A COMPARISON OF CURFEW AND

NONCURFEW VIOLATORS USING A SELF-

REPORT DELINQUENCY SURVEY
KIM MICHELLE LERSCHt
University of South Florida

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

t Direct all correspondence to: Kim M. Lersch, Department o f Criminology, Uni-

versity o f South Florida, 140 7th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, FL 33701. E-mail:
klersch@bayflash.stpt, usf. edu.

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Vol. 24 No. 2, 2000

9 2000 Southern Criminal Justice Association
260 CURFEWVIOLATORS

was a juvenile curfew. This thought was well-received. Within ten

years, several thousand communities were experimenting with some
sort of juvenile curfew ("Curfew Ordinances," 1958; Ruefle & Reyn-
olds, 1996). However, the practice fell into disuse over the years.

CURFEWS: A CONTROVERSIAL TOOL

While juvenile curfews are becoming more common, their imple-
mentation and enforcement has been controversial. Some arguments
center on constitutional issues. Other debates focus on either the root
causes of delinquency or creating a deterrence effect for juvenile crime.
With respect to constitutional challenges, critics raise objections on a
number of fronts. One contention is juvenile curfew ordinances violate
the equal protection clause afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment be-
cause they permit law enforcement officials to target youths simply on
the basis of age. Another argument is juvenile curfews may breach
Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable stopping and de-
taining of individuals. A third position is curfew laws may deny
juveniles First Amendment guarantees of free speech and free associa-
tion, as well as Fifth Amendment rights with regard to due process. Fi-
nally, there is the question of the parents' right to raise their children as
they see fit, which falls under the Ninth Amendment rights to privacy
(Bilchik, 1996; Marketos, 1995).
Juvenile curfews have been challenged successfully in some juris-
dictions. Judges have ruled juvenile curfews to be unconstitutional in
cases where ordinances were too broad or vague, overly restrictive, or
infringed upon innocent and constitutionally protected activities
(Marketos, 1995; Ruefle & Reynolds, 1995, 1996). In anticipation of
possible constitutional challenges, many jurisdictions have been careful
to draft ordinances which are narrowly defined, provide for specific ex-
ceptions, and promote a compelling governmental interest in the con-
trol and protection of juveniles. While the courts have overturned
some local ordinances, others have withstood legal challenges (for an
excellent review of the legal issues, see Hemmes & Bennett, 1999). As
Ruefle and Reynolds (1996, p. 71) explain, "it is impossible to predict
whether or not any given court will uphold a reasonably well-drawn
juvenile curfew ordinance."
While some critics of juvenile curfews focus on their constitutional-
ity, other observers are concerned with the increasingly punitive nature
of the juvenile justice system. Curfew supporters often embrace a "get
tougher" approach to juvenile crime. Advocates of the "just deserts"
model stress the importance of certain, swift, and severe punishments
for crime control, including acts committed by juveniles. They maintain
 LERSCH AND SELLERS 261

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.

EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF JUVENILE CURFEWS

Despite the fact that most major cities in the United States have
enacted highly controversial juvenile curfews, very little empirical data
exist with regard to their effectiveness or impact (Fritsch, Caeti, & Tay-
lor, 1999; Ruefle & Reynolds, 1995). The few studies which do exist
often compare the various types of ordinances (see, for example,
Bilchik, 1996), examine differences in arrest statistics before and after
curfew ordinance enactments (Click, 1994; Hunt & Weiner, 1977), or
merely describe individual program initiatives (Ellis, 1994; Garrett &
Brewster, 1994; Nolan, 1994; Pratcher, 1994; Ruefle & Reynolds, 1995,
1996).
The available evidence on the efficacy of juvenile curfews suggests
a weak impact, at best, on offending and victimization patterns.
McDowall and his associates (2000) analyzed panel data from 57 U.S.
cities with a 1980 population of 250,000 or more. They found extremely
weak support for the relationship between curfews and juvenile crime.
While they located significant reductions in the number of burglary, lar-
ceny and simple assault arrests, McDowall et al. argued the effects of
the curfew were minimal. They concluded one should not interpret
these results as support for the use and implementation of curfew
ordinances.
Males and Macallair (1999) compared the number of arrests, re-
ported crime, and mortality data for various jurisdictions in California.
Their expectation was that crime should drop in areas with greater cur-
few enforcement. The results suggested no effect on the level of crime
262 CURFEWVIOLATORS

