PROTOCOL: Systematic Review Protocol: Juvenile Curfew Policies' Effect on Criminal Behavior,Public Safety,and Victimization

BACKGROUND

Juvenile curfew policies encompass a variety of restricted activities and sanctions, implemented with the intention of controlling delinquency and increasing public safety. Curfews are built upon the idea that “restricting the hours when young people may be in public should limit their opportunities to commit crimes or become victims” (McDowall, 2000, p. 59). With this underlying motivation, such policies can take a variety of forms, including variations in targeted age groups, hours of operation, exceptions to the policy, and sanctions for violations (e.g., Ford, 1994, p. 1679; Ruefle & Reynolds, 1995). Typical curfew policies in larger cities are directed at youth aged up to 17, and enforced between the hours of 10:00PM – midnight and 4:00 – 6:00 in the morning (McDowall, 2000, p. 58). Alternatively, some policies restrict certain activities rather than the general public movement of juveniles; for example, graduated driver licensing policies, which may prohibit juveniles from driving at night or carrying more than a set number of passengers with the intention of reducing crashes among young drivers (Foss & Evenson, 1999; Hartling et al., 2004).

Since curfew policies were first enacted into U.S. law over one-hundred years ago (see Adams, 2003 for a brief history), they have been extremely popular among municipalities seeking to control juvenile delinquency. Fifty-nine of 77 (77%) American cities with populations of 200,000 or greater surveyed in 1994 had a currently implemented juvenile curfew policy (Ruefle & Reynolds, 1995), and in a 1995 survey 146 (73%) of the 200 largest American cities reported using curfews (Ruefle & Reynolds, 1996). A separate study conducted in 1995 found that 70 percent of the 272 cities surveyed had implemented a nighttime curfew, and 57 percent of those cities believed that their policy was effective (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1997). Bannister et al. (2001) suggest that most jurisdictions that impose curfews consider them to be effective at reducing juvenile delinquency, and plan to continue using them. Curfew policies have also found support among the public, particularly residents of jurisdictions in which they are used. Nelson (as cited in Ruefle & Reynolds, 1996) found that 92 percent of 300 adult residents of Cincinnati, Ohio supported the city's curfew, and 72 percent reported that it made them feel safer. Fisher (as cited in Ruefle & Reynolds, 1996) also found majority support for a proposed curfew in Mobile, Alabama. Good (2006) reports that 96 percent of surveyed residents in cities with curfew policies viewed the laws as “very or somewhat effective for combating juvenile crime in their communities,” and 93 percent considered curfew enforcement a good use of police resources.

Despite the prevalence and popularity of juvenile curfews, some commentators have argued that curfew policies violate the civil rights of young people (most of whom may not be adjudicated offenders) by restricting their freedom of movement (Ford, 1994, p. 1694; see also Bannister et al., 2001; Watzman, 1994; Simpson & Simpson, 1993; White, 1996). In the United States context, legal challenges to curfew laws have been brought on this basis, with the contention that the application of blanket curfew policies on a particular section of the population is unconstitutional because it restricts individual liberties (see e.g. Fried, 2001; Cole, 2003). Some of these challenges have been successful while others have failed, and the matter has not yet been reviewed by the Supreme Court. However, Watzman (1994) suggests that the more exceptions for ‘acceptable activities’ (for example, legitimate employment) a given policy provides, the more likely it would be to survive a challenge on constitutional grounds.

Fried (2001) argued that evaluation data from the social sciences may help to inform the debate on the constitutionality of curfew policies by indicating whether the effectiveness of such policies outweighs the harm caused by restricting individual liberties. However, the existing research on curfew policies raises concerns about their effectiveness. Several reviews of the curfew literature have indicated that there is little rigorous empirical research directly measuring crime outcomes, and what is available shows little to no effect. McDowall (2000) reports on six evaluations of curfew policies conducted between 1977 and 2000, concluding that the body of research showed little to no preventive effect, with the most promising studies indicating no more than a modest crime prevention benefit. McDowall notes that all the studies used research designs and proxy measures of crime with substantial weaknesses. Adams (2003) conducted a systematic review and found just ten studies (including some reviewed by McDowall) that measured criminal offending, public safety, or victimization using a research design that allowed for at least a pre-post comparison of outcomes. Most of the studies reviewed by Adams did not include even a non-equivalent comparison group, increasing the possibility that the results were subject to confounding from other influences on juvenile delinquency. According to Adams, most of the studies reported no change in crime rates as a result of curfews; in addition, where changes were observed, they were just as likely to be increases in crime rather than decreases. He also notes that curfew enforcement rarely results in the detection of serious offenses. The one area in which curfews had a more positive impact was in reducing driving-related accidents and injuries, as Hartling et al. (2004) also found in their systematic review.

