adhering to the program guidelines. To monitor the impact of the comprehensive curfew enforcement program, the North Little Rock Police Department completes daily reports that track the location of curfew apprehensions, along with statistical information on age, sex, and race. Statistics from 1992, the first full year of curfew enforcement, showed a significant reduction in crimes against persons. Compared with 1991, the city experienced an average 12-percent reduction in the categories of homicide, rape, robbery, and assault and a 10-percent reduction in burglaries.36 Local law enforcement officials attribute these crime reductions in great measure to the curfew enforcement program. Based on these initial results, other jurisdictions in Arkansas have begun similar curfew enforcement programs. Jacksonville, Florida In response to high rates of juvenile crime and victimization, the City of Jacksonville instituted a juvenile curfew ordinance in April 1995, giving police officers the authority to stop and question suspected curfew violators. When a juvenile is stopped on suspicion of curfew violation, the officer first determines whether he or she falls under a curfew exemption. A juvenile who is found to be in violation of the curfew may either be taken home by the officer or brought to the Juvenile Assessment Center (JAC), at the discretion of the officer. While each of the cities described in this bulletin provides a range of serv-ices to curfew violators, Jacksonville is one of the few cities in the country with a centralized intake and assessment facility for juvenile offenders, including juvenile curfew violators.37 JAC is a centralized, multiagency facility with multidisciplinary staffing. By coordinating law enforcement and social, educational, and mental health services at one location, JAC provides juveniles and their families with easy access to a comprehensive range of services. By providing access to needed services at the earliest possible time, JAC hopes to provide early interventions that will avert a pattern of at-risk and delinquent behavior. Curfew violators brought to JAC are also screened to determine if they have committed additional violations that require court review. Those who have are moved to the secure section of the facility for further screening and assessment. Curfew violators are held in the nonsecure section of JAC and screened to determine whether they are experiencing problems relating to drug and alcohol abuse, mental health, or family dynamics. Parents are then contacted to pick up their child. If the home situation appears too volatile and unsafe for the juvenile, a temporary housing arrangement is secured until a further evaluation is completed. Depending on the nature of the services warranted, either a letter is presented to the parents recommending followup services, which they can accept or reject on a voluntary basis, or a court referral is made for a "family in need of services." Services available include counseling, parenting training, treatment for drug and alcohol abuse, treatment for mental illness, and training in family dynamics and interpersonal communication skills. Repeat curfew violators are also taken to JAC to be screened to determine what services may be provided the youth and their families to help address the situation. Florida State law allows local jurisdictions to assess both the parent and the child a $50 fine for a curfew violation. However, Jacksonville's curfew ordinance did not adopt this portion of the State statute, and fines for curfew violation are not levied. In support of the curfew ordinance, the Jacksonville Police Department, the Duval County Parks, Recreation, and Entertainment Department, and the Duval County School Board provide a range of community-based delinquency prevention programs. One innovative program supported by all three organizations is the combined Safe, Accessible, Flexible Enrichment and Teaching for Educational Achievement through Math and Science (SAFE/TEAMS) program. This multi-agency program includes teachers, recreation specialists, and school resource officers. These officers provide guidance, counseling, mentoring, and overall program security. The SAFE/TEAMS program is available 2 hours each school day and on Saturday mornings for children in Duval County's 23 middle schools. It provides juveniles a place to receive tutoring on school work, with an emphasis on math and science, and an opportunity to participate in arts and crafts, horseback riding, field trips, clubs, recreation, and athletics. The Jacksonville PAL provides at-risk children an opportunity to interact with police officers who serve as mentors during their nonduty hours. Jacksonville has added a new dimension to its PAL program through a newly donated computer laboratory. The lab allows juveniles to develop their academic and computer skills by engaging in computer games as a reward for completing their homework. PAL also offers a range of sports activities that include basketball, boxing, karate, and other activities for boys and girls between the hours of 4 p.m. and 10 p.m., 7 days a week. It is too early to determine the impact of Jacksonville's comprehensive curfew program. The program has been in operation for less than a year, and collection of data on its effectiveness and impact is ongoing. However, community support has been strong, and State Attorney Harry L. Shorstein has expressed his office's support, stating that "The curfew program is viewed as one component of a comprehensive crime prevention program that can help fight juvenile delinquency and protect our youth from victimization."38 Summary Curfew