Full text keyword search[?]
"search" : Search for an exact word or phrase
-search : Exclude a word. Add a dash (-) before a word to exclude all results that include that word.
OR : Search for either word. If you want to search for pages that may have just one of several words, include OR (capitalised) between the words. For example, "labor" OR "labour" will show results containing pages with "labor" and "labour". Without the OR, your results will show only pages that match all terms.
intitle: Search for a word or phrase. Unlike the Title search field below the Keyword search field, you can combine terms. For example: intitle:female OR intitle:women will show results containing pages with "female" and "women" in the title.
intext: Search only in the description text field of the page. This field usually contains the abstract or summary of the publication.
Campbell systematic reviews
Browse by subject area
- Research methods
- Business and Management
- Crime and Justice
- International Development
- Knowledge Translation and Implementation
- Nutrition and Food Security
- Social Welfare
Learn more about Campbell systematic reviews
Campbell evidence and gap maps
Coming soon – Campbell EGMs are a new evidence synthesis product. Plain language summaries of our EGMs will be published on this website. The interactive EGMs and full EGM reports will be available in our journal on the Wiley Online Library platform: click here.
Learn more about Campbell EGMs
Campbell has produced maps on other topics, sometimes in partnership with other organisations.
See our other EGMs
Juvenile curfew effects on criminal behavior and victimization
- Authors: David Wilson, Charlotte Gill, Ajima Olaghere, Dave McClure
- Published date: 2016-03-23
- Coordinating group(s): Crime and Justice
- Type of document: Title, Protocol, Review, Plain language summary
- Category Image:
- PLS Title: Juvenile curfews are not effective in reducing crime and victimization
- PLS Logo:
- PLS Description: This Campbell systematic review assesses the effects of juvenile curfews on crime and victimization. The review summarizes findings from 12 studies. The search for this review was updated in March 2014, and the review published in March 2016.
- Title: Juvenile curfew effects on criminal behavior and victimization
- See the full review: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2016.3
About this systematic review
This Campbell systematic review assesses the effects of juvenile curfews on crime and victimization. The review summarizes findings from 12 studies.
What are the main results?
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. 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 favor 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.
A juvenile curfew has a 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. This common sense 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.
The aim of this review was to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of juvenile curfews in reducing criminal behavior and victimization among youth.
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 eligibility. Fifteen documents representing 12 unique studies were eligible and coded.
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.
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.
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 reliability detected with available data.