The Adams (2003) review currently stands as the most complete review of research on the effectiveness of juvenile curfew policies as a means of reducing crime, and has come to represent a definitive statement of the failure of such policies. For example, Mears (2010) cites the review in support of the proposition that “research clearly indicates that juvenile curfew laws are ineffective.” Writing again in 2007, Adams himself cites the 2003 review as a clear indication that juvenile curfew laws do not work, whereas the original conclusion merely says that there is insufficient evidence that they work in anything more than very specific circumstances. However, he also notes the difficulties inherent in properly measuring curfew policies: in particular, the frequent reliance on before-after study designs, which can provide the illusion of curfews' effectiveness in reducing crime without appropriately accounting for other factors that could explain the decline. Further, even when a curfew policy is implemented, enforcement may be inconsistent. Studies have shown that overstretched and under-resourced police departments may forego the enforcement of curfew laws in favor of focusing on more urgent demands (McDowall, 2000, p. 59; Bannister et al., 2001, p. 237; see also Reynolds et al., 2000; Watzman, 1994). Further, even when curfew policies are enforced, sanctions for violation are not necessarily consistent across jurisdictions – some officers may take juveniles into custody while others issue citations or simply take the young person home (McDowall, 2000, p. 58). More recent research suggests that the conditions under which curfew laws are implemented and enforced may be important. Harris (2006) finds a correlation between the level of enforcement of juvenile curfews laws and the presence of a parental responsibility statute in the jurisdiction, suggesting that curfew policies may be more successful when communities are invested in family roles. Finally, some studies have indicated that curfew policies may be targeted inappropriately and thus do not deter juveniles from offending. Gottfredson et al. (2001) note in this context that offending patterns suggest juveniles are most likely to offend during times of day when the curfew is not in force, such as immediately after school. McDowall (2000) cites a long history of research beginning with Wolfgang, Figlio, and Sellin (1972) that indicates that the majority of serious juvenile offending is committed by a small proportion of youth. He suggests that if these youth are not deterred by the penalties for such offenses, they are unlikely to be deterred by the mild and inconsistently-applied sanctions imposed for curfew violations.

The lack of any clear evidence of effectiveness of juvenile curfews makes this topic an important focus for a rigorous literature review and analysis. McDowall (2000) notes that even if curfew policies have no general preventive effects on crime, they may still be effective for some crime types or under some enforcement scenarios or times. The aim of this review is to update the previous systematic review conducted by Adams (2003). We aim to systematically review the empirical research on the effectiveness of juvenile curfew policies and assess the strength of the existing evidence. Admittedly, the literature base in this area is relatively small and we do not expect to find many more studies than Adams did. However, we will employ a broader search to identify non-US studies if available. Our main justification for a new review is that prior systematic reviews on this topic have been narrative and have not attempted to synthesize quantitative data across studies. This is largely because the statistical techniques usually used in curfew studies (such as time-series models) do not readily lend themselves to meta-analysis. We propose new techniques for computing and combining effect sizes for the type of outcome measures most commonly found in evaluations of juvenile curfews (see ‘Data Synthesis’ below).

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to systematically review and synthesize credible evidence on the effectiveness of juvenile curfew policies. Of interest are the effects on criminal behavior, public safety, and victimization. It is anticipated that this review will help inform policy-makers' decisions regarding juvenile curfew policies. Many jurisdictions have already adopted and continue to enforce such policies, and a critical examination of the existing evidence is warranted.

METHODOLOGY

SOURCES OF SUPPORT

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy for its financial support of this systematic review.

We also thank Kenneth Adams for his earlier work on a systematic review of this topic.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

We have no conflicts of interest related to the use of juvenile curfew policies or the studies included in this review.