Youth Curfews Are Not What Our Cities Need
Local leaders in cities across North Carolina are considering implementing or expanding curfews for young people in response to recent “teen takeovers,” or gatherings of young people organized on social media, some of which have become violent.
Youth curfews will not make our communities safer. Instead, they are likely to undermine public safety, erode trust in law enforcement, and perpetuate racial disparities in the criminal legal system.
Juvenile curfews are ineffective.
Decades of research and experience have proven that curfews are not an effective tool for public safety. Two empirical reviews of research on juvenile curfew programs — one published in 2003 and one in 2016 — concluded that curfews do not reduce crime or victimization.
In fact, curfews can have a “blowback” effect, increasing juvenile victimization or overall crime. One study of DC’s juvenile curfew found that it resulted in an increase of gunfire incidents by 150% during the first curfew hour.
Juvenile curfews increase negative interactions between young people and the police.
These ordinances often include exceptions for young people to be out in public during curfew hours, such as traveling to and from work or school events. However, police officers have no way of determining whether a young person is violating the curfew without stopping them, leading to unnecessary confrontation.
Studies show that contact with the juvenile punishment system results in worse outcomes for youth over the long term in many areas of life, from greater likelihood of recidivism to worsened educational, employment, and psychosocial outcomes. Interacting with police officers can be traumatizing for young people even when officers act lawfully, and even more so when they involve violence, abusive conduct, intrusive searches, or unlawful detention.
Juvenile curfews increase racial disparities in the criminal legal system.
In North Carolina, Black youth are already disproportionately likely to be caught up in the juvenile punishment system than other youth. According to a 2019 report, despite making up only one quarter of the youth population, Black youth make up at least half of the youth at each stage of the juvenile punishment system.
Empirical studies have shown that Black and brown youth are more likely to be targeted by law enforcement for curfew violations, leading to higher rates of arrest and incarceration as well as the lasting trauma of police interactions. A report from the Sentencing Project revealed that Black youth were 269 times more likely to be arrested for violating curfew laws than white youth.
These disparities have a profound impact on the way Black and brown youth move through the world. A 2018 report found that “perceptions of intense police harassment in neighborhoods besieged by officers have been shown to deter young men of color from fully participating in public life." Curfews only exacerbate this fear and limit their freedom to meaningfully engage in their communities.
These ordinances can result in punishment for parents, putting vulnerable families at risk.
Some juvenile curfew ordinances include punishment for parents whose children are found to be violating the curfew. Fines fall hardest on low-income families, who would face escalating consequences if they are unable to pay. Violations could bar a family from obtaining public housing, renewing a lease, and being eligible for other public programs they rely on.
These ordinances could also have severe consequences for immigrant families who are already under attack: by exposing parents to criminal liability for a child’s conduct, it could subject noncitizen parents to immigration-related harms, including the denial of citizenship applications, detention, and deportation.
Juvenile curfews raise constitutional concerns.
Young people have a fundamental right to liberty. Restrictions on their movement can prevent harmless activities, such as going for a walk or visiting a store. Curfew laws may also infringe on the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit, including deciding when their children may be out in public.
For these and other reasons, numerous state and federal courts across the country have found certain juvenile curfew ordinances unconstitutional. For example, courts overturned a youth curfew in San Diego, which applied to all minors, ran from 10 pm to daylight, and included only four exceptions.
Responding to legal challenges based on constitutionality could force cities to face lengthy and expensive litigation.
We should focus on what actually works.
Curfew violations are often symptoms of a broader lack of structured, safe, and accessible ways for youth to gather and socialize. Punishing youth does not create alternatives.
Instead of investing in an intervention that has been proven to do little to improve public safety, policymakers should prioritize community-based approaches that have been shown to make a difference. These include expanding recreational programs, offering childcare assistance, and increasing access to social services, healthcare, and educational opportunities for young people.
The ACLU of North Carolina will continue to monitor efforts to implement youth curfews and remain vigilant in protecting the rights of young people and their families. Efforts to improve public safety must not come at the expense of our constitutional freedoms.