and victimization, even in areas with the strictest enforcement of curfew

laws.
Other empirical studies point to the displacement of criminal activ-
ities following the introduction of curfew laws. An early examination of
the effectiveness of juvenile curfews in Detroit noted juvenile arrests
decreased during the hours the curfew was in effect (Hunter & Weiner,
1977). However, this decline was accompanied by an increase in arrests
during noncurfew hours.
Reynolds, Seydlitz, and Jenkins (2000) examined the effectiveness
of the New Orleans curfew, described as the most restrictive curfew
ordinance in the United States. Some changes were noted in the level
of victimization and arrests, especially during times when enforcement
of the ordinance was high. However, these changes were short-lived.
Ultimately, the curfew was ineffective in reducing crime and victimiza-
tion. Further, there was an increase in the level of victimizations during
noncurfew hours after the ordinance took effect.
Not all curfew law evaluations are negative. Fritsch et al. (1999)
looked at the effectiveness of a number of law enforcement initiatives
aimed at gang activity in Dallas. They found aggressive enforcement of
truancy and curfew laws produced a reduction in gang-related violence.
This project was made possible through a grant which provided funds
for police overtime. Officers were released from their regular patrol
activities and instructed to concentrate their efforts on various program
strategies, including curfew enforcement. While significant reductions
were noted at the conclusion of the grant, it is difficult to ascertain
whether these reductions would continue after the funding for the addi-
tional officers ended. As Reynolds et al. (2000) noted, police crack-
downs often produce short-term effects and are ineffective at reducing
crime over the long run.

THE PRESENT STUDY

While studies exploring the effectiveness of juvenile curfews do ex-
ist, very little beyond official agency statistics is known about the
juveniles with whom the police have contact. The purpose of the pres-
ent study is to examine one city's experience with a juvenile curfew
ordinance and to analyze characteristics of youths picked up for curfew
violations with teenagers who did not have such an experience. Three
questions are explored using a self-report survey administered to stu-
dents enrolled in middle and high schools in Largo, Florida. They are:
1. Are there any differences between curfew and noncurfew
violators with respect to self-reported involvement in mi-
nor acts of delinquency and status offenses?
 LERSCH AND SELLERS 263

2. Are there any differences between curfew and noncurfew

violators with respect to self-reported involvement in
more serious acts of delinquency?
3. Are there any differences between curfew and noncurfew
violators with respect to self-reported involvement in
criminal victimization?

CURFEW ENFORCEMENT IN LARGO

Largo is located in Pinellas County on the west coast of Florida. It
is part of the greater St. Petersburg-Clearwater area. The city, which
encompasses 14.8 square miles, is home to approximately 67,639 resi-
dents with a median age of 47 years. According to 1990 census figures,
51% of the residents reported a household income of $24,999 or less.
Most residents are Caucasian (98%) and 14% percent of the population
are 17 or younger.
Due to an increase in juvenile crime and demands from residents,
the Largo Police Department (LPD) developed a number of strategies
to deal with juvenile issues. In 1996, the LPD identified a large propor-
tion of residential burglaries as taking place within a narrowly circum-
scribed area. This location contained the only high school and middle
school in the city. Moreover, city residents expressed concern with the
juvenile crime problem in a survey administered in January of 1997.
Gangs and truancy emerged as the most cited safety concerns among
the residents. Tabulations revealed 45 % of the respondents were con-
cerned about juveniles and truants, and 76% promised their support for
a juvenile curfew in the city.
The LPD established an Office of Youth Services and sought assist-
ance from public agencies and community groups. Partnerships were
established with the county schools, parks and recreation offices, the
Urban League, local churches, and businesses in an attempt to address
the juvenile crime problem. These combined efforts established out-
reach centers for youths, educational and job skills training programs, a
juvenile diversion program, truancy intervention programs, and an in-
school suspension program.
One of the more controversial approaches was the establishment of
a juvenile curfew. Enacted in February of 1998, the curfew applied to
all persons under the age of 18 between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and
6:00 A.M. the next day, Sunday through Thursday (except for legal holi-
days), and between the hours of 12:01 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. on Saturday,
Sunday, and legal holidays. Additionally, juveniles who were under
suspension or expulsion from school were not to remain in a public
264 CURFEW VIOLATORS

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

Table 1 shows curfew violators were significantly more likely than

noncurfew violators to report involvement in illicit activities. Curfew
violators had more extensive involvement in burglary, vandalism, and
theft. This same group displayed much higher involvement in criminal
assaults and robbery situations. Finally, curfew violators were much
more likely than noncurfew violators to report the use of alcohol, mari-
juana, and other drugs such as cocaine, ecstasy, and inhalants.
Curfew violators were also more likely to be the recipients of crim-
inal activity. Table 1 shows curfew violators were significantly more
likely than non-violators to report being attacked by someone who was
trying to hurt or rob them. While the relationships between curfew sta-
tus and the victimization measures exhibited statistically significant chi-
square values, the phi coefficients indicate these relationships were
weaker than those relationships found with the delinquency measures.

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.