ordinances are in effect in a majority of the Nation's largest cities. While curfews have been challenged in many jurisdictions on a variety of constitutional and other grounds, narrowly crafted ordinances designed to address specifically identified problems appear able to withstand such challenges. Statistical analyses of the impact of curfew ordinances on delinquency and juvenile victimization in many communities continue to be conducted. The information made available by the communities highlighted in this bulletin and by other communities where curfew programs have been implemented indicates that comprehensive, community-based juvenile curfew programs are helping to reduce juvenile delinquency and victimization. It is important for communities that are enforcing curfews or considering a curfew ordinance to keep abreast of legal developments, establish a firm foundation for the ordinance, and model the curfew program after community-based efforts in other jurisdictions. The initial evidence offered by the seven communities profiled in this Bulletin is that community-based curfew programs that offer a range of services are more easily and effectively enforced, enjoy community support, and provide a greater benefit in preventing juvenile delinquency and victimization. In addition, several of the benefits of positive interventions that community-based curfew programs can provide may not be easily quantifiable--at least in the short term. Phoenix curfew staff have observed that many of the curfew violators brought into the recreation centers that function as curfew reception centers welcome the opportunity for social interaction with other youth and with program staff. Often these youth seek advice, assistance, and counsel from program staff. Parents sometimes bring their son or daughter to a curfew site to seek assistance and advice on the best approach for curfew compliance or to deal with other problem behaviors. Communities that develop and implement curfew ordinances in conjunction with programs and services designed to assist youth and families to solve underlying individual or family problems have an opportunity to enhance positive youth development, prevent delinquency, and reduce the victimization of children. Notes 1. Ruefle, W., and Reynolds, K.M. (In press). "Keep Them at Home: Juvenile Curfew Ordinances in 200 American Cities." American Journal of Police. 2. Hood, J. (May 28, 1991). "The Trouble With Curfews," The (San Francisco) Daily Journal. Potok, M. (June 6, 1994). "Cities Deciding That It's Time for Teen Curfews," USA Today. "Curfew Not a Good Idea." (July 6, 1994). Sentinel & Enterprise. Kane, T. (July 14, 1994). "Curfew Needs To Be Stronger," The Leominster (Massachusetts) Times. "Limiting Kids' Time on the Streets Elicits Both Relief and Resentment." (August 20, 1994). Dallas Morning News. 3. See Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). 4. Bykofsky v. Middletown, 401 F.Supp. 1242 (1975). 5. Id. at 1264. 6. Waters v. Barry 711 F.Supp. 1125 (1989). 7. Id. at 1134. 8. Id. at 1138. 9. See Qutb v. Bartlett, 11 F.3rd 494 (5th Cir. 1993). 10. Bykofsky, 401 F.Supp. 1242, 1254 (1975). 11. Qutb v. Bartlett, 11 F.3d 488, 492 (5th Cir. 1993) citing Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 444 (1990). 12. Qutb v. Strauss, 11 F.3rd 488 (5th Cir. 1993). 13. Id. at 494. 14. Qutb v. Bartlett, 114 S.Ct. 2134 (1994). 15. Qutb v. Strauss, 11 F.3rd 488, 494 (5th Cir. 1993). 16. Bykofsky v. Middletown, 401 F.Supp. 1242, 1249 (1975) citing Interstate Circuit v. Dallas, 390 U.S. at 684-685. 17. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended (Public Law 93-415), Section 223(a)(12)(A). NCJ 036136. 18. Maguire, K., and Pastore, A.L. (Editors). (1995). Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics-- 1994. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, DC: USGPO, pp. 124-129. NCJ 154591. 19. Click, B.R. (1994). "Statistics in Dallas Encouraging." The Police Chief 61(12):33-36. NCJ 159573. 20. Youth Programs for the Dallas, Texas, Police Department, 1995 (brochure). 21. Click, B.R. "Statistics in Dallas Encouraging," p. 36. 22. Garrett, D.A., and Brewster, D. (1994). "Curfew: A New Look at an Old Tool." The Police Chief 61(12):29-33. NCJ 153037. 23. Ibid., pp. 31-33. 24. Garrett, D.A. (June 15, 1994). "Comprehensive Review of the Citywide Juvenile Curfew Program." Phoenix, AZ: City Council Report, p. 2. 25. Cherrick, J. (February 1996). Phoenix Police Department, Patrol Administration. Personal communication. 26. Bartik, R.M., Commander, Youth Division, Bureau of Investigative Services, Chicago Police Department (July 25, 1995). Personal communication. 27. Wilson, P. (October 12, 1994). "Visit to Curfew Center Reveals Value of Program." The (New Orleans) Times Picayune, p. B-7. 28. Morial, M.H. (January 30, 1995). "Our Juvenile Curfew Is Working." The Washington Post. 29. Morial, M.H. (June 2, 1995). "Mayor Morial Reports Juvenile Crime Down on Anniversary of Curfew." New Orleans, LA: Office of the Mayor (press release). 30. Foti, C.C., Jr. (Summer 1994). "Juvenile Curfew Center Operational." The Louisiana Sheriff 7(1):8. 31. Safe City Initiative. (1994). Denver, CO: Office of the Mayor (fact sheet). 32. Barnett, M.C. (January 15, 1996). "SafeNite After Curfew Quarterly/Cumulative Report and Statistical Composite Addendum." Denver, CO: SafeNite Program, p. 8 (memorandum). 33. SafeNite After Curfew. Denver, CO: Office of the Mayor. 34. Browne, S. (September 6, 1995). "Safety Effectiveness of SafeNite Curfew Program." Safety Office of Policy Analysis, Denver Police Department, pp. 1-12 (memorandum). Barnett, M (July 1995). "SafeNite After Curfew Quarterly/Cumulative Report and Statistical Composite Addendum," pp. 1- 28. Reported Crime Statistics. (July 1995). Denver, CO: Denver Police Department, Research and Development Division. 35. Nolan, W.P., Chief, North Little Rock Police Department, Arkansas. (August 1995). Personal communication. Nolan, W.P. (1994). "Innovative Curfew Enforcement." The Police Chief 61(12):59-61; NCJ 159574. 36. Nolan, W.P. "Innovative Curfew Enforcement," p. 61. 37. Shorstein, H.L. (June 15, 1995). "Statement on Juvenile Justice." Jacksonville, FL: State Attorney's Office. 38. Shorstein, H.L. (January 30, 1996). Personal communication. Additional Reading "Curfew Laws Are Being Enacted To Rein in Kids on the Loose and Charge Parents for Violations." (1994). Outlook From the State Capitals 48(24):1-4. NCJ 153038. Davidson, H. (1996). "No Consequences: Re-examining Parental Responsibility Laws." Stanford Law and Policy Review 7(1) (in press). Frerking, B. (August 13, 1995). "Curfews Today Try To Protect Innocent Kids." The Sacramento Bee. Horowitz, S.M. (1990-1991). "A Search for Constitutional Standards: Judicial Review of Juvenile Curfew Ordinances." Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 24:381-417. NCJ 153040. Hunt, A.L., and Weiner, K. (1977). "The Impact of a Juvenile Curfew: Suppression and Displacement in Patterns of Juvenile Offenses." Journal of Police Science and Administration 5(4):407-412. NCJ 044614. International Association of Chiefs of Police. (May 1994). "Juvenile Curfew Enforcement" (Concepts and Issues Paper). Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Law Enforcement Policy Center. NCJ 159572. International Association of Chiefs of Police. (1994). "Juvenile Curfew Enforcement" (Training Key #445). Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police. NCJ 159571. "Juvenile Curfews and Gang Violence: Exiled on Main Street." (1994). Harvard Law Review 107(7):1693- 1710. NCJ 159570. Marketos, A.K. (1995). "The Constitutionality of Juvenile Curfews." Juvenile and Family Court Journal 46(2):17-30. NCJ 156120. Ruefle, W., and Reynolds, K.M. (1995). "Curfews and Delinquency in Major American Cities." Crime and Delinquency 41(3):347-363. NCJ 156331. Veilleux, D.R. (1983). Validity, Construction, and Effect of Juvenile Curfew Regulations. NCJ 153036. Watzman, N. (1994). "The Curfew Revival Gains Momentum." Governing 7(5):20-21. NCJ 149382. For Further Information o The Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (800-638-8736) can provide additional information on juvenile curfew and contacts for each of the seven jurisdictions discussed in this bulletin. Documents cited in this bulletin that are available from the clearinghouse are indicated by an NCJ (National Criminal Justice) number at the end of the reference. o The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, funded two research studies in 1995: The Effects of Juvenile Curfews on Violent Crime (awarded to Sam Houston University, College of Criminal Justice), and An Analysis of the Juvenile Curfew in New Orleans, Louisiana, as a Crime Prevention Measure for American Cities (awarded to the University of New Orleans, College of Urban/Public Affairs). The results of both studies will be available in 1996. For information contact Rosemary N. Murphy, Program Manager, National Institute of Justice, at 202-307- 2959, or the National Criminal Justice Reference Service at 800-851-3420. o The U.S. Conference of Mayors announced in December 1995 the results of a 387-city survey of trends in cities' use of youth curfews. For information on the survey and its findings, contact John Pionke or Mike Brown at the U.S. Conference of Mayors by telephone, 202-293-7330, or fax, 202-293- 2352. o The National League of Cities' publication Juvenile Crime Prevention: Curfews and Youth Services, which is part of the series Issues & Options: Practical Ideas for Local Government Leaders, provides background information, a section on "Drafting a Curfew Ordinance To Withstand Constitutional Challenges" by Mark Hessel, and other helpful resources. To obtain a copy, contact Nathan Ridnouer at the National League of Cities by telephone, 202-626-3188, or e-mail, ridnouer@nlc.org. o The International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA, formerly the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, Inc., or NIMLO), has published a Model Juvenile Curfew Ordinance that includes a discussion of legal challenges to juvenile curfew ordinances and provides curfew drafting guidelines. IMLA has also published Sam Lindsay's 1994 NIMLO Mid-Year Seminar Paper, "Juvenile Curfews and the Constitution: The Latest Round in a Continuing Debate." Copies of both can be obtained by contacting IMLA by telephone, 202-466-5424; fax, 202-785-0152; or e-mail, IMLADC@aol.com. o The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has developed a Model Policy on Juvenile Curfew Enforcement, with an accompanying discussion paper, under a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The model policy and paper are designed to assist law enforcement executives in tailoring their own policies to the requirements and circumstances of their communities and their law enforcement agencies. To obtain copies of these materials, contact Philip Lynn, Manager, IACP, National Law Enforcement Policy Center, by telephone, 703-836-6767, or fax, 703-836-4543. This bulletin was prepared by Donni LeBoeuf, Senior Program Manager, OJJDP, with assistance from OJJDP Intern Patricia Brennan and the Juvenile Justice Resource Center. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Of-fice of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.