Juvenile Curfew Effects on Criminal Behavior and Victimization: A Systematic Review
Authors: Wilson David B. , Gill Charlotte , Olaghere Ajima , McClure Dave 
Published: March 2016

This review synthesizes the evidence on the effectiveness of juvenile curfews in reducing criminal behavior and victimization among youth.

Included studies test the effect of an official state or local policy intended to restrict or otherwise penalize a juvenile's presence outside the home during certain times of day. This must have been a general preventive measure directed at all youth within a certain age range and not a sanction imposed on a specific youth.

Twelve quantitative evaluations of the effects of curfews on youth criminal behavior or victimization are included in the review.

Synopsis/Plain Language Summary

The Campbell review in brief

The evidence suggests that juvenile curfews do not reduce crime or victimization.

What is this review about?

Curfews restrict youth below a certain – usually 17 or 18 – from public places during nighttime. For example, the Prince George's County, Maryland, curfew ordinance restricts youth younger than 17 from public places between 10 P.M. and 5 A.M. on weekdays and between midnight and 5 A.M. on weekends. Sanctions range from a fine that increases with each offense, community service, and restrictions on a youth's driver's license. Close to three quarters of US cities have curfews, which are also used in Iceland.

A juvenile curfew has common sense appeal: keep youth at home during the late night and early morning hours and you will prevent them from committing a crime or being a victim of a crime. In addition, the potential for fines or other sanctions deter youth from being out in a public place during curfew hours.

Juvenile curfews have received numerous legal challenges. The constitutional basis for infringing the rights of youth rests on the assumption that they reduce juvenile crime and victimization.

This review synthesizes the evidence on the effectiveness of juvenile curfews in reducing criminal behavior and victimization among youth.

What are the main findings of this review?

What studies are included?

Included studies test the effect of an official state or local policy intended to restrict or otherwise penalize a juvenile's presence outside the home during certain times of day. This must have been a general preventive measure directed at all youth within a certain age range and not a sanction imposed on a specific youth.

Twelve quantitative evaluations of the effects of curfews on youth criminal behavior or victimization are included in the review.

Do curfews reduce crime and victimization?

The pattern of evidence suggests that juvenile curfews are ineffective at reducing crime and victimization. The average effect on juvenile crime during curfew hours was slightly positive ‐ that is a slight increase in crime ‐ and close to zero for crime during all hours. Both effects were not significant. Similarly, juvenile victimization also appeared unaffected by the imposition of a curfew ordinance.

However, all the studies in the review suffer from some limitations that make it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Nonetheless, the lack of any credible evidence in their favour suggests that any effect is likely to be small at best and that curfews are unlikely to be a meaningful solution to juvenile crime and disorder.

Other studies have suggested curfews may be ineffective as juvenile crime is concentrated in hours before and after school, and that under‐resourced police forces focus on more urgent demands than enforcing curfews.

What do the results mean?

Contrary to popular belief, the evidence suggests that juvenile curfews do not produce the expected benefits. The study designs used in this research make it difficult to draw clear conclusions, so more research is needed to replicate the findings. However, many of the biases likely to occur in existing studies would make it more, rather than less, likely that we would conclude curfews are effective. For example, most of these studies were conducted during a time when crime was dropping throughout the United States. Therefore, our findings suggest that either curfews don't have any effect on crime, or the effect is too small to be identified in the research available.

How up to date is this review?

The search for this review was updated in March 2014, and the review published in March 2016.

What is the Campbell Collaboration?

The Campbell Collaboration is an international, voluntary, non‐profit research network that publishes systematic reviews. We summarise and evaluate the quality of evidence about programmes in social and behavioural sciences. Our aim is to help people make better choices and better policy decisions.

About this summary

This summary was prepared by Howard White (Campbell Collaboration) and is based on the Campbell Systematic Review 2016:0X ‘Juvenile Curfew Effects on Criminal Behavior and Victimization: A Systematic Review’ by David B. Wilson, Charlotte Gill, Ajima Olaghere, and Dave McClure. Anne Mellbye (R‐BUP) designed the summary, which was edited and produced by Tanya Kristiansen (Campbell Collaboration).

Executive Summary/Abstract

BACKGROUND

A juvenile curfew has a common sense appeal: keeping youth at home during the late night and early morning hours will prevent them from committing a crime or becoming a victim of a crime. This appeal has led to the popularity of curfews, at least within the United States and Iceland. However, prior reviews have questioned the effectiveness of curfews.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of juvenile curfews in reducing criminal behavior and victimization among youth.

SEARCH METHODS

The systematic search was conducted between January 20, 2014 and March 5, 2014. The search strategy yielded 7,349 titles and abstracts. The initial screening identified 100 of these as potentially relevant and in need of a full text review for study of eligibility. Fifteen documents representing 12 unique studies were found to be eligible and then coded.

SELECTION CRITERIA

To be eligible, a study must have tested the effect of an official state or local policy intended to restrict or otherwise penalize a juvenile's presence outside the home during certain times of day. This must have been a general preventive measure directed at all youth within a certain age range and not a sanction imposed on a specific youth. All quantitative research designs were eligible. An eligible study must have assessed the effect of a curfew on either juvenile criminal behavior or juvenile victimization. The manuscript, published or unpublished, must have been written in English and reported on data collected after 1959.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The typical evaluation design of an eligible study was a variant on an interrupted time‐series. To accommodate these designs, the effect size used in this synthesis was the percent change in the crime or victimization rate during the period of time with a curfew relative to a baseline period, adjusting for any overall linear time trend. The outcomes of interest included crime and victimization, which were categorized by time of day (curfew hours, non‐curfew hours, or all hours) and offender or victim age (juvenile or adult). The effects during non‐curfew hours and the effects for adults served as control outcomes; that is, outcomes that should be unaffected by a curfew.

RESULTS

The pattern of evidence suggests that juvenile curfews are ineffective at reducing crime and victimization. The mean effect size for juvenile crime during curfew hours was slightly positive (reflecting a slight increase in crime), whereas it was essentially zero for crime during all hours. Both effects were non‐significant. Similarly, juvenile victimization also appeared unaffected by the imposition of a curfew ordinance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that juvenile curfews are ineffective at reducing crime or victimization. This is not, however, a conclusive finding. The observational nature of the research designs creates potential sources of bias and, as such, the findings need additional replication. However, many of the most plausible biases should have increased the likelihood of finding an effect. In particular, most of the studies reviewed were conducted during a time period when crime was decreasing throughout the United States. Thus, it appears that juvenile curfews either have no effect on crime and victimization or the effect is too small to be reliably detected with the data available.