HomeMy WebLinkAboutIR 9615 INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 9615
January 28, 2014
r
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council
Page 1 of 2
SUBJECT: CURFEW ORDINANCE FOR MINORS
The state statute giving a city authority to have a teen curfew requires a review and council
action every third year. Failure by the City Council to act shall cause this section to expire on
February 15, 2014. The City Council is encouraged to weigh the following information in deciding
whether to abolish, continue, or modify the ordinance:
• the practicality of enforcing this section and any problems with enforcement
• the impact of this section on crime statistics
• the number of persons successfully prosecuted for a violation of this section
• the City's net cost of enforcing this section
Practicality
The Police Department, Marshals Office, and Municipal Prosecutors have not experienced any
problems with enforcing and prosecuting curfew violations. Most cases appear on the juvenile
arraignment docket and are ultimately resolved in Teen Court.
Crime Impact
The teen curfew is an effective tool to reduce both the victimization of our young people and the
possible commission of criminal acts by our youth. Other cities with teen curfews feel the same,
with 96% viewing them as an effective strategy (according to a 2005 National League of Cities
Survey).
Although there is no tangible mechanism to measure the absence of crime, we believe that the
number of citations written in 2011, 2012, and 2013 has been reduced by approximately 46% due
to the reduced number of juveniles on the streets between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.
Additionally, the number of juveniles arrested for criminal offenses during curfew hours has
significantly decreased since the inception of the curfew ordinance.
Successful Prosecutions
Prosecutors have been able to prove up curfew violations with great success. Only a small
percentage of the adjudicated cases were dismissed. The following table provides greater detail
on the disposition of curfew violation filings.
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS
INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 9615
January 28, 2014
r
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council
Page 2 of 2
SUBJECT: CURFEW ORDINANCE FOR MINORS
A B C
Calendar Total Guilty/Non Open/Pending
Year Filings Contest Plea % Dismissal % No Plea) %
2011 810 317 39% 67 8% 426 53%
2012 518 196 38% 36 7% 286 55%
2013 371 78 21% 18 5% 275174%
Column A Represents cases in which a guilty plea or no contest plea was entered
including Paid Fine, Credit Time Served, Community Service, Deferred,
and Teen Court.
Column B Represents cases in which a dismissal was requested by the prosecutor's
office and granted.
Column C Represents cases in which a final plea and or finding has not been
entered including warrants, requests for trial, open no plea, cases set for
trial, and no plea extension.
Net Cost
Estimate of Department's enforcement costs:
2011 = 1215 hours x $34.15 = $41,492
2012 = 777 hours x $34.15 = $26,535
2013 = 557 hours x $34.15 = $19,022
Average = 850 hours x $34.15 = $29,028
$29,028 is the average annual cost of on-duty officers to enforce the curfew ordinance.
Note: This is a conservative cost estimate. It only includes the cost of one officer, but there are
occasions when more than one officer is involved in issuing a citation. The number of officers
involved. In addition, the Police Department may run details during the curfew hours (11 p.m.-6
a.m.) that involve overtime dollars, which are not included in this estimate. The enforcement of
this ordinance has led to the gradual reduction in citations, which equates to an overall reduction
in cost.
Tom Higgins
City Manager
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS