Juvenile Curfews and Race: A Cautionary Note

• Author: J. David Hirschel,Doris Dumond,Charles W. Dean
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403401012003002
• Published date: 01 September 2001
• Date: 01 September 2001
• Subject Matter: Journal Article

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2001Hirschel et al. / JUVENILE CURFEWS AND RACE

Juvenile Curfews and Race:

A Cautionary Note

J. David Hirschel

University of Massachusetts–Lowell

Charles W. Dean

University of North Carolina–Charlotte

Doris Dumond

University of Massachusetts–Lowell

During the 1990s, the United States experienced a rise in the popularity of nocturnal

juvenile curfews as a method of crime prevention. Prior research has not, however,

found curfews to be particularly effective in achievingtheir goals, and concerns have

been raised about discriminatory enforcement. In this article we examine the imple-

mentation of a juvenile curfew in a largesouthern city, Charlotte, North Carolina,and

investigate its impact on different racial groups. The background characteristics of

curfew violators were found to mirrorthose of juvenile offenders in general, and dif-

ferent types of violators were cited in different areas of town. However, although the

curfew had a positive or at least a neutral effect on some offenders, it had an escala-

tion effect on Asian and Hispanic youth. The policy implications of the findings are

discussed.

A number of times in our nation’s history, we have responded to juvenile

crime by implementing a nocturnal curfew requiring youth to be off the

streets and back in their homes by a designated time. Now, again in the

1990s, we have seen a resurgence in the popularity of juvenile curfews.

Most American cities with populations of 100,000 or more have curfews in

effect (Ruefle & Reynolds, 1995, 1996).

There are the following two major objectivesbehind the implementation

of juvenile curfews: (a) to reduce the amount of juvenile crime and (b) to

decrease the extent of juvenile victimization occasioned by juveniles being

out on the streets late at night.

Prior research on juvenile curfews has questioned their effectiveness.

Although concerns have been raised about the potential discriminatory

enforcement and the differential impact of curfews on racial groups, these

197

Criminal Justice Policy Review, Volume 12, Number 3, September 2001 197-214

© 2001 Sage Publications

issues have not been prominently featured in prior research. In this article

we examine the implementation of a juvenile curfewin a large southern city,

Charlotte, North Carolina, and investigate its impact on different racial

groups.

PRIOR RESEARCH

In the past 100 years, there have been several eras in which nocturnal

juvenile curfews have been popular as a means of responding to juvenile

crime in the United States (Ruefle & Reynolds, 1996). From the late 1880s

to the end of the 19th century,as many as 3,000 municipalities implemented

curfews (Note, 1958). However, by the early 1900s, the curfew movement

had lost its appeal as a means of crime control for juveniles. Reappearing in

the 1940s and the 1970s, juvenile curfews again became popular as a

response to the rising levels of juvenile crime. During the 1990s, the nature

of crimes committed by juveniles underwent a fundamental change, with

youth committing more serious and more violent offenses than in the past

(Crowell, 1996). As a result of this alarming trend, the nation once again

experienced an increase in the popularity of juvenile curfew policies (Con-

ference of Mayors, 1997). Most American cities with populations of

100,000 or more—151 of 200 surveyed—now have curfews in effect

(Ruefle & Reynolds, 1995, 1996).

Anecdotal reports on curfews haveall tended to be positive (Click, 1994;

Garrett & Brewster, 1994; LeBoeuf, 1996); but,these reports have not been

subjected to the scrutiny of scientific examination. Despite the lack of dem-

onstrated effectiveness, there has been a national increase in the implemen-

tation of juvenile curfews, and it is likely that curfews will continue to be

used (Conference of Mayors, 1997; Ruefle & Reynolds, 1996). Only six

systematic empirical studies testing the efficacy of the curfew have been

conducted (Fritsch, Caeti, & Taylor, 1999; Hunt & Weiner, 1977; Males &

Macallair, 1998, 1999; Reynolds, 1997; Reynolds, Seydlitz, & Jenkins,

2000; Slavick & Aos, 1996; and Wright, Hurst, Sundt, & Latessa, 1994a,

1994b), and their results have been almost uniformly disappointing. There

appears to be little to no effect on the overalljuvenile crime rate. Although a

modest reduction in juvenile crime during curfew hours has been observed,

there has been a corresponding temporal displacement of juvenile crime to

noncurfew hours. In some locations, juvenile crime rates haveactually risen

as a result of the increased opportunity afforded juveniles during less

crime-prone time periods to commit offenses against unsuspecting victims

and less guarded inanimate targets.

198 CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2001